[PureX]

Originally Posted by Lee52

So, once again, something such as skin color is being regarded as the same as sexual preference............. Too silly!

My skin color is what I wear from birth to death and is always with me. Everyone can see my skin color.

Nobody sees my sexual preferences in public unless I let them.

Skin color and sexual preferences are not the same, never were, never will be.

Even if, IF, one were to find biological proof, which to date does not exist, that GLBT is genetic, it is not the same as skin color. For one is worn on the outside of the body, the other worn on the inside of the body.

That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with anything. Why one chooses to discriminate against other people isn't the issue. It could be based on anything real or imaginary. The issue is that some people think they should have the right to discriminate against other people simply because they want to. And by discriminate, we are referring to insult, inconvenience, and placing undue burdens upon specific members of the general public by businesses that are licensed and advertise themselves as being open to serve the general public. .

[PureX]

[Granite]

Originally Posted by PureX

Exactly.

Our kids and grandkids will wonder why we even fought over this. "What were you guys thinking?"

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by PureX

But that's not why this nation was formed: ... to maintain "order". It was formed to establish and protect equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all who live here.

1) Show me.
2) Never mind because I don't care why this nation was formed. We were talking about what a government should do.

Originally Posted by PureX

That's really the only way it can work. A hundred centuries of human history has shown this, and is still showing us this.

As soon as we allow one group of humans to hold power of another group, the abuse and exploitation of the powerless inevitably begins. Why on Earth would we want to deliberately create a society that behaves like that?

Hilariously, that's exactly what you're describing. A government with a vague, impossible goal and no shackles on its power in the interests of achieving it. As opposed to government set in place to simply maintain order.

Originally Posted by PureX

I was responding to a specific post, not a conversation. Sorry.

A specific post that was in response to another specific post. Which was in response to another specific post. Etc. Back to the OP. Don't be a doofus.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by PureX

But that's not why this nation was formed: ... to maintain "order". It was formed to establish and protect equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all who live here.

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

1) Show me.

That's easy. The founders wrote it down for the whole world to read and understand. They called it their "Declaration of Independence".

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ....

It says it right there in black and white: that THIS government was instituted to secure and protect our equal rights to life, freedom and opportunity. That IS IT'S PURPOSE. And the reason they stressed the idea of equality is because they understood that without equality, the majority will inevitably abuse the rights of minorities. So that it is part of the purpose of the government to make sure this doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

2) Never mind because I don't care why this nation was formed. We were talking about what a government should do.

It's sad that you don't care, because a lot of very good and courageous people sacrificed their lives to create THIS government, and it's intent to protect those rights that you don't care about.

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

Hilariously, that's exactly what you're describing. A government with a vague, impossible goal and no shackles on its power in the interests of achieving it. As opposed to government set in place to simply maintain order.

Fascist governments maintain order very well. If maintaining order was all government was for, we wouldn't have needed to bother fighting two world wars. And equality of rights isn't some vague or impossible goal. It's only a difficult goal for bigots because they don't want to give up their ability to slander, insult and abuse the rights of other people.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Memento Mori

So pedantic...Public would be anything which represent the public interest such as elected officials, public rallies, petitions, etc.

You included the term to be defined in your definition. "The public would be...public"?

In any case, whereas I disagree with some of the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, the following articles are worth noting:

"I answer that, A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs" (ST I-II, q. 90, a. 3, corpus).

"I answer that, Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). "((ST I-II, q. 96, a. 1, corpus).

Operation of a business would include opening, operating, engaging with the public in trades of goods and services for money (or other goods and services, i.e., bartering).

I disagree with this definition. A business rarely engages with the public qua public. A business generally deals with private individuals.

So, the public (government, rally, etc.) doesn't have the right to discriminate against businesses but the businesses (should) have the right to discriminate against the public. That is a public entity should not bar a business from operation based on arbitrary reasoning.

You've misunderstood me. The public (that is, the law) does not have the right to discriminate against individuals, since the law concerns itself with the common good of the entire people. The individual does not have the right to discriminate against the public (that is, the State). That said, the State (the public personified), since it deals with law governing the whole people and not with individual matters...

But this or that black person (or even all of them) are not the public. They are private individuals.

Where is the line then? We can conclude that racism, sexism, etc. are moral matters as they negatively affect a portion of society, similar to prostitution. So why can't the government step in and say "you are not allowed to discriminate arbitrarily" versus the government saying "you are not allowed to sell your body."

