Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Innula Zenovka]

5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

It was fought over whether a state had the right to leave the union. Slavery was irrelevant.

I suppose next you'll tell us WWII was fought to end the Holocaust.

I don't think anyone has ever said WW2 was fought to end the Holocaust, have they?  I mean, it's pretty uncontentious that Britain and France declared war on Germany because of their treaty obligations to Poland.  The USSR entered the war when Hitler invaded them.   And then when the USA declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the USA because of Germany's mutual defence treaty with Japan.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Innula Zenovka

[Aislin Ceawlin]

3 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

However, that clearly wasn't the case in some parts of the USA as recently as 50 years ago, and businesses that discriminated on racial grounds managed to prosper.  

Do you not think that laws forbidding discrimination against people on the grounds of their ethnic background may have had a lot to do with any changes that that happened since?

 

Not sure if anyone has brought this up, I haven't read forward. Actually, as recently as now! I'm referring to the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple. 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

What was the fight over?

On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.

In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.

Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html

[Aislin Ceawlin]

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

Oi, Lizzie is Wonderful. You guys can bow to Trump, God save the Queen!

 

I'd take her over the orange baboon in a hot second!

[Pamela Galli]

I am not going to argue about he causes of the Civil War but I do have a degree in history and I do know that the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. There were other related issues but that was primary, slavery made war in evitable

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't believe that.

Money played a part in it, and sometimes the sole part for greedy people cashing in as the chaos ensued.  But there's writings from many people going years back before the war saying slavery needed to end.

Slavery is like smoking, once you decide its bad, you try and make everyone stop doing it.

The United States of America was founded as a slave owning country. The main disagreement about slavery was whether it should be allowed to spread into new territories. THAT is the issue that was fought over for decades.

There was never any movement to repeal slavery in the states where it already existed,  but it was realized that unless there continued a parity between slave states and free states, at some point in time, the federal government might try to ban it in all states.

Abraham Lincoln was willing to propose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery in the states it currently existed in.

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

9 minutes ago, Aislin Ceawlin said:

Not sure if anyone has brought this up, I haven't read forward. Actually, as recently as now! I'm referring to the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple. 

Should he have the right to refuse?

And who's "rights" should trump in this ridiculous suit from the Peoples Islamic State of Canada?

A Muslim Barber in Ontario, Canada, was sued by a woman after he refused to cut her hair saying his religion does not allow him to touch women, according to media reports. 

Omar Mahrouk, co-owner of the Terminal Barber shop said his staff and himself are of Muslim faith which prohibits them from touching a woman who is not a member of their family. 

Faith McGregor turned to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in June saying she was denied a “business haircut” because of her gender, which is against woman’s right, adding that she felt like a “second-class citizen.”

“For me it was just a haircut and started out about me being a woman. 
Now we’re talking about religion versus gender versus human rights and businesses in Ontario,” McGregor told the Toronto Star. 

“We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” said Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop.

“In our faith, for instance, I can cut my mother’s hair, I can cut my sister’s hair, I can cut my wife’s hair, my daughter’s hair,” he added. 

The 35-year-old filed woman the complaint requesting Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to force barbers to provide haircuts to both women and men. 

McGregor is not seeking monetary damages, but wants the tribunal to force the shop to offer haircuts to both genders.

According to the Toronto Star, the barbershop suggested McGregor return for a haircut by barber willing to cut her hair, however she turned down the offer. 

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/16/249931.html

[BilliJo Aldrin]

8 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I am not going to argue about he causes of the Civil War but I do have a degree in history and I do know that the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. There were other related issues but that was primary, slavery made war in evitable

No, war was not inevitable. He could have let the 7 original states depart in peace.  Lincoln pushed the country into his war to preserve the Union. The blood of 100,000 people is on his hands.

Slavery would have died a natural death sooner or later, just as it died out in the northern states

 

[Janet Voxel]

Also the Confederate states' secession was illegal.

Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ..

So by creating the CONFEDERATE States of America, they were breaking a clause they agreed back in 1789? Revisionism is awesome!

Also, Andrew Jackson introduced the Force Bill back in 1833, because well...Andrew Jackson, southerners love them some Ol' Hickory! Woooo-Wee! Which said in section 5 "authorizes the president to use whatever force necessary to suppress such insurrections, "and to cause the said laws or process to be duly executed".

Edited January 1, 2018 by janetosilio

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, janetosilio said:

Also the Confederate states' secession was illegal.

Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ..

So by creating the CONFEDERATE States of America, they were breaking a clause they agreed back in 1789? Revisionism is awesome!

While they are a member of the Union.

They had already individually withdrawn from the union and were free independant countries. They did NOT create  the confederacy while still part of the United States. 

[Pamela Galli]

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The blood of 100,000 people is on his hands.

 Are you referring to the number of deaths in the Civil War? Because 620,000 died. 

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

The colonies chose to break away from Britain, and backed up their action by force of arms,  and they won

The Confederate states chose to break away from the United States, and backed up their action by force of arms, and they lost.

That's the only difference.

Edited January 1, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
capitalization

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

 Are you referring to the number of deaths in the Civil War? Because 620,000 died. 

 

Yes you are right, I'm not sure where I got the 100,000 from. Thank you for the correction

[Aislin Ceawlin]

10 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Also the Confederate states' secession was illegal.

Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ..

So by creating the CONFEDERATE States of America, they were breaking a clause they agreed back in 1789? Revisionism is awesome!

Also, Andrew Jackson introduced the Force Bill back in 1833, because well...Andrew Jackson, southerners love them some Ol' Hickory! Woooo-Wee! Which said in section 5 "authorizes the president to use whatever force necessary to suppress such insurrections, "and to cause the said laws or process to be duly executed".

