should businesses be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

Posted by Rozar 10 years, 5 months ago to Economics
195 comments | Share | Flag

Saw this and it made me think of Maph. Maybe this will change your understanding, maybe not.



All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, because the business is equally closed to everyone. Therefore, there is no discrimination.

    In order for operating hours to qualify as discrimination, they would have to say something like white people can shop at the store on memorial day, but black people can't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're correct about the marriage certificate from the state, but the court knocked down the criminal punishment for polygamous cohabitation.

    See:http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/of-course-the-law-should-tolerate-plural
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    did you ding me?
    interesting story-your mom was quite interesting.
    I am in complete agreement about the cultural trend to dominate males. It starts in preschool now. give them a pill if they become "unmangaeable" aka just being a boy.
    But a man has the ability not to fall into second hander mode. He can choose not to comply with silly social conventions.
    My grandmother had 4 children that lived. This is kinda interesting. So the guy who divorced my mom for another woman-she also had a young son (with my grandfather). He got full custody as well, but allowed her to keep their son. Somehow, he and my grandmother came together and married. their first child was my dad. Who a few years later was the first child to receive antibiotics for scarlet fever in Iowa. They were brought by plane from Chicago and the plane landed in a field near the town where my grandparents lived-Mt. Union. anyway, I have often wondered if they married as a way to see their first borns often. Although both gone now, Uncle Jack and Uncle Jim were my only uncles and much beloved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it's like asking whether the pilot should direct the plane, or whether a vote should be taken on every course correction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wasn't interested in breastbeating over women being "held back" by men, but I had it inflicted upon me anyway.

    I repeat, women can't hold property today, in some states. But, I believe they are able to in all 50 States.

    Only one baby? My maternal grandmother had her 12th baby in Muscatine in 1931 (my mother)... and my maternal grandfather was, as my mother would say, "a rounder".

    I don't know when my father's parents were divorced, but I do know it led to my father having a miserable childhood, as his mother and stepmother both were of the opinion that men existed to do for women, and taught his sisters the same.
    (Irony; my eldest brother, named for my paternal grandfather, ended up with an eldest son in the same boat, because he let his worthless psychology major wife teach his equally worthless two daughters than men existed as servants to women).

    I can't speak for the desirability of a college education, but my own mother developed a wide variety of skills in her efforts to provide for her children on the modest income available to an honest man; teacher, painter, upholsterer, seamstress & tailor, caterer, chef, gardener, interior decorator., political activist (she got Reagan a victory in the Story City caucus in 1980 by her efforts... yes, the same infamous caucus that was so slow in getting its results last election, and she did it in spite of every dirty trick the Bush campaign pulled...); she was the only one in her family to graduate high school, and never felt the desire for a college degree. Her expressed feelings toward men wasn't subjugation, oppression, or envy; it was pity, mostly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Macro 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly, only individuals should have rights. Married couples (groups), however, get quite a few tax benefits. This shouldn't happen.

    We don't make up couples? I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

    cou·ple: a. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.

    On places where gay marriage is legal, we do make up couples, I suppose.

    Gay people's feelings? Well, I also do not agree with the gay movement siding with statists. They can't be forgiven. However, I can also understand that they had no other choice, unfortunately. The average person isn't very bright and doesn't even know what libertarianism is, of course they would side with the first party who embraced them.

    Gay people are part of the 'youth's ecosystem' now. Being even slightly rude to them won't get a group any future supporters.

    Defectives? I'm not sure. Since our genes didn't go extinct for all these years, I'd like to think we must be serving some kind of purpose. Who knows, maybe our function isn't the same as yours.

    Gay animals make great uncles in nature, If I'm not mistaken. We may not have offspring of our own most of the time, but we help taking care of our sibling's children, increasing their chances of survival. If something of this kind is our primary function, I'd say we're not defective at all.

    Take care, dude.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you'll have to look up the men stats yourself. I'm not that interested.
    1. Women could not hold property until mid 1800s and then only SOME states recognized it. Women could not initiate divorce. My grandmother divorced in 1925 in Iowa. Her husband wanted to marry another woman. She had a baby at the time. Since she was not granted any property rights in the farm through marriage, the court determined she could not financially care for her son. Her ex was also awarded full custody of their young son. He kept all the property including their child.
    I am in agreement on a current college education but there were (are) laws in place regarding certain professions including engineers. You went to college to become one. So the pool of women engineers in the US is relatively new compared to me. that was my point. I'm not trying to make the case that women should get a break because of it, just that it may be a reason bambib and others have not considered.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you repeal the 16th Amendment, the the tax rate for everybody would go to zero, as the gov't would no longer have the authority to tax income.

    But, yes, of course I agree with that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Many states still do not allow women to own property, I believe. Does Iran allow women to own property?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "There was a genuine fear that a good education would make a women unfit for marriage and motherhood."

    Interesting prediction. What other ones appear to have come true?

    You went there. Now explain to me how women were "held back"? WITHOUT using the feminazi definition of equality that women have to do everything that men do the way men do it and want everything men want the way men want it in order to be equal.

    Btw.. famous alum of Oberlin... Michelle Malkin.


    Now cite the percentage of American men who went to college in those eras, and of those, the percentage who achieved degrees.

    It was only quite recently that everyone was *expected* to go to college, just as it was only in my generation that everyone was expected to graduate high school. Of course, now you *need* a college degree in order to get a decent junior high education...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Macro 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm sorry, I guess I didn't express myself very well, Khal.

    No, taxes rates here have nothing to do with sexuality. Married couples, however, get quite a few tax benefits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If a govt does not sanction the contract, then it can't enforce it. It follows that it cannot enforce your property rights either. There is property division when a couple splits up. Even if the couple had a handshake agreement there would be no way for the state to remedy in the cases of breach of contract. Ultimately if the state does not enforce property rights there would be no use for them and you would be in anarchy
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Macro, in Brazil your tax rate can ce defined by your sexuality and whether you marry someone of adifferent race? How is that even remotely enforced?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I thought they were just not going to arrest practicing polygamists. Theyey were clear a person could not legally be on more than one marriage certificate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    An announcement just came out of Utah that the state can no longer restrict polygamous marriage. The state doesn't have to issue a poly license, but the individuals can do their own marriage.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well the reason I don't call it a genetic mutation is because it isn't. It's a birth defect resulting from the misapplication or generation of sex hormones in-utero. I'm pretty convinced that being born with a brain that's been sexed one way when the body is sexed the other is a defect and since it happens in-utero, that sounds like a birth defect to me and it also seems perfectly sensible to think of it as something wrong..

    Blue eyes aren't technically or any other way a genetic mutation, they are simply one variation of many.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Txs, now I'm going to have the picture of that moose and the startled look in that cow's eyes for quite awhile. lol
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo