I'll play devil's advocate here. If I'm selling something, be a dog, a car, a Baby Jesus buttplug, whatever... and I don't like something about a person interested in buying it... I shouldn't have to sell it to them, or be fined because of it.
Yes, the lady has a stupid opinion, but that's still BS.
I'm aware of Jim Crow, and I still believe people should have the right tor refuse service for any reason. It's my property, and my sale, and I can choose to sell it to whomever I like.
It's like those housing discrimination bits, where they talk about not being able to not rent to someone with kids. Well, fuck that, kids can and will mess up a house, and it should be my right not to rent to someone because of that fact.
And if you had your way, there would be no place for you to live, work, or purchase basic necessities of life - if your skin was the wrong colour or you prayed to the wrong god.
The classic American practice of telling minorities to give you all their stuff and leave, or die, is lynching. Your proposal doesn't even require that much work. You just leave them homeless and starving all the time.
Except that people love money more than they do bigotry. And not selling your wares doesn't make good business sense. Even the most racist cracker down here in Alabama won't turn down a black man's money if they come in to buy something. Your statement that all minorities woulud be homeless and starving is just silly.. somehow the illegal immigrants seem to be doing alright, and they AREN'T legally allowed to work here, and people have a high prejudice against them, but somehow they still wind up being employed and nobody would turn them (and their money) away at the grocery store.
And I don't pray to the right god for this region, and I've made that loudly known in every workplace I've been at, and it's never caused me an issue, official or otherwise. Again..money means more than prejudice.
In this ladies situation, she's out several thousand pounds because she chose not to sell a dog to someone based on her beliefs that the person would do harm to the animals. Whether or not those beliefs are true is beside the point. If the lesbians in question had chosen another route..i.e. getting their supporters to boycott/protest/etc, that'd be one thing. But exactly how are they justifying getting 'damages' for not being able to buy a dog? Utter BS.
And if you're a housing authority or other organization that accepts government funds, then sure, let there be affirmative action. But if you're an average joe shmoe, to get sued over something like that is just stupid.
Sorry, I just believe in personal liberty over affirmative action. What I do with my property is my business. If people don't like it, they don't have to deal with me. Capitalism at work.
Except that people love money more than they do bigotry.
American history says you are wrong.
And not selling your wares doesn't make good business sense.
That's entirely correct. That's never stopped them - and when you have, as the USA has had, a majority of people who will apply this same violent discrimination against other white people who don't share the discrimination, it DOES make good business sense to refuse to serve some groups.
Even the most racist cracker down here in Alabama won't turn down a black man's money if they come in to buy something.
Now, true. Because of laws that say they're not allowed to refuse service.
Your statement that all minorities woulud be homeless and starving is just silly.
And yet, that's EXACTLY what's happened throughout your country's entire history, every time you've had white people who didn't want blacks around and there were no laws prohibiting discrimination. Want to live there? Can't, nobody will sell or rent to you. Nobody will employ you, and nobody will let you into their stores and restaurants. Leave or starve, because this place is whites-only.
And yet, that's EXACTLY what's happened throughout your country's entire history, every time you've had white people who didn't want blacks around and there were no laws prohibiting discrimination. Want to live there? Can't, nobody will sell or rent to you. Nobody will employ you, and nobody will let you into their stores and restaurants. Leave or starve, because this place is whites-only
So what about the illegal hispanics who aren't protected by the law, that there is tons of prejudice against, but somehow mysteriously manage to be employed and housed? You didn't answer that part.
And quite frankly, the laws don't mean discrimination won't happen, it just means people won't admit to it. It's easy to find excuses not to hire someone or rent out to someone. This woman was just honest enough to tell her reason why, and that's why she was punished.
Even if a company is forced to hire or serve someone that they don't want there, it's easy enough to 'encourage' them not to stay. Again, the laws, they do nothing.
Another example......here in Birmingham, when a law was passed forcing Homeowner's Assocation's to desegregate, the rich whities up in Mountain Brook voluntarily raised their property tax up so high that nobody but them could afford to live there.
So pass all the laws you want, it doesn't do anything about the root problem of prejudice.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't believe in government telling people what to do, especially when it comes to their own property. I think that there were tons of better ways for the lesbians to have fought against discrimination in this case, and that it's ridiculous on the scale of the woman suing over getting burned on McDonald's coffee.
> So pass all the laws you want, it doesn't do anything about the > root problem of prejudice.
Not immediately, perhaps.
But those rich whiteys that you talk about?
They're going to grow old and die.
And they're going to be replaced, in society, by other people. Who will grow up and to some small degree be influenced by the laws they see--the ones that say that segregation is illegal--and by the people and perspectives they see presented--which are more inclusive than they were when the people they'r replacing were growing up.
This is part of what helps me cope with rampant prejudice, when I see it. Remembering how far we've come, and remembering that all people currently extant are going to die out and get replaced. Maybe not with perfect people, but with people who may be less prejudiced.
And at that point, laws and social mores do not change what people currently think. They create the possibility for the people who are coming along to grow up in a more reasonable, equitable environment.
What's that line? It only takes thirty years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea?
it's ridiculous on the scale of the woman suing over getting burned on McDonald's coffee.
You know, I'm glad you brought that up, because I agree, it's EXACTLY as ridiculous as that case.
Which is to say, not ridiculous at all, if you actually know what the facts of the case are.
In the coffee case, McDonalds was knowingly serving coffee that was far, far too hot for human consumption. They knew it was far hotter than coffee normally was, they knew it was hot enough to cause severe burns in seconds on contact with skin, and they'd *paid off all the previous burn victims to keep quiet*, proving they KNEW they were selling a dangerous product that was unfit for it's intended use AND that didn't give any warning of being so to a customer who expected normal coffee.
And this woman, who dropped a cup of coffee on herself, experienced full-thickness burns requiring skin grafts, to her crotch, in *two seconds*, from a product that should never cause that, that McDonalds KNEW was dangerous and that McDonalds KNEW had burned people in ways coffee should never burn people, before.
The McDonalds coffee case is a classic example of the CORRECT application of a lawsuit to restrict an unsafe and damaging business practice, and while the money involved in the verdict was absurd, that's the kind of money you need to talk about if you're actually going to make a company the size of McDonalds *notice* that it's knowingly severely injured a customer. It would greatly improve the US court system if juries had the option of applying punitive damages to a company without automatically giving the money to the plaintiff - it would make a lot of normal people a lot more willing to apply said punitive damages and remove a lot of the "they just want to be rich" idiocy that prevents juries from actually punishing corporations for malfeasance.
Another example......here in Birmingham, when a law was passed forcing Homeowner's Assocation's to desegregate, the rich whities up in Mountain Brook voluntarily raised their property tax up so high that nobody but them could afford to live there.
And so, because they've found a loophole in the law, you think it would be better for there to be no law and for them to not require a loophole?
Fundamentally, if Colin Powell or Morgan Freeman wanted to move into Mountain Brook, despite the property taxes, there's now no way the residents can keep them out. Before, there was. Is every black man a millionaire? Of course not. But it's a start.
So what about the illegal hispanics who aren't protected by the law, that there is tons of prejudice against, but somehow mysteriously manage to be employed and housed? You didn't answer that part.
Look at the jobs they've got. Look at the housing they've got.
They've got a ghetto, and jobs that make mcjobs look good. And as soon as they're not useful as literal slave labour any more, they're "encouraged" to leave.
> it's ridiculous on the scale of the woman > suing over getting burned on McDonald's > coffee.
Oh, yeah.
'cause when a beverage is served a temperature where it's impossible to drink, and ends up causing third-degree burns to the person who is not doing anything more irresponsible than sitting in the passenger seat with her coffee, and the company refuses to pay $20K towards the skin graft operations that their totally unsuitable product made necessary when you approach them before suing, it is absolutely totally unreasonable to attempt to legally enforce the idea that the people who deliberately sold you a dangerously unusable substance under the guise of a beverage are maybe just a little bit responsible for the results.
> Except that people love money more than they do bigotry.
No no no, you have it wrong.
