Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant because she works for Trump

[bcking 3,157]

20 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

No, being transgender is nothing you choose. 

That simple concept is mind boggling to some people.

 

https://www.ozy.com/opinion/check-the-science-being-trans-is-not-a-choice/69726 - A good "lay person" summary written by a Neurobiologist who studies the topic

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17060626?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed& - A published review on the literature, though unless you pay most people here won't have access

Edited June 25, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,765]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Everyone should have the freedom to choose.

 

But not about things that other people have no choice over. Political opinion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not. Discriminating over sexual orientation is much closer to discriminating over race, in my opinion.

Actually, we have had this discussion in the past.  The baker did not discriminate against a gay couple, it was uncovered that he served them many times.  He discriminated against a political decision rendered by a court.  Regardless, if someone does discriminate (which we do on a daily basis), let the public decide.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually, we have had this discussion in the past.  The baker did not discriminate against a gay couple, it was uncovered that he served them many times.  He discriminated against a political decision rendered by a court.  Regardless, if someone does discriminate (which we do on a daily basis), let the public decide.

We are purely discussing about our differences of opinion (not actual laws), but I'd say "let the public decide" unless you are discriminating someone based on something they have no choice over.

 

Protection against discrimination should be something that is guaranteed for things that we can't control. Like race, sex, and sexual orientation. I don't care if you don't want to serve someone who isn't wearing a shirt (which is also discrimination), but I do care if you want to discriminate someone because of something they can't help. 

 

People shouldn't be treated differently over things they can't choose. That seems like a pretty basic requirement for a free and morally just society. In my opinion, of course.

Edited June 25, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,765]

28 minutes ago, bcking said:

We are purely discussing about our differences of opinion (not actual laws), but I'd say "let the public decide" unless you are discriminating someone based on something they have no choice over.

 

Protection against discrimination should be something that is guaranteed for things that we can't control. Like race, sex, and sexual orientation. I don't care if you don't want to serve someone who isn't wearing a shirt (which is also discrimination), but I do care if you want to discriminate someone because of something they can't help. 

 

People shouldn't be treated differently over things they can't choose. That seems like a pretty basic requirement for a free and morally just society. In my opinion, of course.

I don't disagree, everyone should be treated the same as I strive to do myself.  I am just against having the government take any action. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree, everyone should be treated the same as I strive to do myself.  I am just against having the government take any action. 

So you think everyone should be treated the same, but if they aren't, we should "fend for ourselves"?

 

I think government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, particularly minority groups, who could be mistreated by the majority. In my view it is one of the core functions of government. It's a shame that it took our government so long to do so over issues of race (and some argue that still isn't fixed), but now I believe our government is not fulfilling that responsibility with regards sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. 

[Dashinka 24,765]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

So you think everyone should be treated the same, but if they aren't, we should "fend for ourselves"?

 

I think government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, particularly minority groups, who could be mistreated by the majority. In my view it is one of the core functions of government. It's a shame that it took our government so long to do so over issues of race (and some argue that still isn't fixed), but now I believe our government is not fulfilling that responsibility with regards sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. 

Yep, it is called personal responsibility which we seem to be lacking nowadays in our victim society.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yep, it is called personal responsibility which we seem to be lacking nowadays in our victim society.

So you expect a marginalized minority group to just somehow "stand up" for themselves? 

 

That won't end well...It never has.

[Dashinka 24,765]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

So you expect a marginalized minority group to just somehow "stand up" for themselves? 

 

That won't end well...It never has.

And what has been happening lately (victim mentality for everyone) is ending well?  The government should regulate itself accordingly and not try to legislate human behavior as that is almost impossible.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

can you imagine the caca storm had this happened to Obama's press secretary at some quaint little BBQ joint in hooterville 

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

And what has been happening lately (victim mentality for everyone) is ending well?  The government should regulate itself accordingly and not try to legislate human behavior as that is almost impossible.

The whole purpose of government is to regulate human behavior. If we don't want the government regulating our behavior we should have no government, and just "fend for ourselves" based on the principle of "personal responsibility". Oh someone wants to murder you? That is your personal responsibility to deal with it. There are no roads? Why don't you take "personal responsibility" and build them yourself.

