Jump to content

One of THOSE topics

Recommended Posts

If New Hampshire and other states wish to legalize discrimination by businesses in their state, they should be allowed to. However, they should make it open to any type of discrimination - quit messing around. If you truly believe that a business should be allowed to discriminate, then let businesses discriminate against anyone that they wish. The only caveat is that they have to post who they will not serve, so that everyone can make a fully informed choice.


THAT is how a fully informed, transparent-information market can then decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well that would be interesting Horizon, so you mean if I am a business man who is a bigot, I would have to post on my front door of business "We don't cater to Homos, darkies or Spics".. So that not only do those people not frequent my place of business, but also those who don't want to do business with a bigot will know that this is not a person or business that they want to do business with..


If they don't post the sign, or reveal their policy over the phone when asked, then it would be illegal for them to refuse service to anyone who offends their moral conscience.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker, I know you're trying to use reductio ad absurdum but in this area not too long ago, there were businesses which did exactly that. Some towns, too, had billboards at the edge of town advertising their 'sunset' laws. I only know of one of those businesses that is still in business and ALL of those signs are long gone as far as I can tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moostracker - that is exactly what it would look like. Maybe a nice placard like the health department ones. The only way to legally not serve members of a protected class is to openly state that you won't.


I think that the market would make its feelings known fairly quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Beavah, my daughter can do 'drama queen' far better than you. Why don't you leave the hyperbole to her and instead try to make a reasoned argument?


LOL. Right back at yeh, Mr. Kettle. ;)


No hyperbole, packsaddle. Da ACLU is currently pursuing two requests for regulatory action against Catholic hospitals: one to force them to do abortions, and one to force them to issue and cover contraception.


Whether or not da government chooses to act on such requests is irrelevant, eh? The point is that it could. It could interpret da Medicare/Medicaid regulations in that way, and withhold funding from the entire Catholic hospital system. Right now that's impractical and politically untenable. But down the road? Or if instead of such a big denomination it's one of us smaller denominations? Do yeh really trust the majority (or, more properly, the monied minority with lobbying clout) to do the right thing all the time?


Same is true when the government has a near-monopoly on education, eh? So that only the very well-off can afford to escape it. Whether you're concerned that the government may mandate the teachin' of Creationism or you're concerned that the government will tell your child that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, yeh have to admit that both have been (and are) being advocated for and even tried. There is a risk of allowing any one entity to have that much economic control, eh? Even if they put their shingle out, as is being suggested, and declare their curriculum explicitly, there's nowhere else to go for most people.


The point is that an economically large government can repress religion/viewpoints without usin' its police powers. It can do it usin' power of the purse. Or "access restrictions". Whether you're liberal or conservative, that should concern you.


I submit, though, that da proper way to deal with it is not what is goin' on currently - that each American try to defend their position with ever more aggressive lobbying dollars and political polarization. Da solution is smaller government. And where there is legitimate need for pooling community resources to achieve a common purpose, strict neutrality by government. Vouchers for education, for everyone.


Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread is hijacked, starts 'chasing its tail' and rehashing another really old thread, anyone interested in the pros and cons of vouchers should first read through the following old thread:



Beavah, that would be 'Pa' Kettle to you...

As I respond to most people complaining about ACLU lawsuits, on the assumption the suit has legal merit, if they don't want the suit, STOP BREAKING THE LAW!

On the other hand, and in keeping with my request for that reasoned argument, please explain how the ACLU suit lacks legal merit. I'm fairly certain you are qualified to explain that.


As for the rest, the solution is easy. Remove all government support and subsidies. Period. Let the Catholics do whatever they want and same for everyone else. No government intrusion or influence. Let the free market work. If your reasoning has sufficient merit with other people, your view will prevail. There will be no need to gain special exemptions in order to force your views on other people...they'll freely accept them as sensible personal decisions.


And, as I argued so long ago, those vouchers are a deception and just as unnecessary. Just remove ALL government support for education except cases of indigence. The market will take care of everything. That old thread was the origin of one of my favorite quotes from you, directed at me: "Yah, OK. You're goin' to make even me sound like a liberal."

Beavah, There's a reason for that. You ARE.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Beavah I see what your saying and I don't see what your saying.. I guess I am agreeing with Packsaddle just will state this in a different way.


NH "live free or di:) state runs into this all the time. We loose out on funding for roads, or schools or other things.. And while there is a tussle and debate over following the goverments rules to get the doe-ra-me, or stick to our guns and "live free or die". We still don't have a forced seatbelt law except for children, and loose funds for that. We still don't have a state income tax, and loose funds for that etc. etc..


Sometimes we do cave in for the government funding and sometimes we do not.. But, we always know that that is our choice.


If Catholic Hospitals survive by government funding well then they are the ones who choose to do so, and in doing so they are the ones who went into a merger with the government now a partner in the venture.. Unfortunately the Government is not a silent partner.. It does set up terms, conditions and expectations for the money it doles out..


You can't have seperation of church and state, while climbing into bed with them also..


Packsaddle page 3 and so far so good.. Although we all know what side of the arguement we are on, it has yet to be a total rehashing of the same old same old..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the thing with the Catholic Hospitals is that they want all the benefits of government, but not the obligations.


Sounds like my son: He wants his room, meals, toys, allowance and the right to watch tv , etc...but he doesn't feel I should make him do work around the house, get good grades, stick to curfew or bedtime.


Or I could describe some employees where I work:


They want all the bgreaksm, all the perks, bonuses, paid vacations, company vehicles, time off, and any other freebies ( hats, t shirts, jackets) but will be the first to whine about doing even the basic amount of work. They want payraises , but constantly complain about having to lift a finger to begiun with, complain about having to be on work on time, etc..



So, while I really do feel that the Catholic Hospitals should be able to refuse to have to perform abortions ( for obvious reasons) they need to realize that they can't have it borth ways:


accepting money from non sectarian, genearl population all citizen funding , while restricting performance to reflect a limited scope of belief.


Maybe the Catholic Hospital should only reciece money from Catholics...then they can make that decision just.


And that would be seperation of church and state from the opposite side of the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know to what extent this decision bears on Catholic Hospitals, but by a 9-0 decision the SC gave religious organizations wide latitude with respect to employment laws.




Of course one must assume this kind of latitude would apply to all religions, not just the ones we agree with.





Link to post
Share on other sites

JoeBob - If you're making Catholic taxpayers fund government hospitals that provide abortion and contraception, can't you at least be courteous enough to allow the opposite?


I don't know.. Can NH get Fed money for our roads without enforcing a seatbelt law? or for our schools without enforcing a state income tax?? After all we pay our taxes too.. And anyone who wishes to wear a seatbelt is not prevented from doing so.. And why is it any one elses buisness that we prefer to fund our State differently then every other state wants to fund theirs?


For that matter any family who homeschools, or goes to private school pays their taxes and wants to know why their tax dollar can not go to the private school tuition, or to what they spend to homeschool...



Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...