Help Me Hate You: How Do I Properly Persecute Someone?

I have a question.

What is the litmus test for prejudice?

What I mean is: how can I be certain the prejudice I’m exhibiting is correct and honorable and justified?

Wha? You say I don’t seem to be making any sense? I completely understand. I’m also confused. But here, let me try to elaborate so that we might be confused together…

Let’s say I started a business and made it clear from the outset that the very purpose of my company was to support a pro-male agenda. The company’s mission would be to provide extra support and increased resources to men. In an effort to avoid legal problems, we would not turn away women; we just wouldn’t actually do anything for them. Were I to follow this plan, I could expect some very well-meaning people to attack me, insisting my anti-female business model is unacceptable. Interestingly, these detractors would not be all female and many of them would even be Christians.

So I change course and decide to open up a company just for white people. Same result. I would be shut down after numerous legal battles defending my all-Arian corporate stance, even though I never actually refused service to a minority. And again, many of those demanding I apologize and desist would be both conservative and non-white. Certainly, such an outcome would not be even remotely surprising; it would actually be expected.

Undaunted in my quest to base a business on bigotry, I start a company dedicated to helping heterosexual people. It becomes my biggest success yet! But then, you guessed it, some bleeding-heart faggot steps up and sues me for discrimination. What’s the world coming to when a tendentious white man can’t build an empire on false piety and elitism?

But wait! There’s something different about the outcry this time: the Republican voices are notably lacking from the din of the fray. In fact, some of the internet’s biggest right-wingers slowly begin to support my prejudicial tactics until, even despite my astronomical hate-to-intelligence ratio, I am able to discover the chink in the liberal chain-mail and even come to learn the name of the metal from which that weak link was fashioned: Homophobia. I further find it is an element as dense as lead but, thankfully, also just as soft and tractable. I need only learn how to manipulate it to my purpose. So even as I realize I will be soon required to either stop using my newest business to discriminate or forced to stop doing business altogether, I am buoyed by the fact I have found a common thread of cowardly hatred from which I can garner the support of a large political faction. You can bet dollars to drama-queens the next corporation I launch will be a work of sectarian brilliance – a monumental testament to dogmatic idiocy.

OK. Now, having taken that to its sickening but inevitable conclusion, I ask the question again: What is the litmus test for prejudice? In other words, how could I have known ahead of time not to bother with sexual or racial prejudice and go straight for the more acceptable discrimination of gays?

Answers Fail

The stunningly disingenuous answer comes from the conservative poster-child for brainless inflammatory rhetoric, Michelle Malkin, who floats this intellectual air-biscuit our way:

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide… Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else… [eHarmony’s] capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.
SOURCE: The eHarmony Shakedown

Hum. I wonder if she realizes her suffrage is also something that was, at one time, never meant to be provided to certain people, including women like herself. She flippantly invokes the name of Rosa Parks, but I’m left with the distinct feeling she has deliberately ignored the racist atrocities of our country’s checkered past. Would she have told Ms. Parks to simply find another way to get home if she wasn’t happy sitting in the back of the bus?

*looks directly into camera* Nope, sorry Michelle. Your arguments are as shallow as your brainpan and the witlessly derisive label “Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade” betrays your conceit and fearful animosity of basic equality for all. If you feel Eric McKinley is a “bully” for demanding fair treatment, I must assume you’d classify the tireless efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X as “uppity”.

If it makes you feel any better, your flawed reasoning was precisely the kind of pig-ignorant bullshit I expected from someone who took full advantage of the Fourteenth Amendment and then grew up to be one of the biggest haters of “anchor babies”.

Endnote: Many sincere thanks go out to a sweaty, bloated lump of magisterial hypocrisy right here at VOX for pointing me toward that Malkin article. It was a treat to read and gave me an even clearer view of how you homophobic freaks think.

Read and post comments

Advertisements

About kirkstarr

I draw pictures for a living.
This entry was posted in Can I Say Something? and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Help Me Hate You: How Do I Properly Persecute Someone?

  1. G says:

    Ok Kirk. I know I basically sort of tree-hug bash you from time to time, but this time in all seriousness, I ask you an honest question.
    First a small prelude. I think you are screaming liberal (I may be wrong but your blog leads me to think so) While I am an individual anarchist (though my blog probably makes me sound like a redneck with amazing pheromone powers or some other thing (a Martian?)). Despite your politics you seem reasonably intelligent and I fancy myself not a moron either. So…here's the honest question:
    Should fredom not also include the ability to choose to NOT associate with certain people? So….if I chose to be a racist bigoted fucker and NOT sell my wares to say people with a white skin or who were gay, or whatever….why should anyone stop me doing that by force?
    Now I am not talking about not giving water to certain people when it's the only well in town. I mean if I sell blue widgets, and there are hundreds of other blue-widget sellers, and I decide NOT to sell mine to tree-hugging liberals that are also homosexual sympathisers…..well…why SHOULD I be forced to seel my blue widgets to you? And why should you even ever want to buy them from me?
    So that's the question.

  2. Budd says:

    I disagree with you Kirk. This is akin to the government stepping in and saying that Starbucks is discriminating against people who like hamburgers and that Starbucks, by court order, is now forced to sell hamburgers. I don't think E-harmony banned homosexuals from their service, but their service was for heterosexual match making. The free market has already shown that enterprising individuals were willing to pick up the slack in the GLBT market. That is the way the free market works. This is a failure of the government for free markets. There is a difference in denying service to a group and just not carrying the service said group wants. I used to work in a running shoe store. Everything we carried was catering to people who ran. Should this place be forced to carry crocs because they are descriminating against fat/lazy people. I am sure E-harmony would have matched a gay male to a straight female had a gay person had the desire to do so.

