tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post7376910578055212676..comments2024-03-28T00:32:20.743-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: More Jokers...Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-22085840437224443032013-06-20T19:27:58.250-07:002013-06-20T19:27:58.250-07:00lol.. you never have.
lol.. you never have.<br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-66896098859978504272013-06-19T10:29:45.683-07:002013-06-19T10:29:45.683-07:00lol.. you "thought"lol.. you "thought"Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-70731106445778522202013-06-19T05:03:15.645-07:002013-06-19T05:03:15.645-07:00Just as I thought and feared. Parklife has nothin...Just as I thought and feared. Parklife has nothing to say.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-63011294336632079762013-06-18T12:30:53.242-07:002013-06-18T12:30:53.242-07:00Marshall.. Im pretty sure you won a long time ago....Marshall.. Im pretty sure you won a long time ago. But, this has to be the end. Right?Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81977643749965122572013-06-17T19:37:45.078-07:002013-06-17T19:37:45.078-07:00Perhaps, Parklife, you could point out exactly whe...Perhaps, Parklife, you could point out exactly where you see the game won and by whom. Do you even know how the quote of mine you highlighted fits in to the discussion? Please enlighten.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-45419569206263608932013-06-17T09:10:19.865-07:002013-06-17T09:10:19.865-07:00"even regardless of what SCOTUS says at the m..."even regardless of what SCOTUS says at the moment."<br /><br />lol.. Game... Set.. Match.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46805967719394422792013-06-15T16:30:17.538-07:002013-06-15T16:30:17.538-07:00I typed the following and never hit the publish bu...I typed the following and never hit the publish button. In the meantime, Bubba published his comments that cover similar territory.<br />--------------------------------------<br /><br />First off boys, "word salad" is Geoffrey-speak for, "I can't counter your clear and sensible comment, so I'll pretend it makes no sense." Alan does the same by declining any attempt to "decipher" what needs no scientist to explain. Simply put, for you intellectuals apparently need things simply put, my last was meant to define the terms I was using and then to distinguish them from other common usages. As my explanation clearly shows, I used public in reference to gov't run entities, and private for anything not run by the government, but by private individuals or groups of same. Then, I distinguished this from ownership, as private corporations do not sell stock to the general public for generating investment capital. Publicly traded corps. do. <br /><br />If either of you wish to cement your pretense of honesty and tolerance, simply asking for clarifications would serve you better. <br /><br />As to the rest, like so many others on your side of the divide, you seem to think that what is established in law settles any question for all time. If this were so, we'd still have alcohol banned, slavery intact and Japanese interred. <br /><br />But the issue is not what the law says, but whether what the law says is just and in line with the Constitution. Public accommodation policies and civil rights laws have been horribly abused for quite some time. Laws that force people to run their businesses in a manner that conflicts with their right to religious expression are unjust and un-Constitutional, even regardless of what SCOTUS says at the moment.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-10784932984913179942013-06-14T14:31:41.336-07:002013-06-14T14:31:41.336-07:00tl;dr
I'm sure it was fascinating though.tl;dr<br /><br />I'm sure it was fascinating though.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-9024927477196227662013-06-14T07:49:05.419-07:002013-06-14T07:49:05.419-07:00The Constitution permits Congress only to regulate...The Constitution permits Congress only to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, and the equal protection of the law does not ensure equal access to private institutions.<br /><br />"The public through its elected representatives at all levels has insisted on these regulations in order to ensure that business is done ethically and in the public interest."<br /><br />Ethical business practices can be ensured simply by enforcing contract law and the prohibition of crimes such as fraud, theft, assault, property damage and intimidation. <br /><br />And it's not necessary that every business be run in the public interest: it's not anyone else's business if no greater cause is served by my work, so long as my customers are happy and no one else is harmed.<br /><br />It's largely unnecessary for "the public" to make its will known through regulations, since "the public" can make its will known through its buying behavior and purchasing power. Supply and demand is usually a sufficient -- and EFFECIENT -- reflection of public will, and regulation is invariably an attempt to short-circuit those market forces.<br /><br />After all, if "the public" in NYC really didn't want Big Gulps, Nanny Bloomberg wouldn't have to regulate them out of existence: everyone would simply avoid buying them, and stores wouldn't be able to afford to offer them for long.<br /><br />And notice I mention "everyone." That's the beauty of the free market, that it does allow room for minority opinion. There are individuals who would want to go to a bar that permits smoking and entrepreneurs who would want to cater to smokers at the expense of turning off everybody else.<br /><br />The regulatory model imposes the ruling elite's Vision of the Good Life on everybody else.<br /><br />And the argument for the regulatory model is based, in part, on the logical fallacy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation" rel="nofollow">equivocation,</a> of playing games with multiple meanings for the same word.<br /><br />The word in question is "public."<br /><br />"Do you know of businesses that are owned by people who only sell their goods or services to the people who own that business? Because otherwise, they serve the public."<br /><br />A business that thus "serve[s] the public" is <b>STILL</b> a private institution because it is privately owned.<br /><br />It is part of the <a href="http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/private-sector#private-sector_1" rel="nofollow">private sector</a> of the economy, which "consists of privately owned enterprises" rather than the <a href="http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/public-sector#public-sector_1" rel="nofollow">public sector</a> of "state-owned institutions, including nationalized industries and services provided by local authorities."<br /><br />Do some here deny the legitimacy of the private sector of an economy? They should be more honest, then, about their belief in a command economy, where all economic institutions are ultimately agents of the state even if they are privately owned in a nominal sense.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-77098569646775913872013-06-12T10:18:34.482-07:002013-06-12T10:18:34.482-07:00I'm not going to try to decipher whatever it i...I'm not going to try to decipher whatever it is that MA is attempting to say. But I think the difficulty lies between what he wishes was the case (businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone, and no law is constitutional that infringes on that right) and reality (as Geoffrey pointed out, the constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce and the 14th Amendment offers equal protection.)<br /><br />I wish we had hover boards, moon bases, and a decent toaster that toasts evenly on both sides, but I don't confuse my wishes with reality.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53880630783286556822013-06-12T04:47:34.085-07:002013-06-12T04:47:34.085-07:00Art, that same Constitution says that Congress has...Art, that same Constitution says that Congress has the power "to regulate oommerce". Your local municipality can determine through zoning where your business can and cannot be conducted. It can even decide whether or not you can conduct business at all, by denying you a license.<br /><br />I could go on, but this idea that being in business is some magical zone free from public concern is both ridiculous and impractical. Before you even open your doors, the state has a whole series of demands that are both sensible and necessary.<br /><br />Because you are serving the public, as Alan has said. The public through its elected representatives at all levels has insisted on these regulations in order to ensure that business is done ethically and in the public interest. I'm not sure what your word salad in your last comment means. As usual, I'm pretty sure you don't either.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-6002297138255029222013-06-11T20:22:06.711-07:002013-06-11T20:22:06.711-07:00Then, Alan, like Dan, you don't understand the...Then, Alan, like Dan, you don't understand the concept of public and private. Just because I deal with the public as I go about my life doesn't mean I'm a public figure. Just because I run a business that sells to the public doesn't mean I'm a public business. Thus, my mention of gov't in the previous comment was to distinguish between that which is private and that which is public. This shows that I don't have "knee jerk" responses, but responses appropriate for the comments that provoke them. <br /><br />Now, this is not to be confused with the distinction between private business and public business, the difference being whether or not the shares of stock are offered to the general public (the latter business). But both are still private in the sense that they are part of the private sector, which is us, as opposed to the public sector, which is the gov't. <br /><br />Both privately held AND publicly traded businesses might deal with the public from which they acquire their customers, but they are both private in the sense of being part of the private sector and not subject to the restrictions and prohibitions aimed at government by the Constitution (based on the intent of the authors).<br /><br />Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-58784995432239219692013-06-11T11:01:24.305-07:002013-06-11T11:01:24.305-07:00I know, MA, that your kneejerk response to everyth...I know, MA, that your kneejerk response to everything is "Dadgum Gubmint Bad!!" But no one here has mentioned "The Government" about anything here at all.<br /><br />A business sells stuff to the public. Public. You know, other people.<br /><br />Do you know of businesses that are owned by people who only sell their goods or services to the people who own that business? Because otherwise, they serve the public.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14671379283085786832013-06-10T21:24:10.150-07:002013-06-10T21:24:10.150-07:00A business, by definition, is not a gov't enti...A business, by definition, is not a gov't entity, but a private enterprise.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-1293527447211538732013-06-10T09:35:23.876-07:002013-06-10T09:35:23.876-07:00Well now, to be fair, there ARE those business own...Well now, to be fair, there ARE those business owners that only sell to themselves. What's that word for them?<br /><br />Oh yeah, Outof, as in Outof Businesses.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-11029313465996059422013-06-10T09:33:34.326-07:002013-06-10T09:33:34.326-07:00A business is not, by definition, private. A business is not, by definition, private. Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-89892191766915745112013-06-08T16:47:48.594-07:002013-06-08T16:47:48.594-07:00Alan,
I do not believe what you said is in the Co...Alan,<br /><br />I do not believe what you said is in the Constitution. That is, we do indeed have freedom of association, but that right is not enforced if a business is forced to serve anyone, anytime regardless of their known intentions. I would say that it is more accurate to say that there is no restriction on the right of a private enterprise of any kind to discriminate in the Constitution, but that laws and/or SCOTUS decisions may have mandated such a thing contrary to Constitutional intent.<br /><br />That's the thing about the Constitution: it was intended to restrict the federal gov't, not the people.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-67000460872210255362013-06-08T09:44:34.987-07:002013-06-08T09:44:34.987-07:00The difference, MA, between the Boy Scouts and a b...The difference, MA, between the Boy Scouts and a business is that we are guaranteed freedom of association in the Constitution. There is no right for a business to discriminate. You may think there should be such a right, but it does not exist.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-35265606998582644612013-06-07T22:37:09.607-07:002013-06-07T22:37:09.607-07:00Alan's understanding of the BSA situation matc...Alan's understanding of the BSA situation matches mine. The irony here is that the issue relates well to a previous post regarding so-called discrimination by business owners. This BSA issue is really no different because it is not a public institution, or more precisely, a gov't based organization. Neither is a business. Because it is private, it is within its rights to "discriminate" as it sees fit. <br /><br />And just like the private business owners previously discussed, this BSA issue is one of behaviors more than some unchangeable characteristic. What was likely a position that was of the "taken it for granted" variety has been forced upon them by virtue of those who self-identify as homosexual demanding acceptance. I don't believe that, like most Christian churches, it is a matter of self-identifying, but a matter of what they think about the identity. Is it something they themselves reject or hope to live out? How could the BSA possibly know for sure and without such knowledge, how could they refuse a kid who identifies in this way? Take any other negative behavior and the BSA would stand firmly. But with this behavior, cultural pressure has caused many to cave. This is complicated by the fact that it revolves around kids. What a nightmare for the BSA!Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-16025045893858621182013-06-07T19:34:58.671-07:002013-06-07T19:34:58.671-07:00Alan,
Thanks for the answers, I appreciate your t...Alan,<br /><br />Thanks for the answers, I appreciate your thoughts on this.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-9858922565261274712013-06-07T17:06:04.327-07:002013-06-07T17:06:04.327-07:00(I would point out that the courts did not "f...(I would point out that the courts did not "force" the BSA to change their rules, they changed their rules of their own accord. And, as their rules still do not allow gay scoutmasters, it was only striaght people who head up the organization who made the decision to allow LGBT scouts.)Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14001695382671670722013-06-07T16:39:57.938-07:002013-06-07T16:39:57.938-07:00Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don...Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a problem with people seeking redress in the courts if they feel that they have been illegally harmed. Doesn't mean the courts have to agree with them.<br /><br />As I've read more about these issues, one of the problems is where the line between public and private gets drawn and it seems (from my limited reading) that the line is murkey. For example, The Boys and Girls Clubs used to be The Boys Clubs, but the courts ruled that it wasn't a private enough organization to be allowed to descriminate, and thus they had to allow girls. <br /><br />Somehow, the BSA is "more private" than the Boys and Girls clubs, so in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be forced to allow LGBT scoutmasters.<br /><br />The Wikipedia article on BSA v. Dale is pretty useful in describing the court's ruling about such associations.<br /><br />In general, the more restrictions a private group places on membership, the less likely it is to be found to be a public accomodation. This is why, for example, LGBT people cannot sue to have a denomination ordain them, or sue because a church refuses to marry a same sex couple (regardless of the hysterical rhetoric from the chicken-littles among us.)<br /><br />But if an association is worthwhile (and I don't think any of us here would argue that the BSA is not) why would we be surprised that some people would want to join, that the group itself may want to exclude? And why would we be surprised that those people, who want to enjoy the benefits of that worthwhile association, might turn to the courts?<br /><br />Personally, I'm more of a "change from inside" kinda guy anyway as I think getting the group or association (or denomination, *ahem*) to change its own rules is much more effective than having them be forced by the courts (if such a thing were possible, which the above cases demonstrate that it usually isn't.)Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-19682787355311959472013-06-07T15:43:52.145-07:002013-06-07T15:43:52.145-07:00Alan,
Thanks for the answer. I agree, that it s...Alan,<br /><br />Thanks for the answer. I agree, that it should be legally possible, and that it should be legal. But it seems as though there is a subset of the (for lack of a better term) "gay community" that is pushing for inclusion in groups that seemingly should be able to restrict their membership. I'm less curious about the legality, than the mindset (if that makes any sense).Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-34000960132657683852013-06-07T14:30:47.635-07:002013-06-07T14:30:47.635-07:00subject and object in that last paragraph got a bi...subject and object in that last paragraph got a bit confusing...but to simplify, yes, people would complain, no, a truly private organization would not be made to admit non-heterosexuals.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-26176785066218232902013-06-07T12:50:35.943-07:002013-06-07T12:50:35.943-07:00It would be no different than my undergraduate alm...It would be no different than my undergraduate alma mater, a private religious institution that will not grant tenure to anyone who is not a member of the denomination that owns the school.<br /><br />I am not a lawyer, so I don't know where the public/private line gets drawn, but there are still plenty of restricted country clubs in this country that refuse to admit people of color, Jews, or anyone else who isn't a WASP.<br /><br />Would there be people who would feel compelled to force this new group to include non-heterosexuals? Yeah, no doubt. Would the law support them? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet it would if it were truly a private organization, and I'm guessing this legal area has been hashed out about a gazillion times already.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.com