What you need to do is proclaim that people love money more than they love truth, comfortable society, and having things the way they want while excluding those they don't want.
And if people loved money more than they loved *those* things, then the very concept of you choosing not to sell to someone because they were a jerk would be seen as ridiculous. Give up *money*? For social standards that you don't love as much as *money?* Madness.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-11 09:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-11 10:06 pm (UTC)Also, WTF?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-11 11:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 02:16 am (UTC)Yes, the lady has a stupid opinion, but that's still BS.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 03:33 am (UTC)History shows, inevitably, that if people aren't *legally required* to renounce bigotry, they don't.
You can refuse to serve someone because they're a jerk.
You can't refuse to serve someone because you're a bigot and they've done nothing.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 12:21 pm (UTC)It's like those housing discrimination bits, where they talk about not being able to not rent to someone with kids. Well, fuck that, kids can and will mess up a house, and it should be my right not to rent to someone because of that fact.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 01:02 pm (UTC)The classic American practice of telling minorities to give you all their stuff and leave, or die, is lynching. Your proposal doesn't even require that much work. You just leave them homeless and starving all the time.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 02:07 pm (UTC)And I don't pray to the right god for this region, and I've made that loudly known in every workplace I've been at, and it's never caused me an issue, official or otherwise. Again..money means more than prejudice.
In this ladies situation, she's out several thousand pounds because she chose not to sell a dog to someone based on her beliefs that the person would do harm to the animals. Whether or not those beliefs are true is beside the point. If the lesbians in question had chosen another route..i.e. getting their supporters to boycott/protest/etc, that'd be one thing. But exactly how are they justifying getting 'damages' for not being able to buy a dog? Utter BS.
And if you're a housing authority or other organization that accepts government funds, then sure, let there be affirmative action. But if you're an average joe shmoe, to get sued over something like that is just stupid.
Sorry, I just believe in personal liberty over affirmative action. What I do with my property is my business. If people don't like it, they don't have to deal with me. Capitalism at work.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 02:24 pm (UTC)American history says you are wrong.
And not selling your wares doesn't make good business sense.
That's entirely correct. That's never stopped them - and when you have, as the USA has had, a majority of people who will apply this same violent discrimination against other white people who don't share the discrimination, it DOES make good business sense to refuse to serve some groups.
Even the most racist cracker down here in Alabama won't turn down a black man's money if they come in to buy something.
Now, true. Because of laws that say they're not allowed to refuse service.
Your statement that all minorities woulud be homeless and starving is just silly.
And yet, that's EXACTLY what's happened throughout your country's entire history, every time you've had white people who didn't want blacks around and there were no laws prohibiting discrimination. Want to live there? Can't, nobody will sell or rent to you. Nobody will employ you, and nobody will let you into their stores and restaurants. Leave or starve, because this place is whites-only.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 02:48 pm (UTC)So what about the illegal hispanics who aren't protected by the law, that there is tons of prejudice against, but somehow mysteriously manage to be employed and housed? You didn't answer that part.
And quite frankly, the laws don't mean discrimination won't happen, it just means people won't admit to it. It's easy to find excuses not to hire someone or rent out to someone. This woman was just honest enough to tell her reason why, and that's why she was punished.
Even if a company is forced to hire or serve someone that they don't want there, it's easy enough to 'encourage' them not to stay. Again, the laws, they do nothing.
Another example......here in Birmingham, when a law was passed forcing Homeowner's Assocation's to desegregate, the rich whities up in Mountain Brook voluntarily raised their property tax up so high that nobody but them could afford to live there.
So pass all the laws you want, it doesn't do anything about the root problem of prejudice.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't believe in government telling people what to do, especially when it comes to their own property. I think that there were tons of better ways for the lesbians to have fought against discrimination in this case, and that it's ridiculous on the scale of the woman suing over getting burned on McDonald's coffee.
In ten years, maybe less, we'll be a bedtime story they'll tell their children.
Date: 2008-02-12 03:01 pm (UTC)> root problem of prejudice.
Not immediately, perhaps.
But those rich whiteys that you talk about?
They're going to grow old and die.