  3. Kirk,
    I'm afraid I have to jump on this bandwagon, too. Creating legislation to prevent discrimination in the workplace is an entirely different issue from forcing private businesses to cater to all demographics. And it certainly doesn't compare to suffrage — that was an example of women being denied a certain right. Gays being able to hook up with other gays on a straight site isn't a right.
    And, as unpleasant as it may sound, I believe it is our right to hate. Just as we have free speech, we must have free thought. Without the latter, we can't have the former. I think it's wrong to be a hater, but I believe it's a right that shouldn't be infringed.
    It's for this very reason that I oppose the classification of "hate crimes". If someone were convicted of a crime and received 10 years for it, but were to get 15 years if it were motivated by hate, then the implication is that the hate alone is worth a five-year sentence. As distasteful as hate is, I don't think the solution is to criminalize it.
    Donovan

  4. Kirk says:

    "I think you are screaming liberal…"I don't scream. I yell and sometimes bellow. Screaming is for B-movie beauties and people named Mimi."Despite your politics you seem reasonably intelligent…" I'm glad I give that impression."So….if I chose to be a racist bigoted fucker and NOT sell my wares to
    say people with a white skin or who were gay, or whatever….why should
    anyone stop me doing that by force?"Because it's discrimination. If a person here in the US is selling a house, they have to accept the highest offer regardless of who offers it. They are NOT allowed to decline an offer because the buyer is gay any more than they could do so based on ethnicity. One of the tenets upon which this country is founded is that "all men are created equal" and it is my belief (and evidently eHarmony's, as well, since they settled out of court) that that equality means equal access to any goods and services sold on the open market.It really is a simple matter of discrimination, but it gets obfuscated by analogies like Budd's above, which I will respond to next."And why should you even ever want to buy them from me?"Well, for one, maybe because yours are the best and to settle for an inferior product just because you don't like some aspect of my personality would be directly betraying myself and potentially construed as an admission of acquiescence.

  5. Kirk says:

    "…their service was for heterosexual match making…"How convenient that they can add their discrimination to their business model and make it seem as if it's justified. Nice. Consider the cries of Modern Day Tribulation & Persecution that would crescendo from the heartland were someone to start a service dedicated to serving non-Christians.Look, this isn't about offering a select product line and we all know it; it's about shutting out homosexuals, plain and simple, and until now, eHarmony's never done a thing to quell that widespread notion. So a guy up and sues them for discrimination, they settle and agree to even make a segregated gay version (because segregation is so American), but I'm to believe they never really meant to discriminate?The Starbucks and shoe store analogies don't work for me because taste in shoes and food are not protected rights. That's the trouble: it's so easy for people to diminish gay discrimination to the same level of importance as a person's choice of refreshment or footwear.

  6. Kirk says:

    How is it any different than telling Rosa Parks buses weren't meant to cater to blacks and that she should be right happy we let her have the back seat? Both are simple examples of a deliberative choice to refuse service to certain demographics based on personal bigotry. eHarmony adding "heterosexual" before "relationships" is like adding "Arian" before "transit" in the bus scenario. It wouldn't work for the latter today, but everyone's all good with the former. I don't get it."And, as unpleasant as it may sound, I believe it is our right to hate."To my mind, "hate" indicates "malice" and I so I do not see hatred as a right. Maybe it's semantics, but disliking a person based on experience and ignorantly despising an entire group of people are different things, with only one being rational and right.

  7. Kirk says:

    Forgot to touch on this."…then the implication is that the hate alone is worth a five-year sentence."Well, let's say a person drags another person behind a truck until the latter looks like a pair of blue jeans full of hamburger and let's assume their only motivation was that that person happened to be part of a group he hated. Wouldn't that motive be worth more time than that of the guy who did it to a psychopath he caught raping his adolescent daughter? I think so.

  8. Kirk says:

    "That's the trouble: it's so easy for people to diminish gay discrimination to the same level of importance as a person's choice of refreshment or footwear." Budd, I just realized this sentence came off sounding like a direct slam on you and I want to make it clear I didn't mean it that way. Using your examples in my explanation was not a wise choice. Sorry about that.

  9. Budd says:

    I do see where you are coming from.
    How about this one. A woman sues a strip club because there are no naked men dancing. Sounds pretty silly, huh.
    My main point is that there are sights that pick up the slack. A business shouldn't have to be all things to all people. Maybe because of Warren's moral/religious beliefs, he didn't even realize he was excluding some of the market. He has stated that he spent 15 years studying heterosexual compatability and that he wasn't sure how being the same sex would change things up. Maybe he was just going to be just as thorough with that study and E-harmony would have launched their GLBT matching site in about 10 years.
    Dancing Bear has a great post on this.

  10. Budd says:

    Budd, I just realized this sentence came off sounding like a direct slam on you and I want to make it clear I didn't mean it that way. Using your examples in my explanation was not a wise choice. Sorry about that.
    That is the final straw, sir. I, sir, challange you to a duel. You may take your pick of weapons.
    No problem. Some people also take their footwear and refreshments way too seriously. Trust me, I have worked in both markets.

  11. Kirk says:

    "How about this one. A woman sues a strip club because there are no naked men dancing."Or a man sues for not letting him dance… owner insists it's not a gay club… then all the gay dancer's friends sue the club for not also offering gay lapdances…OK. I see your point and I can appreciate Warren's assertions regarding the focus of his proficiency over the past 15 years, but when the slant of the reporting is undeniably anti-gay (Malkin sarcastically compares the gay rights movement to the Mau Mau Uprising, for crying out loud), it's hard to see how discrimination isn't what's at issue. If there's any consolation to this, it's that eHarmony settled instead of fighting to the bitter end, because it indicates that maybe, just maybe, the hatred is all that of Malkin and her intolerant ilk."Dancing Bear has a great post on this."Oh, swell. Now I'm going to find out one of my gay friends disagrees with me on this. Ack. Where's my hidey-hole? :-P"No problem. Some people also take their footwear and refreshments way
    too seriously."Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Awesome.

  12. Kirk says:

    "I can appreciate Warren's assertions regarding the focus of his proficiency over the past 15 years…" I should probably clarify that by "appreciate" I meant "acknowledge" and not "believe to be sincere" or "regard with respect". Based on his overall history, I suspect it's a specious excuse. That's not to say I think Warren actively hates on gays; just that his intentions weren't as innocuous as he'd have us think.

  13. Lord Kalvan says:

    Jumping into the fray here. If a business is considered a public accommodation, then they can not discriminate based on certain things. On the Federal level its illegal to discriminate on the basis sex, nation origin, race, religion, to some extant age etc. I.E. if you have a business which is a public accommodation (I.E. most service industries), then you can't refuse service based on the preceding classes. Some states extend these classes to include sexual preference or gender identity. I believe New Jersey does. Hence its not really a legal stretch to see how eHarmony could be considered a public accommodation and have to cater to homosexuals. The argument on hamburgs at Starbucks carries absolutely no weight. A better argument would be would a vegetarian restaurant be required to serve meat. Since there is no legal protection against discrimination in public accommodations against meat eaters, it is allowed. The list is of course made of classes of individuals who have suffered extensive discrimination and it is made in such a way as to prevent reverse discrimination to. Again I am talking public accommodations and not employment or educations etc.The free market in the USA has to play by various restrictions and one is the concept of non-discriminatory public accommodations. I my humble opinion, eHarmony is not much more that a crude computer match anyway and really does not make all that good of a match.

  14. I can't think of anything to add, othe rthan it was an interesting debate with both sides making very intelligent arguments.Very interesting to read, both post and comments. Thanks

  15. G says:

    I notice you avoided hitting reply. I'd say this was an oversight being as you're a scatter-brained liberal tree-hugger who can't do logic….BUT…you said A-ok to the being smart part so I'd say it was by nefarious design so as to prevent me from commenting further as I'd not be notified of your liberal stance….
    Yeah. We Red(neck) people are paranoid! Cause we're smart that way.

    NOW: On to disecting your "argument":
    First let's put down some guidelines if you don't mind.
    1. My arguments apply to all humans globally. I donot think the US is "special" (other than possibly being a bit more retarded than other countries in general, but it's a tough call what with China on the other end) so either the arguments hold for everyone everywhere, by virtue of being logically and objectively sound, or they do not.
    2. As a corollary to 1. above, I consider existing laws by people whom I did not elect, sign up to, agree with or even like, as being totally and utterly irrelevant as a "point of order" and therefore as any kind of axiom or premise to start arguing from. i.e. to say "it's the law here so it's right" makes you an intellectual nazi SS. "they gave me orders and I followed them". The law as it stands is utterly irrelevant to anyone and everyone who did not specifically sign up to agree to abide by it. To better understand this point of view, if you are honestly interested in arguing meaningfully with me instead of just bellowing like a deaf whale, I strongly suggest you read the essay called Natural Law, by Lysander Spooner. It's only about 10 pages of type so you should manage it without a brain embolism.

    Given those 2 premises above and assuming for the moment you agree to them as a starting condition for discovering something meaningful then let me like I already said…disect…though i think draw and quarter is better…your "argument".
    As for your argument that I would have to accept the highest offer. I do NOT believe you are correct as matter of punctilious accuracy. If that is really a law in your country then you really are too far up shitcreek to be helped. I know for a FACT that in EVERY country i have ever lived or worked in (not the USA admitedly) you are NEVER forced to take the "best" price in anything you sell or do or buy. So I'd be surprised if the US was different in this regard. Nevertheless, it's by the by given my premise number 2 above. The point is if I decide to sell a bluewidget, by virtue of the fact it is MY blue widget, I can damn well choose to sell it to whom i damn well please. And if that means I don't want to sell it to you Kirk, because I hate illogical tree-hugging hippies, then tough luck. you could offer me a million dollars in Nazi gold-bars and I'd still say…nah, sorry, I'll sell it for a buck to joe-bob here who married his cousin. Mostly cause I like his cousin. And it is my inalianable right to do whatever I want with my property. (We're assuming here the blue widget is truly my own and I didn't steal it from anyone else to begin with). That Kirk, is just a fact and if you do not agree witht hat you are simply ….not intelligent.

    Now…as to your contention that all men are created equal….well…we all know that is bullshit on a practical level, but I agree that potentially, in "spirit" (a rather hazy concept you'll agree) we should all have the same "value". The best way i know to express this is to say that in God's eyes we all have the same worth. Now we DO have to bring God into it (or Allah or the Universe, or Objective Truth, or whatever you wanna call it) because if we do NOT then you're shit out of luck Kirk, cause I can just take a club, come over there and bash your head in and your "view" will not matter a jot. That's cause we are NOT equal and I have a masterful ability to wield clubs compared to your wishy-washy, non-violent, equal rights ass. What I mean to say in this crude and graphic example my tree hugging friend, is that we are NOT equal. No two humans on earth are equal in practical, physical, real terms. So don't you go telling me that we are. It's patently obvious we are not. So the whole "all men are created equal" has to apply to a spiritual or non-physical dimension. I have no problem with this and I agree actually (of course this doesn't apply to women whom are not mentioned – joke Kirk, that was a joke! Chill …) but the fact is that if we ARE all the same value in God's eyes Kirk, this MUST be from a very "high" point of view. It also means in God's eyes, the child-molester has the same intrinsic "value" as the saint. Tey behave very differently here on Earth though buddy. And while I can accept that at a spiritual, soul-level, the saint and the child molester can have the same value, if Imeet the child molester in the Gobi desert with no witnesses and I happen to have my trusty .357 with me, i'll turn his head into a nice pink cloud. Or even if I only have a rock come to it. Or hell, even without a rock, it'll just take longer, that's all.
    So my point here is Kirk, and I'd like to make clear it's not "my" point so much as THE point…the logical, objective, truth, is that I have the right to offer my servicves OR NOT to whomever I damn wellplease. And I have the RIGHT to discriminate. As much as you have the right not to.
    You don't have to like it, but by virtue of the fact that we're all "created equal" if you refuse to give me the same rights as you demand for yourself, you're a hypocrite and also infringing on my rights, which after a certain point gives me the right to turn your head into a pink cloud. This is how wars start see? Due to a lack of objective logic.
    Any behaviour that is institutionalised by a government in effect becomes an abomination. If humans were evolved enough, laws would be seen for the travesty that they are. LOGIC is required to see the obvious truth of a situation, not laws. And I think only an unprincipled hypocrite would buy my blue widgets just because they are the best when I make it clear i don't like nr want to sell to _________insert whatever you want to label yourself as.
    I for one would rather go without blue widgets alltogether before buying one from someone that said he wants to force everyone to be baptised as a Xtian or converted to Islam. Say. For example. Fuck him and his blue widgets. I don't need them that bad that I have to compromise my integrity. Why do you feel you have to Kirk?

  16. G says:

    Yup.
    If we had to be incriminated for our thoughts I'm sure mine alone would be enough to get the death penalty reinstated. By the Dalai Lama.

  17. G says:

    Man..on your replies the absence of logic in your "argument" is becoming blatantly obvious. I'm gonna read the rest of them before I make a call on the "look reasonably intelligent" part of my original comment!
    The analogies used (starbucks and shoes) are perfectly reasonable. You seem to confuse emotional content with scale. They are different things. The fact you FEEL strongly about the rights of homosexuals doesn't make your "argument" better or more relevant. It's not about how you FEEL about anything Kirk. If intensity of feeling was measuarble, and a parameter by which arguments could be justly won, then i would be the emperor of this sorry-assed planet.
    So stop feeling hard-done by. Logic is the only sane answer. And logically you can no more force me to sell blue widgets to someone I don't want to sell it to than you can force starbucks to sell hamburgers. Besides, there may be some non-runners that feel strongly about their "right" to have non-running shoes available at a store that caters only to those bastard discriminating, evil runners.

  18. G says:

    Good one on the Rosa Parks analogy.
    Basically I am saying that if that was a private bus company they had the right to do that. And another bus company would have the right to say, here we let everyone use our bus. My contention is that we should have the freedom to choose what we want. It is also my belief (but as such really only an opinion so not that relevant) that over time, people who had the whites only bus would go out of business.
    Or if not at least would be a rather SMALL company. And on that score I think would be providing me a good service even though i didn't use their bus. Namely the fact that all the dick-heads would be travelling in that bus and so have less interaction with me. making for a more pleasant journey overall. See? Freedom makes everyone happier.

  19. G says:

    In this example is a logical fallacy.
    Hate alone, not acted on is worth zero time in any jail.
    Hate acted on consciously and premeditatedly at that deserves a fuckng hanging in some cases.
    Whilst hate with extenuating circumstances (such as the guy catching a guy raping his kid) should sometimes be worth nothing more than a small fine. Possibly. You know for re-painting the road where the carcass bled all over it.

  20. G says:

    One last one…didn't mean to hog your post with all the comments.
    Feel free to challenge me to a duel tho…or move it to my blog if it bugs you, or whatever.
    You know…feel free Kirk. Free! 🙂

  21. Kirk says:

    "I notice you avoided hitting reply… I'd say it was by nefarious design so as to prevent me from commenting further as I'd not be notified of your liberal stance…"No, it was just an oversight. In fact, I was wondering why you never bothered to return and had assumed you were just another strife-loving dickhead playing the drive-by devil's advocate. Turns out I was only half right.*looks at camera* To the kids watching at home: relax. G and I do this from time to time. I think this is how they do the male-bonding thing on his planet. It’s silly but ultimately harmless. Those of you in middle school can think of it as a slightly evolved form of slugging one another in the shoulder, where the bruising and pain have been replaced with ostentatious affronts and feigned indignation. This way, no one gets hurt and everyone has a chance to satisfy their latent ape-like tendencies.“I consider existing laws by people whom I did not elect, sign up to, agree with or even like, as being totally and utterly irrelevant…I strongly suggest you read the essay called Natural Law, by Lysander Spooner…”Ah yes, the great anarchist manifesto. As much as I admire the work, I swear Spooner was a robot.Look, I agree we must continually weigh our civil obedience against our personal ethics, but we still need laws. Anarchy would be fine as long as everyone was as virtuous as Spooner foolishly allowed for them to be, but you and I both know Spooner’s ideas are victim to the same dilemma as that which plagues socialism: basic human nature. People are too greedy for socialism to work and too selfish to abide by even the very first condition set forth in Natural Law. I could accept Spooner’s reasoning as The Absolute Way To Live if only everyone else could. Oh well.“As for your argument that I would have to accept the highest offer…”Fine. Whatever. That’s what I get for shooting my mouth off without doing research. I was, of course, referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1968, specifically the Fair Housing Act. You are correct that one is not directly required to take the highest offer and I rescind my ignorant claim. Consider the nit adequately picked.I could go on to reiterate my stance in another way, but there is clearly no point since you perceive me as unintelligent simply because I don’t reside in your fantasy world where everyone either unfailingly heeds the Golden Rule or suffers justified, violent retribution if they don’t.“Now we DO have to bring God into it (or Allah or the Universe, or Objective Truth, or whatever you wanna call it) because if we do NOT then you're shit out of luck Kirk, cause I can just take a club, come over there and bash your head in and your ‘view’ will not matter a jot.”An anarchist who believes ethics have to come from a higher power? Wow. You sure don’t see that every day!OK, I’ll bite: GOD IS DEAD! How interesting that Nietzsche’s assertion, though opposite of your own, leads to the very same conclusion: nihilism. He thought the lack of a moral basis would lead to the very head-bashing mentality you describe.To be fair, I originally thought you might be lumping objective empiricism in with completely improvable concepts such as God, but then I realized how silly I would look making such a liberal assumption (especially considering how I’m about to censure you for succumbing to a widespread stereotype).“That's cause we are NOT equal and I have a masterful ability to wield clubs compared to your wishy-washy, non-violent, equal rights ass.”Perhaps. Perhaps not. Hard to say, really, but the validity of your assumption is irrelevant anyway. I think your point about the metaphysical nature of equality (as we’re discussing it) is fairly uncontested. I seriously doubt anyone believes each person is born physically equal.“Any behaviour that is institutionalised by a government in effect becomes an abomination. If humans were evolved enough, laws would be seen for the travesty that they are.”The second sentence negates the first, G. You and I would totally be on the same page if people were as you and Spooner wished them to be, but in reality, they simply aren’t. Without widespread enlightenment, anarchy wouldn’t work any better then socialism or communism and you know it. Thus: laws.“I don't need them that bad that I have to compromise my integrity. Why do you feel you have to Kirk?”*sigh* I don’t. I was making a larger point about the nature of prejudice and the notion that giving in and succumbing to bigotry is akin to supporting it. You imply my demanding equal treatment from a merchant betrays my own integrity, but I say quietly allowing someone to discriminate against me is what truly betrays a lack of character.And just to touch on some other things you said in other comments…“The analogies used (starbucks and shoes) are perfectly reasonable. You seem to confuse emotional content with scale.”As far as I know, when it comes to ignorant persecution and discrimination, emotion has everything to do with it, whether it is with regard to the brand of the victim’s shoes or the gender of his partner. But that’s just another obfuscation of the main point here and I’m letting it go (although I do get it that you liken yourself the quintessential Vulcan).“Hate acted on consciously and premeditatedly…”…is precisely what I meant by “malice”. Glad we agree on something.“Feel free to challenge me to a duel tho…”Ha ha ha! Yeah, I guess if history has taught us anything, it’s that the natural step after so much impotent chest-thumping is for us to bludgeon each other with mastodon femurs.I hope we as a species will one day come realize that a civil society relies upon us rising above our animal nature and that it is not only acceptable but necessary to punish those who do not do the same. When bigotry is finally abandoned, this argument will become moot and Spooner will be able to rest in his grave comfortably. Sadly, outright discrimination being perceived as a God-given right will go a long way towards keeping us from reaching that lofty goal.

  22. G says:

    Hahahahah! Very good. I enjoyed your reply. Well thought out too.
    If you don't mind I'd like to respond (I'll cut out some of the detrius for the sake of both sanity and brevity).
    On Spooner, Anarchism and God: He most certainly was not robotic. If you research his life a bit I think you will find a rare form of humanity actually.
    As for your trying to put me in a box (along with Spooner?) with regard to God and my contention that in terms of "value" we have to assume a metaphysical view; I'd say quite simply that I think in broad strokes Nietzsche was a moron. I do not believe in morals. Morals change with time and place. In feudal Japan it would have been acceptable to challenge each other to a duel just because I don't like your face or something. Whilst that would work well for me and smokers, behading of idiot smokers is frowned upon today in the UK. Go figure. Anyway, morals are irrelevant to me. Ethics is something else and in my opinion they are the physics of the human conditions. Ethics have been the same pretty much from the beginning of human life to now. if they change the change is so small and gradual it might not be noticeable in one human life.
    You seem to be implying that we need laws to impose a minimum of ethics on people. Indeed, sadly the average human would probably eat his neighbour alive if left to their own devices, and my growing up in Africa if anything has given me ample evidence of this fact.
    In terms of laws I am not saying we don't need any. I object to being subject to laws I never signed up to though. It would not take long to draw up a comprehensive set of "rules" that people can volountarily sign up to. In fact I toy with the idea from time to time of creating my own city-state somewhere….one day…if I don't find my spaceship soon…
    What I am saying is that things being as they are now, personally I opt out. and personally, if one needs to know, I would point them to Natural Law as being the closest thing to what I would volountarily sign up to.
    Spooner does not prevent people from setting up laws, justice systems etc etc. In fact quite the opposite. His contention though is that people should only be subject to authority they volountarily choose to be subject to.
    Can't fault the logic there. You also seem to assume that Spooner (or me) are in favour of wild anarchy. That is wrong on two counts. In the first instance, the brand of individual anarchy Spooner espoused (and which I concur greatly with) is not "wild" per se. Quite the contrary. It holds that every person is fully accountable for ALL their behaviours. In this regard….the coming forced honesty (one of my recent posts) is to be seen as a good thing. In the second instance, it is a fact, noted both by Spooner and at least somewhat admitted even by myself that regardless of so called brain-washing, stupidity-enhancing LAWS, human beings, left to their own devices on a desert island, unless subject to some abnormal survival pressures beyond the natural world, tend to organise themselves in quite similar ways concerning matters of property and justice.
    This is because there is something intrinsic in us that goes beyond mere club-wielding. this is an important point (whcih I will return to in a minute)
    Unfortunately it is lost, because what invariably happens, as Spooner so clearly identifies is that in a gathering of humans, some have no skill other than violence, and these use that skill to obtain what they want. Eventually they organise themselves and then call themselves government. So in effect we are "ruled" by and have "laws" imposed on us by the "worst" element of humanity. Which is why progress is slow.
    Given this situation an ability to DO violence is almost a default requirement if you want to live your own way as free as possible. And I can tell you now that it has served me well more than once and it's a good thing. Few things in life are more satisfying than the look on a "person of authority"'s face when they realise…uh…oh…actually…it's just me and him here and…no real witnesses and this guy doesn't give a shit about my supposed authority….oh fuck…. then you see how "true" their "convictions" are.

    But to return to the original point (and Nietzsche) the fact is that free of all the brain-washing bullshit, a higher power that instills ethics exists. It is more clearly evident if you first throw out the bullshit (human laws, human religions, human "morals") once you clear your head of all that crap, you suddenly find hey…actually….there is little that is difficult to figure out in terms of justice when it comes to dealing with other people and property. it's all pretty simple. The most difficult thing to deal with would proaly be concepts relating to intellectual property and copyrights (and that itself may just be due to a skewing of our brains by centuries of bullshit concepts, so it's hard to tell at the moment).

    There would be no question that if John wants to bum Jim and leave him all his worldly possessions when he dies, as long as both John and jim are happy with it, it's no-one's right to interfere in any way. Just as it's no question that if John wants to forcibly bum Jim, even after being specifically told Jim does not fancy that sort of thing, that Jim, whilst being assaulted for a forced bumming has the right to shoot John's head right off.
    As to your contention that we are too unevolved to live according to Natural Law, I say to you that people live according to whatever level of ethics they have discovered and evolved in themselves BY themselves. That is…if you have come to the conclusion that rape, murder and theft are wrong, the fact is you will not rape, murder or steal pretty much ever again. And not because you risk a jail sentence if you do, but just because you feel within yourself "not right" to do any such thing. So I say to you Kirk that people already DO live according to Natural Law. The fact over 99.9% of humanity is subject to the will of a violent few despots is just unfortunate. But I assure you, I DO live according to natural law. And so do you. The only difference betwen us my friend is that you seem to me to be a bit more brainwashed than I am and if cornered by a cop in a dark alley with no witnesses and the cop told you that riding your bike without a helmet was an offence and you had to be fined $100 on the spot for this infraction of the law, you would probably cough it up, whilst in my case it may be the cop that goes home $100 lighter. Because wearing a helmet or not is up to me. So trying to make me "pay" $100 for it is essentially armed robbery. If there are no witnesses, that cop better be fast on his gun…or else he's going home bruised and possibly naked too, just to give him time to ponder his calling in life. If there are witnesses I may pay the $100, but it would be clear in my mind I was mugged.

    As for your final comment, you are wrong that Spooner would argue against bigotry in the example you chose. Spooner was an abolitionist, rightly so as slavery is just a clearer example of the enslavement most of us are subject to if we inhabit a country with a government, but he also recognised the rights of individuals to associate, do business, or communicate, OR NOT with whomever they pleased.
    Sorry Kirk, but there is NO inalianable right that can or should force me to like X. Whatever X is. Nor should there be. If I chose to have nothing to do with blue-eyed people under 6 feet of height, then it's tough shit. So be it. I will not even speak to them if I don't want to and there isn't a damn thing you can or should ever be able to do about it. It's as anathema as the idea that it should be "ok" for me to come into your home and take a dump in your lounge. Well you know…I needed to relieve myself and I didn't want to discriminate against toilets is just not good enough of a reason.

  23. G says:

    Not sure why it posted twice….just wanted to remind you you didn't hit reply this time either….it's starting to look very suspicious Kirk.
    make that UGLY and suspicious.
    heheheh

  24. Kirk says:

    "Not sure why it posted twice"Second one now deleted…"…just wanted to remind you you didn't hit reply this time either…" Actually, I DID hit reply that last time. VOX just has a very dry sense of humor.Anyway, I just got in to the office and will have to wait until I get a break to check out your most recent comment. If there's another reply snafu, just head back over around after High Tea.

  25. G says:

    High Tea…hahahahahah

  26. Kirk says:

    Well, fortunately I don't have a lot of response to what you've said (or maybe I do, we'll see). You make your points very clearly and it would seem we agree, for the most part, with the main point of divergence being that I feel government should be allowed to uphold certain inalienable truths so long as it is properly checked, whereas you have absolutely no faith in government at all. In other words, I see government as a necessary evil and you simply see it as evil. I think that's the basic sitch, anyway."In feudal Japan it would have been acceptable to challenge each other
    to a duel just because I don't like your face or something."The idea of such liberation is nice, but the extreme example reveals a flaw. To desire combat for such an inane reason is decidedly uncivilized. The result, then, (however illusory) of this example is that you desire the freedom to be a shallow, antagonistic bully if such a lifestyle is your cup o' tea. Based on what I know of mankind, that promises a future ruled by the most aggressive and cruelest of people.Oh, wait… we already have that…So, I guess what it comes down to is this: I don't trust most individuals to play nice and (probably naively) wish for a body of clear-thinking individuals who would champion the causes of the weak and downtrodden. I do not want government to tell me what to eat or whom to marry or what I can or can't do to my own body; I do want government to ensure that every single person posseses the same rights and protections and has access to the basic necessities of life, including freedom from persecution and discrimination.If I'm to use my own extreme example, I might mention pharmaceuticals. I take a very specific medication everyday for an incurable disorder I was born with. The drug is not available as a generic. What would a guy like me do if the company that created my medication decided it would not supply those pharmacies that served, say, advertising designers. Their reasons are immaterial; they just don't like people in my line of work. What then? I can't get my meds anywhere else, so does it come down to me having to invent my own meds or buy them on the black market if I want relief from my ailment? What if their decision to distribute the drug selectively effectively becomes a decision to allow death? And what if it were someone you loved who was being discriminated against in such a manner? Would you then say to your loved one, "Well, it's their right to let you die, dear heart, since they invented the chemical and you didn't."? Somehow I doubt it. Knowing what I know about you, I suspect you'd be getting those meds or dying in the attempt. And would that really be the best-case scenario? I'm not so sure."…if you have come to the conclusion that rape, murder and theft are
    wrong, the fact is you will not rape, murder or steal pretty much ever
    again… just
    because you feel within yourself "not right" to do any such thing. So I
    say to you Kirk that people already DO live according to Natural Law.
    The fact over 99.9% of humanity is subject to the will of a violent few
    despots is just unfortunate."This is an excellent point and one I can completely appreciate. You are right that I do not fear hell and that I simply act according to what I know is right. Spooner and I are certainly of the same mind regarding personal ethics; I'm afraid, however, that I'm not as optimistic regarding the ratio of virtuous people to despicable ones. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic to be an anarchist, or maybe I just fail to see the benefit in allowing people to actively nurture the basest aspects of being human."Sorry Kirk, but there is NO inalianable right that can or should force me to like X."No, there isn't, but if X is another person, I feel you should have to treat X fairly. I don't care if you like the person, but to my mind, discrimination is flat wrong and has no place in a civilized society. I'm afraid I'll never change my mind on that.For the record, I have triple-verified that the "reply" box is checked. Don't blame me if it doesn't work. Here goes nothin'.

  27. G says:

    You know, despite you being a tree-hugging Vegan type and me being closer to a gun-wielding red-neck I'm starting to like you more due to the fact you are willing to engage your brain. It's a rare trait on your planet so thanks for that.
    On reading your comments I think Ihave actually learnt what a MAJOR part of my disconnect with humans is. So thanks for that too. Let me see if I can try to verbalise it in a way that makes sense and maybe you'll learn something useful as well. Though I have to say, this realisation really does make me feel like I really must be from Mars. I function kinesthetically first so I may ramble before i get this out cogently, but I hope not, because I think it's an important point.
    One of the base differences here is that you see "being an anarchist" or a "this" or a "that" as a kind of ideal. You also see it as a box and "preferred theory of life". I do no such thing. I refer to Lysander because his is the most cogent explanation for the way I LIVE my life. Spooner's views align with my own to a surprisingly high degree. At least all the ones I read so far do to pretty much almost 100% incidence. That is why I refer to him when discussing things with others. he did a far better job than I would at explaining the WHY of how he did or thought or acted. For me the logic is obvious, it is clear. I have long ago realised that to most humans the logic is not even a factor. Most are completely unaware of their motives. they "do" or "believe" or "act" in this or that way because it is "the right thing" to do according to government or "society" or this or that crappy idea that was brainwashed into them from a young age and hardly ever question themselves or (and this is the fundamental difference) check their ideas against reality!!
    It astonishes the fuck out of me on a regular basis.
    See in reading your reply it became clearer to me when you say:

    "I'm afraid, however, that I'm not as optimistic regarding the ratio of virtuous people to despicable ones. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic to be an anarchist, or maybe I just fail to see the benefit in allowing people to actively nurture the basest aspects of being human"

    That…from my point of view, your thinking is foggy. You seem to think if people lived according to Spooner's view of things the "overall organisation" of stuff would collapse.
    The point is that Spooner was describing reality mostly. We are light-years away from living in a "spooner world". Mostly because the average human cannot even fucking read spooner's ideas and actually understand them.
    My point is, like you recognise yourself, that we live in a world ruled by might. In such a world, first of all learn to defend yourself in the most successful way…that is…violence works. You might not like it, but it's a fact.
    Allow me to elucidate a bit more. With reference to your pharmaceutical example, the fact is Kirk, we ALREADY live in that world which you described as being some tragic kind of dystopian "future". It's isn't out there. It's here already Kirk. You're just too hoodwinked, brainwashed, or stupefyed (by the prozac in the tap water?) to realise it. Millions of people around the world die for precisely the points you have made. Whilst the driving factor is not necessarily the hatred of graphic artists like yourself, the fact reamins that life-saving drugs and indeed just basic stuff like food and water ARE kept from millions not because of some objective imperative like weather or lack of resources, but precisely for purely artificial, human ego type of reasons.
    We DO live in this dystopia reality. And by buying into any part of it, you essentially help perpetrate it. You say you are "pessimistic", but the reality is you are not pessimistic enough. As you yourself know deep down as is evidenced by your suspicion that you're being naive, the idea of a benevolent government that looks after the weak is a ridiculous utopia never seen on this planet yet as far as I am aware.
    And it's not that "people are evil". It's worse than that. People are fucking STUPID! And stupid is way worse than evil. Stupid is TRUE evil. Smart evil is either utterly insane (think serial killer sadistic freak smart enough not to get caught) or not actually all that evil. Because "smart evil" (that is a self-serving intelligent person) will end up acting like a good person. Unfortunately this planet is populated by stupid self-serving people. A few more active unscrupulous also stupid people herd them into sheep pens and fleece them. Intellectually we are in the dark ages of mankind. We have enough technology and enough practical practice at using our cerebellum that we should and we COULD be doing a LOT better than this. But like in the dark ages, we spend our time burning witches and casting out demons and raping and pillaging like the fucked up, inbred, virulent form of flying monkeys we are.
    As for your "discrimination is plain wrong" statement, again, you are mistaken.
    Let me tell you a secret about your brain. The only reason it works is because itnotices differences. It's why you wear your shoes on your feet and not on your head. At a basic level if you are alive you are a racist, a sexist, and you discriminate a million times a day against everyone that is not you. And even some of it that IS you.
    Beyond that basic level, you Kirk are STILL discriminating. At least I fucking hope so, otherwise you're insane. I personally would discriminate with extreme prejudice against child molesters. But not just them. I also dislike intensely liers. Also people whose face I just don't like because they look particularly stupid. that's right, a shady looking arab on the side of a Cairo road trying to sell me "top-quality" silk garments? Don't like his sorry ass. Smokers. Fucking hate them. We should honestly be allowed to smack smokers in the head at will. It would soon cure them of their disgusting practice of poisoning other people's lungs. And I very much DO discriminate. I am having a party at my place in 10 days or so…and guess what…I didn't invite any of the people I don't like. And the ones I do like, if they wanna smoke at my place, they have to go outside, in the cold. And then we leave them there extra-long to "air them out" so they don't stink of smoke when they are (possibly) eventually allowed back in.
    And I just KNOW you discriminate too Kirk. Are you telling me if the KKK came to you and asked you to please design for them a nice little logo showing a black man nailed to an upside down burning cross you would say "who-hey, no problem, what size do you what that baby in? And it'll be $29.99 thanks." Somehow I don't think so.

    As for your example regarding me and the pharmaceuticals, of course i would get them or die trying. That's the point. they may well have the right to not sell it to me. But I have the right to get Joe-bob to buy it for me and give it to me. Or bribe the local water supply chief/owner to just not sell tehm any more water. Ever. Or you know, until I get my medicines. And that's just the LEGAL stuff. But when it comes to people I care about, if dealing with STUPID people, there comes a point where their right to life falls below the right to life of the people I care about. At which point, I WILL break the law. (And I mean here Natural Law, not crappy human laws) And if caught, I WILL suffer the consequences. You never heard me say I'm a saint or anything did you?

    So yeah, I think we basically agree except you seem to have this idea that some big "parent in the sky" type should ensure life is fair for everyone. There's no such thing. So it's more useful if you, as Spooner says (and as he means it) "Live honestly".

  28. Kirk says:

    Hey! You're not being fair at all! I DO eat meat, Fluoxetine hydrochloride is available as generic, and I wouldn't touch anyone's logo design project for less than $200. :-PAs usual, the non-pithy version will have to be composed when I am not actively sucking wages out of my employer…

  29. Kirk says:

    "…brainwashed into them from a young age…" Hard, deliberative work was required for me to rid myself of the many flaws I gained growing up in an oppresively conservative, uncompromisingly religious environment. I consider my escape from those dogmatic shackles to be one of my most impressive victories. I no longer live my life afraid of things that cannot be proven and I feel no compulsion to explain myself to the various hypocrites who dare to darken my doorstep."At a basic level if you are alive you are a racist, a sexist, and you discriminate a million times a day…"True, true. I suppose there is no well-defined line that can be drawn, but I think we both know that child-molestation and being ugly are vastly different, the most obvious deviation being one is a choice and the other is not. Moreover, child molestation is unquestionably wrong; being ugly is in no way unethical. I realize this is irrelevant to your overall point, but I think you've already surmised that I'm unwilling to look at this as generically as you. We're clever enough to ascertain whether our discrimination is ethically warranted and you'd have to be a real shithead to hate on people just because they have poor bone structure or a hairlip."…we ALREADY live in that world which you described as being some tragic
    kind of dystopian "future". It's isn't out there. It's here already
    Kirk. You're just too hoodwinked, brainwashed, or stupefyed to realise it."Oh, come on. I know scenarios far worse than that play out daily all over the world. It was just an example for the sake of illustration (and it worked, too, by the way)."…that is…violence works. You might not like it, but it's a fact."Facts are not independent of ethics. Lots of unethical methods work; it doesn't make them right or proper. But my having studied martial arts for 20+ years should indicate that I'm not entirely in the dark when it comes to the necessity of carrying a big stick. I just think violence is the go-to tactic for apes and idiots. What we're doing here serves a far greater purpose.I'ma stop now. I think we've pretty much mashed this topic into a fine powder. We could reconstitute it and go at it again, but all we'll be doing at that point is making a bigger mess of the place. And let's face it: I don't keep a very clean blog to begin with. I can't afford a maid and unlike you extraterrestrials, we humans have (more or less) outlawed slavery and have yet to perfect our pod-assisted body-snatching methods.

  30. G says:

    I still call VEGAN on you though.
    And oh yeah…I WIN!
    Just had to be done…..

  31. Steve B says:

    Don't know if you'll read this given how old the post is, but I have to say there is an important difference between refusing to serve someone who comes into your store because they are gay, and failing to provide goods in your store that would appeal to the gay community.
    If I open a store designed to appeal to cross dressers, say with dresses or lingerie in men's sizes or whatever, but refuse to see the dresses to a manish woman who is simply THRILLED to finally be able to find stuff in her size, then that is discrimination.
    What happens if a ritzy clothing store refuses to let a man try on one of their ball gowns? Is it discrimination? Probably. Can the man still take the dress up to the counter and buy it? Sure can.
    But walking into the same store and crying discrimination because they don't carry dresses in men's sizes like the OTHER store does, is just flat spurious and wrong. A private business should not be required to provide ADDITIONAL services or products to a special interest group just because it feels good to somebody, when that same aggrieved minority groups can still purchase whatever goods or services are available if they choose to. The starbucks/hamburger analogy is kind of apropo.
    If the dating service in question was the only one available, and/or it was required by law that you use a dating service to obtain companionship, and homosexuals were then excluded, then yes, that would clearly be discrimination.
    Because a private business or person makes a choice not to provide services inconsistence with their business model, especially when those services are already available somewhere else, I don't see it as discrimination. Merely targeted marketing.

