Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (855453)	5/8/2015 10:09:17 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578439

Objective as opposed to subjective, not "some objective" As for "your trying to disguise bigotry and discrimination behind a law..." 1 - You not responding to my statement, or in a way that's relevant to my statement. I did not say the action were not bigoted, but rather that people should have freedom of association and contract. And yes that applies even to bigots. I didn't say (or think) that they aren't bigoted because there is some law. "Hiding bigotry behind a law" is rather silly and irrelevant as a response in this context. 2 - I didn't say the two laws did the same thing (or that they didn't) so why should I explain "why another law was written when they did the same thing"? Unless that is you are asserting that they did the same thing, but I doubt that you are. What I did say was that the law didn't discriminate (in the sense that your using the term, any law will provide some discrimination for broad uses of the term). Assume for the sake of argument that the actions the law defends are bigotry and discrimination. With that assumption, you still don't get "the law discriminates". Allowing something isn't the same as doing it. If adultery was illegal, and then a law was passed to make it legal, would you say "the law cheats on its spouse"? Is the first amendment bigoted because it allows bigoted speech? 3 - Bigotry" might be a stretch here. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. dictionary.reference.com extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. thefreedictionary.com That doesn't seem to apply. Hatred is not included in that definition, but a bigot could also be said to be one who hates people who are different. I haven't seen any evidence of hatred in the cases I've read about (at least not from those who didn't want to sell the wedding cake, take wedding photos, or Memories Pizza (maybe from some of their opponents). Can't say for sure that it doesn't exist (how can you know what is in someone else's heart?), or even that it hasn't been expressed, I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence of it. In fact for the actual cases that have come up and helped to create momentum for the law, even discrimination (again in the sense your using it) might be a stretch. The cases I've heard about had no general refusal or even reluctance to serve or sell to homosexuals, but rather just not participate, even in a peripheral way, in support of homosexual weddings. In a sense bigot, might seem to refer to those who want to force the association more than those that don't want a particular association. They are the people showing a lack of tolerance (at least in a specific belief, not perhaps of "any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own". That having been said I don't think the term bigot is appropriate for them either.