An interesting aside on the topic of secession ( I lived about 2 miles outside for about 5 years) http://civilwarsaga.com/the-alabama-county-that-tried-to-secede-from-the-south/

[Janet Voxel]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The colonies chose to break away from Britain, and backed up their action by force of arms,  and they won

Weeeeeelllllll, the British weren't really trying either. But that's a different argument!

[Pamela Galli]

4 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Weeeeeelllllll, the British weren't really trying either. But that's a different argument!

I guess it took them eight years and 24,000 dead to figure out they were not really trying.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, janetosilio said:

Weeeeeelllllll, the British weren't really trying either. But that's a different argument!

No, America won because we were aided by the French. If France hadn't provided money and manpower, the revolution would have died.

Jefferson Davis wanted more than anything to have the Confederacy recognized by Britain and France,  because if they aided the South, The South would have retained its independance.

Late in the war Davis sent an emmisary to France and Britain asking if they would recongnize the South if the South ended slavery. The response... such a question was years too late.

In the end Jefferson Davis himself would have freed the slaves and armed them if it was in his power, if it meant preserving the Confederacy.

[Luna Bliss]

28 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Should he have the right to refuse?

And who's "rights" should trump in this ridiculous suit from the Peoples Islamic State of Canada?

A Muslim Barber in Ontario, Canada, was sued by a woman

I'm done talking about cakes, haircuts, the civil war, or any other derails you manage to come up with. What I want to know is why people like you attempt to disguise your prejudice beneath your claim to freedom...the freedom you deny to others.
It's simply a fact...the majority will too easily oppress a minority without boundaries put in place via legislation. Sorry that takes away some of your freedom and you have to bake a cake for someone you hate or whatever. It's tough...really tough I know.
Somehow your pain just doesn't compare to stories like these:
https://76crimes.com/100s-die-in-homophobic-anti-gay-attacks-statistics-updates/

The reality is that the above kind of pain is going on in the world, and worse, and for all types of people that need a LEGAL (yes that means government intervention!) protected status. It's abusive to attempt to minimize their pain with your stupid edge cases of haircuts & other derails.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

8 minutes ago, Aislin Ceawlin said:

An interesting aside on the topic of secession ( I lived about 2 miles outside for about 5 years) http://civilwarsaga.com/the-alabama-county-that-tried-to-secede-from-the-south/

West Virginia was formed from the western counties of Virginia the seceded from Virginia. 

I guess some forms of secession ARE recognized as legal.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm done talking about cakes, haircuts, the civil war, or any other derails you manage to come up with. What I want to know is why people like you attempt to disguise your prejudice beneath your claim to freedom...the freedom you deny to others.
It's simply a fact...the majority will too easily oppress a minority without boundaries put in place via legislation. Sorry that takes away some of your freedom and you have to bake a cake for someone you hate or whatever. It's tough...really tough I know.
Somehow your pain just doesn't compare to stories like these:
https://76crimes.com/100s-die-in-homophobic-anti-gay-attacks-statistics-updates/

The reality is that the above kind of pain is going on in the world, and worse, and for all types of people that need a LEGAL (yes that means government intervention!) protected status. It's abusive to attempt to minimize their pain with your stupid edge cases of haircuts & other derails.

People like me? If  I said anything like that, I'd be denounced for it

I'm not prejudiced, I'm just tired of reading PC drivel about anything and everything

Edited January 1, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I'm not prejudiced, I'm just tired of reading PC drivel about anything and everything

If you lack the empathy to identify and care about oppressed people, and furthermore minimize their pain by calling it 'PC'...... you are prejudiced !!

[Innula Zenovka]

27 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Should he have the right to refuse?

And who's "rights" should trump in this ridiculous suit from the Peoples Islamic State of Canada?

A Muslim Barber in Ontario, Canada, was sued by a woman after he refused to cut her hair saying his religion does not allow him to touch women, according to media reports. . 

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/16/249931.html

The barber shop case was resolved to both sides' satisfaction through the mediation of the  Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ,  it seems:

Quote

Both Ms. McGregor and Mr. Mahrouk signed a confidentiality agreement that bars them from sharing any details — common practice when a conflict ends in mediation instead of moving on to an actual tribunal. But both expressed relief in the process.

“I feel good. I feel relieved of stress,” Mr. Mahrouk said. “It felt really stressful for the past few days, just waiting for the [mediation session].”

His worried that the future of his business would hang in the balance, he said, but in the end, he’s happy with the agreement the two came up with.

“I probably wasn’t as stressed out as he was because I think there was more at stake for him,” Ms. McGregor said. “The resolution we came to I think is good. I’m satisfied with it,” she said, adding that she feels the process worked.

“I’m happy with the outcome.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved

For what it's worth,  though I'm not an expert on British equality law, I think UK law would be on the barber's side, since it allows various exemptions to general sex discrimination law when physical contact is involved.   It would certainly not be on the side of the baker, though.   

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The barber shop case was resolved to both sides' satisfaction through the mediation of the  Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ,  it seems:

For what it's worth,  though I'm not an expert on British equality law, I think UK law would be on the barber's side, since it allows various exemptions to general sex discrimination law when physical contact is involved.   It would certainly not be on the side of the baker, though.   

The point is, what kind of ridiculous world do we live in that the woman thought that she had a human rights complaint in the first place.

He: Sorry  I can't cut your hair

She: Fine I'll take my business elsewhere.

End of story... not

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If you lack the empathy to identify and care about oppressed people, and furthermore minimize their pain by calling it 'PC'...... you are prejudiced !!

Apparently, in our modern world, anyone that doesn't parrot the proper PC line is prejudiced.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Today we live in a world where anyone that has an imagined slight against their person is now the victim of a grevious harm and can claim victimhood and demand massive compensation.

God help us all.