Your Display Name

[Sovereign]

True, but you brought up the impact on civil liberties as though it were a reason to avoid aiming for equality. I think that it's more or less universally held that one human's freedom ends where his neighbours' begins. That's why you can't go waving your fist around and proclaiming that when it hits someone's jaw it's because you were free to control your own body.

I believe the same principle is self-evident in issues of equality between races, beliefs, sexualities, and other differences.

99% of Libertarians agree with this too. I'm not sure what Enishi is arguing.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Viggy may feel at home here on SWRP, but that'll never stop me from pointing out that he's a bisexual furry neopagan witch doctoring tomfoolerizer whose name is the same as our immediate past president.

 

[Enishi]

Freedom of speech.

Just as homosexuals have the right to express their pride for being homosexual, and african americans expressed black power during the civil rights movement, the opposite side has the right to say whatever.

Let's say this; one guy punches someone who is known for going to gay pride protests and is gay. Even though it was the man's intent to punch him for being gay, he can lie and say whatever to absolve him of a hate crime. Same instance, one guy punches the same homosexual, but not because he's gay. Should he be arrested of a hate crime?

 

[Sovereign]

Freedom of speech.

Just as homosexuals have the right to express their pride for being homosexual, and african americans expressed black power during the civil rights movement, the opposite side has the right to say whatever.

Sure, but you can't fire him for being gay or exclude him from public life.

Let's say this; one guy punches someone who is known for going to gay pride protests and is gay. Even though it was the man's intent to punch him for being gay, he can lie and say whatever to absolve him of a hate crime.

In Canada, that person would be prosecuted. Punching someone is not free speech.

In the USA, it would depend on the state.

 

[Enishi]

Sure, but you can't fire him for being gay or exclude him from public life.

Who's to say he was fired for being gay. An employer can make up any excuse and get away with it. And if it's a private business, then the government is breeching on rights.

In Canada, that person would be prosecuted. