Arizona Buisnesses May Be Able to Ban LBGT Customers
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:13 pm
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
My knee-jerk reaction: it is a bad idea.Seraph wrote:Thoughts?
Well, businesses like Chick-Fil-A don't really ban people from having jobs or from entering their establishment and eating there. However, some of their money goes to different organizations that try to function as therapy programs to help people address the matter of their homosexuality. The business sparked quite a bit of controversy over this.Seraph wrote:I too think it's a bad idea. Sinful or not, homosexuals are a group that I have sympathy/compassion for and I feel that they've been unnecessarily driven away from Christianity.
In my view, a Christian business owner banning them from their establishment for being gay is a sad tarnish on Christianity's reputation.
I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.PeteSinCA wrote: Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?
Of course, Jim Crowe was a product of government intervention to begin with.Seraph wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.PeteSinCA wrote: Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?
At the state levels, enacted by states that were very recently part of the confederacy. It's an example of where the federal government is necessary to step in at times, when states have laws that are profoundly contrary to the American spirit and morally wrong.Of course, Jim Crowe was a product of government intervention to begin with.
Ouch! On a couple of levels! Murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, fraud, etc., are pretty well defined crimes, but what is "social justice"? Is it "social justice" that an electronic engineer gets a higher salary than a janitor? Is it "social justice" that a manager or franchise owner at M is paid more than a burger-flipper at the same store? Is it "social justice" that Safeway or Kroger seldom locate stores in certain urban areas, leaving those residents to buy groceries at small higher-priced stores? Some would/have answered all three questions with a, "Yes". Do education/skill and scarcity have any bearing on the engineer vs. janitor or manager vs. burger-flipper questions? Does being willing to work long hours and risk one's money have any bearing in the owner & manager vs. burger-flipper question? Do the higher shoplifting, theft and violent crime rates in those certain urban areas have any bearing in the Safeway/Kroger question? IMO, much of the time "social justice" is a euphemistic smokescreen for agendas that would commit real injustice.Seraph wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.PeteSinCA wrote: Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?
Jim Crow laws were ... laws ... enacted by government. They also violated the higher law known as the US Constitution. Jim Crow laws also illustrate a concept important to keep in mind when considering human government: Tyranny of the Majority. IMO, many forms of government can work reasonably well; every form of human government can be evil when exercised by evil people (rulers and/or citizenry).SeekingSanctuary wrote:Of course, Jim Crowe was a product of government intervention to begin with.Seraph wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.PeteSinCA wrote: Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?
I think you need to qualify that, so as to preclude things such as Jim Crow laws, which obviously were intended to make a majority of the people in those states happy.Seraph wrote:It can be hazy. I would define it as closely as possible as whatever creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, and preventing certain parties from benefiting at the malicious expense of others.
Probably about as right as if those photographers, bakers, and caterers didn't want to participate in the wedding of black people.PeteSinCA wrote:And what about states like OR, CO, and NM, where, evidently, forcing Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers to participate in same-sex "weddings" evidently makes most citizens in the states happy? Is this, therefore, just and right?
Like I said ... no easy answers.
I think the latter part I added about entities not benefiting at the expense of others would address something like the Jim Crow laws.I think you need to qualify that, so as to preclude things such as Jim Crow laws, which obviously were intended to make a majority of the people in those states happy.
Forgive me if I'm wrong (and correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly), but it sounds like you're equating the stance of opposing the LGBT lifestyles to racism (which is the devaluing/dehumanizing of fellow human beings on the basis of skin tone.)Seraph wrote:Probably about as right as if those photographers, bakers, and caterers didn't want to participate in the wedding of black people.PeteSinCA wrote:And what about states like OR, CO, and NM, where, evidently, forcing Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers to participate in same-sex "weddings" evidently makes most citizens in the states happy? Is this, therefore, just and right?
Like I said ... no easy answers.
This is a little vague, as governments putting more funding into one program instead of another can be said to be a case where one group of people benefits at the expense of another.Seraph wrote:I think the latter part I added about entities not benefiting at the expense of others would address something like the Jim Crow laws.PeteSinCA wrote:I think you need to qualify that, so as to preclude things such as Jim Crow laws, which obviously were intended to make a majority of the people in those states happy.