  32. Kirk says:

    "I have to say there is an important difference between refusing to serve someone who comes into your store because they are gay, and failing to provide goods in your store that would appeal to the gay community… A private business should not be required to provide ADDITIONAL services or products… The starbucks/hamburger analogy is kind of apropo…"This notion — that putting two like-minded people together is a staggeringly varied science depending on the penis-to-vagina ratio — keeps popping up. I suppose we could argue all day about whether hooking up a man and a woman is categorically different than hooking up two men or two women, but matchmaking isn't exactly cutting-edge psychology, so to my mind, the product was "dating service" and eHarmony discriminated by not offering it to gays.We can dance around the point of my earlier comment all we want, but the fact is we're talking about religiously driven discrimination disguised as a business methodology. The fact they've managed to cloud the water enough to give their inequity the illusion of being a Constitutional right doesn't fool me (nor does their appeasement of adding a separate site for gays).

  33. Steve B says:

    So, why does the gay man or woman want to be included in the Christian singles eHarmony site? Of what are they being deprived?
    Essentially you are saying that it is illegal and unconstitutional discrimination for an internet dating site to limit the pool of available candidates to hetrosexuals?! I guess I just don't see that. Maybe I need to work on my defintion of discrimination.
    I don't think it's a question of the relative difficulty of matching the right pitchers with the right catchers, or the P to V ratio.
    My point was that eHarmony offered a service, one which was in effect "available" to gays, but one which gays (one would think) would not be disposed to avail themselves. Why would a gay man or woman want a membership on a dating site catering mostly to religious hetrosexuals?
    There is a tendency to want to paint this as noble idealists tearing down walls Rosa Parks style. The other view is that it is nothing more than partisan political activism thinly disguised as a cry for equality, playing on society's institutionalized over-sensitivity to the "plight" of gays.
    Again, if the gay community were somehow excluded from establishing a similar site, or consitutionally unable to create it themselves, there might be merit. However, given the number of gay men and women in the creative and technical fields, I find it deeply suspect that the WorldWideWeb couldn't be brought to heel.
    I personally think that the eHarmony thing wasn't so much about fighting injustice and righting a wrong, as it was about poking a christiany organization in the eye by a group which has traditionally stood at odds with that particular demographic.

  34. Kirk says:

    Essentially you are saying that it is illegal and unconstitutional
    discrimination for an internet dating site to limit the pool of
    available candidates to hetrosexuals?!Exactly. Is it wrong for McDonald's to limit the pool of available burgers to whites? Yes. Can Starbucks claim they don't have enough coffee to serve anyone but men? No. So why is opening your dating service to only heterosexuals OK?I'll tell you. Because homosexuality isn't seen as protected the way race, gender, and religion are. Later in your comment you chose to put quotes around the word plight. That could be taken as an implication that homosexual discrimination is illusory — a notion that reinforces my point. It's hard to solve a problem if you can't see it.I personally think that the eHarmony thing wasn't so much about
    fighting injustice and righting a wrong, as it was about poking a
    christiany organization in the eye by a group which has traditionally
    stood at odds with that particular demographic. It could also be successfully argued that eHarmony's original choice to exclude gays was where the eye-poking began. Because until they found themselves in legal trouble, eHarmony did nothing to suppress the claims they were anti-gay. But then they end up in front of a judge and suddenly decide to settle, but we're expected to deduce their intentions were in no way discriminatory and that they were just being good, loving Christians through the whole thing? Come on.To be honest, I have no idea why McKinley would want to associate with them at all and I suspect he gets his dating help elsewhere. It's like when a person is wrongly fired: they might sue on priniciple and hope for a cash settlement, but they certainly don't want their old job back.

  35. Steve B says:

    "Is it wrong for McDonald's to limit the pool of available burgers to whites? "
    This analogy simply does not hold up in comparison. It is much closer to state that "McDonalds limits the pool of available hamburgers to carnivores." Failing to provide vegetarian meals (if they did so) does not discriminiate against vegetarians, it merely deprives McDonalds of business from them. And if McDonalds decides that their business model can survive the lack of patronage from Vegans, then how is it discriminatory if chose not to provide soy burgers?
    If Starbucks didn't offer soy milk for their latte's, they simply wouldn't get my business in favor of someone who does. Again, it is not discriminating against the lactose intolerant, it just means that it's a stupid business decision that deprives them (Starbucks) of a market share.
    No, I don't see the same relationship wrt discrimination when dealing with race vs. gender issues. Especially when so much of the current progressive legislation requiring equal treatment includes those who "self-identify" their gender, regardless of their physical construction. I can't decide that I'm really a black man born in a white body, and then claim minority status, can I?
    I fully support homosexuals being treated equally in the market place wrt housing, employment, government services, etc.. I do NOT, however, think that they should receive any kind of "special rights" or affirmitive action kind of stuff. Of course, I don't agree with Affirmitve Action in the first place, so…
    If a group demands equal rights, then they can only claim those rights and priviledges already available to anyone else. Not preferential treatment. That is not "equality," it is its own kind of priviledged status.
    And I guess I just don't see how denying them access to a dating service (services which you readily admit are available elsewhere) rises to the level of discrimination. A poor business decision, perhaps. And yes, maybe even offensive or hurtful to the group in question. But not illegal. {{shrug}}

  36. Kirk says:

    Fair enough. It wouldn't be the first time I came to a stalemate on such issues. 🙂 You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who respectfully disagrees with me.It's true I can't speak to its actual
    legality, but considering such a vocally "Christian" company like eHarm
    so readily sold out their religious beliefs and agreed to cater to
    those awful sinning homosexuals rather than fight a legal battle to the end, all I see is dogmatic
    discrimination by savvy wolves clothed in fine white fleece who knew when to cut their losses.

  37. Steve B says:

    I'm certainly willing to admit the possibility that the eH folks were doing a little bit of poking themselves, and very likely intentionally excluded homosexuals on moral principles as much as business process. And they got poke back harder for it. I'm not even saying that it's right, merely that I don't see it as illegal discrimination, and that a dating service should have the freedom to determine its target clientele. Whatevah.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s