Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

You do know for most of American history since settlement they were slaves, right? You really think, say, my hometown's school system should've desegregated in the 1980s instead of the 1970s as it did? What more pressure did you want these people to have to endure, man? How long should they have been deprived of their dignity, in your view? That kind of thinking is madness. Seriously.

Adi wrote: You do know for most of American history since settlement they were slaves, right? You really think, say, my hometown's school system should've desegregated in the 1980s instead of the 1970s as it did? What more pressure did you want these people to have to endure, man? How long should they have been deprived of their dignity, in your view? That kind of thinking is madness. Seriously.

I was only talking about businesses not public services. I was not talking about government based discrimination but allowing businesses to make their own choices. Not once did I mention education at all. I have in fact said repeatedly that the government and those that work for it or take its money lose freedom of choice.

But governments do not dictate what kind of world we get to live in. Our society at large does - including government, yes, but also including our attitudes, our practices, our beliefs. If the government hadn't given the southern states a kick in the ass, I have absolutely no doubt that even in my relatively progressive hometown there would still be sections of the city with "no coloureds allowed" signs in every business in sight. Even in the year 2016. Do you really think, in those cases, desegregated schools (which led to desegregated neighbourhoods) would have stood a chance?

The idea that people of colour would have been better off if businesses had been allowed to discriminate against them for just a little while longer is so crazy it boggles my mind. The "pressure" African-Americans were under as slaves and then as second-class citizens was not a good pressure. It did not make their lives better. Do you really think it does anyone a favour to be unlawfully deprived of their liberties and dignity as a human being? Doesn't that kind of thinking fly in the face of everything we are meant to strive for here?

Adi wrote: But governments do not dictate what kind of world we get to live in. Our society at large does - including government, yes, but also including our attitudes, our practices, our beliefs. If the government hadn't given the southern states a kick in the ass, I have absolutely no doubt that even in my relatively progressive hometown there would still be sections of the city with "no coloureds allowed" signs in every business in sight. Even in the year 2016. Do you really think, in those cases, desegregated schools (which led to desegregated neighbourhoods) would have stood a chance?

The idea that people of colour would have been better off if businesses had been allowed to discriminate against them for just a little while longer is so crazy it boggles my mind. The "pressure" African-Americans were under as slaves and then as second-class citizens was not a good pressure. It did not make their lives better. Do you really think it does anyone a favour to be unlawfully deprived of their liberties and dignity as a human being? Doesn't that kind of thinking fly in the face of everything we are meant to strive for here?

Did I say it was good pressure? I faced poverty and abuse growing up and that for sure is bad however it did help be grow as a person. So negative pressures can still lead to a positive outcome. I do not know if allowing businesses to keep discriminating would have lead to continued racism. I do not know that it would lead to the outcome I suggested. I simply said that MAYBE the pressure of not having places to shop would have lead to African Americans starting more of their own businesses and thus lead to a better socioeconomic situation and power base today. Further you do not have the liberty to be on the property or to have the goods of others against their will. Those are not liberties anyone has. In fact the laws forcing such things are in fact stating that you do not own your property and its only yours as much as the government says it is.

MadHatter wrote: Further you do not have the liberty to be on the property or to have the goods of others against their will. Those are not liberties anyone has. In fact the laws forcing such things are in fact stating that you do not own your property and its only yours as much as the government says it is.

So, just to be clear: you oppose the Civil Rights Act and see this (especially Titles II and VII) as a government power grab. Right?

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Further you do not have the liberty to be on the property or to have the goods of others against their will. Those are not liberties anyone has. In fact the laws forcing such things are in fact stating that you do not own your property and its only yours as much as the government says it is.

So, just to be clear: you oppose the Civil Rights Act and see this (especially Titles II and VII) as a government power grab. Right?

No because the civil rights act was mostly preventing the GOVERNMENTS from discrimination. I am against the sections that force things on the private person. I get the good intentions of it. And at the core of it I semiagree with it. I truly feel that people should not discriminate. However I dont believe in my right or the governments right to enforce such morality. I think its dangerous and do not trust them not to use precedent to grab more and more say in our private lives.

MadHatter wrote: I am against the sections that force things on the private person.

That's Title II (public businesses like restaurants, hotels, etc. cannot discriminate along racial/other lines) and Title VII (employers cannot discriminate along racial/other lines.) Which are the big sections that effected social change in the southern states, and the sections of the CRA that I asked you about. You oppose those? I just want to be clear on where you stand on this.

