Political Correctness (Or why we can't all live in la-la land)

[Boring]

To say that was wrong is not ridiculous pc nonsense, it is bigotry and there should be no place for it in a civilised society.

I don't like replying to this, because I know I won't change anyone's mind, but whatever.

Are we really a civilized society? We're built on corrupt and people being able to spin stories. Abe Lincoln, MLK, JFK... kids are being taugh to idolize these guys but kids now a days relate in no way to men from all those years ago and don't know a thing about how these men actually were. Lincoln was no big "civil rights" leader, look up some of the things he said about Africans.

Civil Rights was good from some because it was "good for business." WWE gets all these racist allegations, but WWE follows AA rules. Donald Sterling is now one of the biggest racists on the planet, yet he's a guy whose employed and made how many african americans millionaires? I'm sure way more then McDonalds, WalMart, and many more national companies have combined.

The point is, we're debating over whether or not a small business owner will or will not serve someone based on sexuality in Indiana - how the fuck will they know anyway? - while our thug and criminal problem in african american communities and else where is never addressed, the country our "civilized" society is indebted too won't allow births of females, and everything else is usually ass backward and not civilized. We've got athletes as role models - which is wrong in the first place - saying don't take drugs, yet w/o drugs (performance enhancers) they wouldn't be in that role in the first place.

I'm not trying to sound smart. And if I were to tell you "I'm not smart," for some reason that triggers to some peoples heads that I'm not smart, that's how fucked up the world is. If you are dumb enough to believe you know everything, you will succeed in this world because confidence and ignorance reign supreme in our "civilized society."

There is no such thing as "civilized"... it's just a term we use in the game we all play.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Torgo, you do know you can reverse right winged beliefs onto the right winger and get pretty much that same kind of political cartoon, right?

This is the kinda shit that we fight about while the rich keep getting richer. Let's just keep playing Red vs. Blue until we're ready to return to the days of hunting and gathering. Because obviously having a political opinion without scrutinizing the other party is too fucking difficult for some to get passed.

Outing a person for being something that goes against your unproven beliefs is the epitome of idiocy, and that's not an attack on any poiltical view. The very idea wipes its ass on the separation of Church and State. This is the same thing the Westboro Baptist Church has been wanting, and I'm sure they're laughing their asses off knowing at least one of their core beliefs is being upheld in Indiana and Arkansas.

 

[Torgo]

Yes, you could. And I agree with the Red vs Blue debate. Its how a lot of the idiots in office today are still here.

However, why should your beliefs trample on mine? And so we see the great paradox of PC and society. We need an equilibrium.

 

[Барбоса]

Yes, you could. And I agree with the Red vs Blue debate. Its how a lot of the idiots in office today are still here.

However, why should your beliefs trample on mine? And so we see the great paradox of PC and society. We need an equilibrium.

The paradox is not between PC and society - it is between two seemingly inalienable rights in freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination.

In this situation there is an equilibrium - the right of a private businessman to refuse service to whomever they like.

But once they start qualifying that by claiming their right to discriminate on a specific group based on their religion (particularly those who receive some government subsidy and are therefore not completely private), they open themselves to scrutiny. And quite rightly too. Their right to religion does not trump discrimination laws. Nor vice versa but that does not mean that such religiously-based discrimination just gets a free pass and does not deserve to be confronted.

You have the right to be bigoted but you do not have the right to be discriminatory. And if you are openly bigoted/discriminated, you deserve ridicule.

Had the pizza restaurant owner, florist, bakers caught up in this just kept their mouths shut about their beliefs (although I make allowances for advocacy groups stirring up the flames) and just refused custom without a reason, then they would have been covered by their rights as a private business.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

What gets to me is the left-leaning media.

Ok Torgo, I have heard arguments about the media being left-leaning, both in my country and yours, before. And while I don't actually disagree, I think it's better this way than the alternative. When everyone is under scrutiny for their actions & opinions, everyone is forced to reconsider why they believe what they believe.

Remember that the media wants to make money by getting people to pay attention. And there are, in theory, more people to appeal to with a more left-leaning perspective, because there is an assumption that there is correlation of a sort between being left politically and being working-class (I know that this is a massive generalisation and simplifying things far too much as well as consistently proven untrue, but eh, I'm kinda tired today)

Yes, youre right. I am. And I am sorry, but damn it I am so fed up with all this "he wont make us a cake waaahhh lawsuit time!" crap. We have so many more problems than someone not getting baked goods that we need to focus on, like our whopping national debt, illegal immigrants, government corruption...

I know human rights isnt a low issue. I think the rights to clean water, medicine, education, etc trump someone pitching a fit because they cant have cake with gay marriage lettering on it.

Okay but you are surely not feeling great yourself about, at least as you see it, the media taking an opposite stance to yourself? How would you feel if you walked into a cake store and the guy behind the counter said "I'm not serving you, fucking righty" (I am not calling you a "righty" btw, this is just an example)

You're right that the situation is trivial compared to other world issues. Why didn't the guys just go to a different cake store? But obviously they have principles they're prepared to argue for, just as you're doing now.

You would be mad, wouldn't you? Obviously you would because you're annoyed enough to start a thread on it. I don't mean any of this as a criticism of you, as I said there's some ways in which I almost agree, but I'm just trying to show you that there's not much difference between the situation you're talking about and the fact that you're complaining about it yourself.

Ultimately I think I favour NorCal's view. Everyone is free - free to act like an ass and be criticised for it and suffer should they do so.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The media isn't so much the issue here. We've had similar cases in the UK with hotels refusing to allow gay couples to have rooms "together".

While yes, I agree free speech etc is one thing, that's not what these places use. They use religion as their basis for choice which is a seriously flawed argument.

The right to practice religion is one thing, but to impose it on others is a tenet that isn't allowed in either constituion of the US or UK law... You have the right to a moral objection or to simply "decline the business" but the moment you state it's for "religious reasons" then it's active discrimination in the same way you can't make anti-semetic jokes, use racial hatred terms or other inflammatory behaviours because everyone is inherently protected the same in law.

The guy is allowed to say "not gonna serve you righty" because that's free speech...it's not a derogatory term, he could just say "I meant as in right? I just say righty instead"... but if he says "I'm not serving you you F*gs" then an offense is being committed, and if he adds "...cos the good book says" then he's immediately commiting hate crimes in TODAY'S laws... if he just says... "I'm sorry, I am too busy to cater your event" then they can't prove a damn thing... but prejudiced people can't resist using god or rubbing the reasoning in faces... THAT'S the issue.

Whether you agree with it or not the laws are there to protect all... perhaps people should be less sensitive but also people with views that won't be popular should be less douchy about how they air them and exercise rights... when it becomes a point of principle as it did for that cake store owner, instantly it can become a point of law...and the law's always gonna win.

Where states have passed laws to allow it, they get overturned damn quick like the other week...all it took was George Takei getting on the case and millions of people were on the issue... a few boycott threats and big businesses threatening to pull out of the state and bang...tune changed and a governor who is guaranteed to lose his next election.