Women in Christian politics

[AlpsStranger]

I would count WBC as openly hostile to unbelievers. Should I be able to discriminate against a member of WBC on the grounds of their specific church membership?

To make it more interesting: Should a gay person have to rent to a member of WBC?

 

[Flying Pig]

I'll save you the trouble and say that homosexual couples are probably justified not renting their spare rooms to members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

EDIT: Cross-post. You'd probably have to be able to justify yourself in court; I doubt the court would find that it was unreasonable in that case, since the WBC makes its entire platform from hating homosexuals. Of course, this assumes that a WBC members wants to rent from a gay person...

 

[JollyRoger]

Making fools of themselves with signs seems fairly marginal on the hostility scale.

 

[MobBoss]

So a black landlord should be forced to rent to an obdurate Klansmen,

Pshaw. Any Klansman worth his sheet wouldnt rent from a black landlord. Problem solved.

 

[AlpsStranger]

At the risk of joining the "GhostWriter club of shame" I must say that I'm becoming a little uncomfortable with a "majority rules" public morality system. Maybe it can't be avoided in any actually existing society, but I still wish I knew a better way. I'm not sure GhostWriter's way of handling it would work either, frankly, but I'm a little unsold on the whole thing.

To call a certain class "protected" and another "not protected" is not different enough from the Christian public morality desired by the Santorum types. It seems like you're keeping the same basic structure and just replacing Christianity with Humanism. It's still sheep and goats in the end.

In practice I mostly align with this system. I don't like Klansmen and I don't like people who discriminate against gays, but I'm thinking of the "architecture" of the system itself and asking how I would feel if I were less in tune with the public morals of today.

 

[JollyRoger]

You have to draw the line somewhere unless you are going to allow for a discrimination free-for-all. After all, it is perfectly justifiable to refuse to rent based on lack of income or a history of stiffing landlords.

Plus, there are plenty of easy ways to get around the anti-discrimination laws. Like Mobby said, a Klansman will likely not want to rent from a black. If he is insistant, just start an LLC called the NAACP Rentals, LLC and put your property in that. I do not think a Klansman wants to write a check to NAACP Rentals every month.

 

[Crezth]

At the risk of joining the "GhostWriter club of shame" I must say that I'm becoming a little uncomfortable with a "majority rules" public morality system. Maybe it can't be avoided in any actually existing society, but I still wish I knew a better way. I'm not sure GhostWriter's way of handling it would work either, frankly, but I'm a little unsold on the whole thing.

To call a certain class "protected" and another "not protected" is not different enough from the Christian public morality desired by the Santorum types. It seems like you're keeping the same basic structure and just replacing Christianity with Humanism. It's still sheep and goats in the end.

In practice I mostly align with this system. I don't like Klansmen and I don't like people who discriminate against gays, but I'm thinking of the "architecture" of the system itself and asking how I would feel if I were less in tune with the public morals of today.

What the hell are you babbling about?

 

[AlpsStranger]

What the hell are you babbling about?

What part should I clarify?

 

[Old Hippy]

Which would be the general idea? I'm reading this at least two ways.

are yes I see that now, but I took your first statement as the primary statement and the or as an alternative, silly me so...
So a black landlord should be forced to rent to an obdurate Klansmen, would be the general idea... as Flying Pig said, race or creed are really the defining things here

 

[Leoreth]

I think I know what AlpsStranger is talking about. Basically he's looking for an internally consistent way of viewing situations of potential discrimination, and he's afraid that the current political mainstream / humanist view is just as arbitrary as any other.

My answer to that is screw consistency. That's why you end up trapped in the "GhostWriter corner". What is and isn't discrimination can be decided on a case to case basis, and only people like GW who like to rationalize their double standards need appeals to some sort of grand ideal of perfect consistency.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that's what it boils down to: it's a choice between allowing a really unfair system or a slightly unfair one, and there is no perfect system. Therefore we choose the lesser of two evils.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think I know what AlpsStranger is talking about. Basically he's looking for an internally consistent way of viewing situations of potential discrimination, and he's afraid that the current political mainstream / humanist view is just as arbitrary as any other.

Yes, exactly.

Perhaps humanist isn't technically the right word.

My answer to that is screw consistency. That's why you end up trapped in the "GhostWriter corner". What is and isn't discrimination can be decided on a case to case basis, and only people like GW who like to rationalize their double standards need appeals to some sort of grand ideal of perfect consistency.

I think that's what it boils down to: it's a choice between allowing a really unfair system or a slightly unfair one, and there is no perfect system. Therefore we choose the lesser of two evils.

I still wish we could do better.

 

[bhsup]

Klansman is not a protected class. Now you couldn't discriminate against such a person because of race, gender, religion and in some jurisdictions orientation, but I think you would be justified for discriminating against a Klansman.

The State of Missouri lost a lawsuit by the Klan for their "adopt a highway" program, where organizations adopt a stretch of highway to maintain and keep litter free. They get a sign that says "blah blah has adopted the next x.x miles blah blah." The State refused the Klan attempt to adopt a section and the Klan took them to court and won.

So we renamed the highway the Rosa Parks highway Go big MO!

 

[AlpsStranger]

See, that's what I mean. That situation is funny and I think we all feel good about it, but it still feels like it's technically persecution on some level. That it's the persecution of would-be persecutors takes a lot of the sting out of it, but I'm still uneasy about it.

 

[bhsup]

You are male or female. You choose to be a stupid asswipe Klansman.

 

[ace99]

The State of Missouri lost a lawsuit by the Klan for their "adopt a highway" program, where organizations adopt a stretch of highway to maintain and keep litter free. They get a sign that says "blah blah has adopted the next x.x miles blah blah." The State refused the Klan attempt to adopt a section and the Klan took them to court and won.

So we renamed the highway the Rosa Parks highway Go big MO!

Equal protection applies to everyone.

Just some categories are given higher levels of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational with a bite) (race, gender, bastards).

I haven't read the case but sounds like the state couldn't establish a rational basis for subjecting the Klan to differential treatment compared to any other group in the matter of highway adoption.

Damn right. Just like the state can't fire you for having a Confederate flag on your pickup truck. Or belonging to the Communist Party.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

See, that's what I mean. That situation is funny and I think we all feel good about it, but it still feels like it's technically persecution on some level. That it's the persecution of would-be persecutors takes a lot of the sting out of it, but I'm still uneasy about it.

And yet here the courts stopped arbitrary discrimination. The system works pretty alright.

 

[AlpsStranger]

And yet here the courts stopped arbitrary discrimination. The system works pretty alright.

But what if they named a road adopted by an Atheist organization "St. Augustine way" or something? Would that also be okay?

You are male or female. You choose to be a stupid asswipe Klansman.

Yeah, and I choose to be a stupid asswipe atheist. So persecution against me is okay because my unbelief is a choice?

You aren't born a Christian either, fwiw.

 

[bhsup]

By private groups? I'm oaky with that, conditionally. By the government, absolutely not.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes. It's childish behavior, but not discrimination. Keeping the atheists from adopting the highway at all is, according to the courts. But changing the name doesn't hurt me as an atheist.

@VR, so you supported the renaming of the highway to Rosa Parks, but not to St. Whatever? Interesting..