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: I am against the sections that force things on the private person.

That's Title II (public businesses like restaurants, hotels, etc. cannot discriminate along racial/other lines) and Title VII (employers cannot discriminate along racial/other lines.) Which are the big sections that effected social change in the southern states, and the sections of the CRA that I asked you about. You oppose those? I just want to be clear on where you stand on this.

Yes I oppose them as laws. Enforcing them by social and economic pressure yes but not by government guns. I believe change cannot be forced and that trying to do so only creates resentment and risky precedent that has far reaching implications we almost never can foresee.

MadHatter wrote: Yes I oppose them as laws. Enforcing them by social and economic pressure yes but not by government guns. I believe change cannot be forced and that trying to do so only creates resentment and risky precedent that has far reaching implications we almost never can foresee.

We tried social and economic pressure and it got us nowhere. The thing is, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it was vastly unpopular in the southern states. I wish social and economic pressure was good enough to give people equal rights and dignity, but it wasn't. Considering the amount of political capital it cost, I imagine the people in power would have loved it if we had figured it out ourselves. But we didn't.

To suggest that social and economic pressure would've done it is completely ignorant of the massive volume of hatred people like Dr. King and others fought against and lost their lives as a result of — indeed, a sort of hatred that still prevails and still harms our society. It makes sense to just "let the people do it" in a libertarian fantasy land, but we do not live in that and never will.

I'd like you to explain your opposition to protecting equal rights and dignity from a Jedi perspective, seeing as one of our maxims is to strive for justice. But I suspect you won't take me up on that request.

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Yes I oppose them as laws. Enforcing them by social and economic pressure yes but not by government guns. I believe change cannot be forced and that trying to do so only creates resentment and risky precedent that has far reaching implications we almost never can foresee.

We tried social and economic pressure and it got us nowhere. The thing is, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it was vastly unpopular in the southern states. I wish social and economic pressure was good enough to give people equal rights and dignity, but it wasn't. Considering the amount of political capital it cost, I imagine the people in power would have loved it if we had figured it out ourselves. But we didn't.

To suggest that social and economic pressure would've done it is completely ignorant of the massive volume of hatred people like Dr. King and others fought against and lost their lives as a result of — indeed, a sort of hatred that still prevails and still harms our society. It makes sense to just "let the people do it" in a libertarian fantasy land, but we do not live in that and never will.

I'd like you to explain your opposition to protecting equal rights and dignity from a Jedi perspective, seeing as one of our maxims is to strive for justice. But I suspect you won't take me up on that request.

Ok first of all I have been nothing but polite to you Adi and at heart I agree with your premise that discrimination is bad so please can we temper the sarcasm and snippy responses please? I dont like the idea of discrimination any more then you do. I myself would never discriminate based on characteristics that one cannot help. But I dont believe in forcing my views on others. You are acting as if I am against you but I am not. I am a bisexual man that lived in the military under dont ask dont tell and had to hide who I am and who I cared for. I did that for six years. BELIEVE ME when I say I get emotionally where you are coming from. However I cannot let my emotions dictate what rights people have.

So from the Jedi perspective you wish me to try to defend my stance? Ok I will try my best. However I am not a perfect Jedi and not even done with the IP so I cannot speak for any view but my own and only at this particular point in my learning. First let us define Justice: 1
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
b : judge
c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2
a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness
c : the quality of conforming to law
3
: conformity to truth, fact, or reason :

That is the Merriam Webster definition and I think the bold part is the section that we deal with here correct? Just making sure we are defining the concept in the same way here. Now looking at that we as Jedi cannot discriminate. We should strive to ensure that we speak against discrimination and do not lend our support to it. However if taken literally that means I cannot refuse service to a man that comes in with a homophobic teeshirt demanding I fix his computer. Should I have the right to turn him away or not? Do I have a right by the teaching of this temple to do so? To answer this for myself: I do not know. I am not sure how I feel in that respect.
However that only deals with us as Jedi. Do we as Jedi have the right to force our morals upon others? I would think not. If we do not have the right to force our morals on others then is it any more right to ask others to enforce them on our behalf? No I do not believe so. Thus as a Jedi I do not believe we can discriminate based on any characteristic that is not a choice however I also feel we should nor force that upon others. We should teach, convince, refuse financial support to encourage change. But I think the line ends at using government guns to do it.