The government has the right to say what kind of exchanges are acceptable and which are not. The government generally does not seem to have the right to compel this individual to engage in this particular exchange. The right of the individual to engage in this legally acceptable exchange rightly falls under the law as permissive, not as compulsive. [For permissive vs. compulsive, see ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2.]

[Memento Mori]

Originally Posted by Traditio

You included the term to be defined in your definition. "The public would be...public"?

Well I think you're being pedantic since you can't identify "public."

Originally Posted by Traditio

In any case, whereas I disagree with some of the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, the following articles are worth noting:

You disagree with your philosopher king?! What is this nonsense?!

Originally Posted by Traditio

"I answer that, A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs" (ST I-II, q. 90, a. 3, corpus).

You know, when you bold and underline the vast majority of an article, it tends to undermine that reference. I would suggest only highlighting a single sentence or term which emphasizes your point and revealing the rest of the article as context.

Also, congratulations. You've said the same thing and exemplified the point of my greater example. Should an all white neighborhood be able to disallow a black businessman from operating in their area?

Originally Posted by Traditio

"I answer that, Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). "((ST I-II, q. 96, a. 1, corpus).

See, that's much better. More succinct and eloquent. It also drives your point home much better than that a priori.

And thus a case can be made, discrimination in public accommodation violates the common good of the people. Thus we can create laws which forbid forbearing.

Originally Posted by Traditio

I disagree with this definition. A business rarely engages with the public qua public. A business generally deals with private individuals.

Individuals that comprise the public. It's like suggesting that your car doesn't deal with the road. It only deals with the contact patch of your tires.

Originally Posted by Traditio

You've misunderstood me. The public (that is, the law) does not have the right to discriminate against individuals, since the law concerns itself with the common good of the entire people. The individual does not have the right to discriminate against the public (that is, the State). That said, the State (the public personified), since it deals with law governing the whole people and not with individual matters...

So the public cannot discriminate against business owners arbitrarily but those who comprise the business can discriminate against the individuals that comprise the public?

Originally Posted by Traditio

But this or that black person (or even all of them) are not the public. They are private individuals.

Are they part of the public?

Originally Posted by Traditio

The government has the right to say what kind of exchanges are acceptable and which are not. The government generally does not seem to have the right to compel this individual to engage in this particular exchange. The right of the individual to engage in this legally acceptable exchange rightly falls under the law as permissive, not as compulsive. [For permissive vs. compulsive, see ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2.]

The government doesn't compel action in law. They forbid forbearing. They are preventing an action, i.e., discrimination.

[Town Heretic]

Hiya again, Trad. Given you didn't answer my last more lengthy or shorter rebuff I'm going to assume you're doing the Utopian twist, understand you misapprehended the law and foundation and I'll call it a day, as everyone is surely entitled to their daydreams, so long as they understand the distinction between that and the fact of the matter.

Have fun with him MoMo.

[Iconoclast]

Government/homos should not be imposing their morality on others.
They want to legislate their morality on others by forcing them to accept what they say is private behavior.

if you accept the homo has a right to be, then they win by default.

[Memento Mori]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Government/homos should not be imposing their morality on others.
They want to legislate their morality on others by forcing them to accept what they say is private behavior.

if you accept the homo has a right to be, then they win by default.

And you don't want your morality legislated?

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Government/homos should not be imposing their morality on others.
They want to legislate their morality on others by forcing them to accept what they say is private behavior.

if you accept the homo has a right to be, then they win by default.

Substitute Jew for homo and you'd have made a great Nazi.

[Memento Mori]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Substitute Jew for homo and you'd have made a great Nazi.

Wow... almost 14 pages without a previous Nazi reference... Unless I missed an earlier one...

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Memento Mori

Wow... almost 14 pages without a previous Nazi reference... Unless I missed an earlier one...

Once someone talks about the right to exist being a victory for their target/opposition it's time to play the Nazi card just for the heil of it.

[Memento Mori]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Once someone talks about the right to exist being a victory for their target/opposition it's time to play the Nazi card just for the heil of it.

Now if only I could find the UN card to UN-nazi the world.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Should you have to hide your religious beliefs, not carry your Bible if you want to be served at a particular restaurant? Should you be denied service on the basis of your choice, your faith?

1. No
2. That is the choice of the service provider