And they're going to be replaced, in society, by other people. Who will grow up and to some small degree be influenced by the laws they see--the ones that say that segregation is illegal--and by the people and perspectives they see presented--which are more inclusive than they were when the people they'r replacing were growing up.
This is part of what helps me cope with rampant prejudice, when I see it. Remembering how far we've come, and remembering that all people currently extant are going to die out and get replaced. Maybe not with perfect people, but with people who may be less prejudiced.
And at that point, laws and social mores do not change what people currently think. They create the possibility for the people who are coming along to grow up in a more reasonable, equitable environment.
What's that line? It only takes thirty years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 03:06 pm (UTC)You know, I'm glad you brought that up, because I agree, it's EXACTLY as ridiculous as that case.
Which is to say, not ridiculous at all, if you actually know what the facts of the case are.
In the coffee case, McDonalds was knowingly serving coffee that was far, far too hot for human consumption. They knew it was far hotter than coffee normally was, they knew it was hot enough to cause severe burns in seconds on contact with skin, and they'd *paid off all the previous burn victims to keep quiet*, proving they KNEW they were selling a dangerous product that was unfit for it's intended use AND that didn't give any warning of being so to a customer who expected normal coffee.
And this woman, who dropped a cup of coffee on herself, experienced full-thickness burns requiring skin grafts, to her crotch, in *two seconds*, from a product that should never cause that, that McDonalds KNEW was dangerous and that McDonalds KNEW had burned people in ways coffee should never burn people, before.
The McDonalds coffee case is a classic example of the CORRECT application of a lawsuit to restrict an unsafe and damaging business practice, and while the money involved in the verdict was absurd, that's the kind of money you need to talk about if you're actually going to make a company the size of McDonalds *notice* that it's knowingly severely injured a customer. It would greatly improve the US court system if juries had the option of applying punitive damages to a company without automatically giving the money to the plaintiff - it would make a lot of normal people a lot more willing to apply said punitive damages and remove a lot of the "they just want to be rich" idiocy that prevents juries from actually punishing corporations for malfeasance.
Another example......here in Birmingham, when a law was passed forcing Homeowner's Assocation's to desegregate, the rich whities up in Mountain Brook voluntarily raised their property tax up so high that nobody but them could afford to live there.
And so, because they've found a loophole in the law, you think it would be better for there to be no law and for them to not require a loophole?
Fundamentally, if Colin Powell or Morgan Freeman wanted to move into Mountain Brook, despite the property taxes, there's now no way the residents can keep them out. Before, there was. Is every black man a millionaire? Of course not. But it's a start.
So what about the illegal hispanics who aren't protected by the law, that there is tons of prejudice against, but somehow mysteriously manage to be employed and housed? You didn't answer that part.
Look at the jobs they've got. Look at the housing they've got.
They've got a ghetto, and jobs that make mcjobs look good. And as soon as they're not useful as literal slave labour any more, they're "encouraged" to leave.
McDonald's Coffee
Date: 2008-02-12 03:15 pm (UTC)If nothing else, this discussion has made me go and look up more details on that case, and understand why it wasn't ridiculous.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 03:08 pm (UTC)> suing over getting burned on McDonald's
> coffee.
Oh, yeah.
'cause when a beverage is served a temperature where it's impossible to drink, and ends up causing third-degree burns to the person who is not doing anything more irresponsible than sitting in the passenger seat with her coffee, and the company refuses to pay $20K towards the skin graft operations that their totally unsuitable product made necessary when you approach them before suing, it is absolutely totally unreasonable to attempt to legally enforce the idea that the people who deliberately sold you a dangerously unusable substance under the guise of a beverage are maybe just a little bit responsible for the results.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-12 02:55 pm (UTC)No no no, you have it wrong.
What you need to do is proclaim that people love money more than they love truth, comfortable society, and having things the way they want while excluding those they don't want.
And if people loved money more than they loved *those* things, then the very concept of you choosing not to sell to someone because they were a jerk would be seen as ridiculous. Give up *money*? For social standards that you don't love as much as *money?* Madness.
You don't seem to be presenting it that way.