 

You and I differ on what lengths we believe government should be able to go with regards to regulating human behavior. As I said, I believe it has a responsibility to protect those who are a minority and who can be easily overpowered by the majority. I believe history has shown that when the government doesn't do that, those groups are marginalized, punished and generally treated poorly. A core responsibility of government is to protect its citizens (from outside and within), and it fails to do so when it doesn't sufficient protect ALL of its citizens.

Edited June 25, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,765]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

The whole purpose of government is to regulate human behavior. If we don't want the government regulating our behavior we should have no government, and just "fend for ourselves" based on the principle of "personal responsibility". Oh someone wants to murder you? That is your personal responsibility to deal with it. There are no roads? Why don't you take "personal responsibility" and build them yourself.

 

You and I differ on what lengths we believe government should be able to go with regards to regulating human behavior. As I said, I believe it has a responsibility to protect those who are a minority and who can be easily overpowered by the majority. I believe history has shown that when the government doesn't do that, those groups are marginalized, punished and generally treated poorly. A core responsibility of government is to protect its citizens (from outside and within), and it fails to do so when it doesn't sufficient protect ALL of its citizens.

Can't everyone claim some sort of minority status?  I tend to agree with the Constitution/Bill of Rights as it relates to limiting the actions of the government.  I know many on the left want us to interpret these documents differently to make them more fluid, but thankfully the founders made it harder to change than anyone thought at the time.  I also tend to believe this country is the United States which means it is made up of a lot of differing states providing for a common defense of the states united.  The state governments can handle the criminal offenses, we do not need a nanny called the Federal government to also get into the act.  I realize that the elitist leaders on both sides (although appearances seem to show the left being more) want to tell everyone they know better.  That is simply BS, but what else is new.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Can't everyone claim some sort of minority status?  I tend to agree with the Constitution/Bill of Rights as it relates to limiting the actions of the government.  I know many on the left want us to interpret these documents differently to make them more fluid, but thankfully the founders made it harder to change than anyone thought at the time.  I also tend to believe this country is the United States which means it is made up of a lot of differing states providing for a common defense of the states united.  The state governments can handle the criminal offenses, we do not need a nanny called the Federal government to also get into the act.  I realize that the elitist leaders on both sides (although appearances seem to show the left being more) want to tell everyone they know better.  That is simply BS, but what else is new.

I see a "hierarchy" on "minority status" -

 

1. Things you can't change (Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation)

2. Things you can change, but are strongly entrenched (Religion, Political opinion, etc...)

3. Everything else (Not wearing a shirt when you want to go to a restaurant)

 

I think the government should protect both categories 1 and 2, but the 2nd category should never supercede the first. It's like the laws of robotics. 

 

If government doesn't protect its people, government doesn't really have a purpose. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

can you imagine the caca storm had this happened to Obama's press secretary at some quaint little BBQ joint in hooterville 

 

    We would have seen the MDR victim mentality in action?

[Dashinka 24,765]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

I see a "hierarchy" on "minority status" -

 

1. Things you can't change (Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation)

2. Things you can change, but are strongly entrenched (Religion, Political opinion, etc...)

3. Everything else (Not wearing a shirt when you want to go to a restaurant)

 

I think the government should protect both categories 1 and 2, but the 2nd category should never supercede the first. It's like the laws of robotics. 

 

If government doesn't protect its people, government doesn't really have a purpose. 

I don't disagree with your hierarchy,  but it seems these categories are either being expanded or greatly changed which leads to a lot of modifications as to how they are applied and who qualifies.  The other thing that bothers me are the laws that are passed with such good intentions and no one understands to expects the unintended consequences. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

Everyone should have the freedom to choose.

 

But not about things that other people have no choice over. Political opinion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not. Discriminating over sexual orientation is much closer to discriminating over race, in my opinion.

Say what?  How do you not have a choice?  No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to have sex or a relationship with anyone.  If I want to have sex with chickens in between having sex with men and women, I am free to make choice.  Everyone is.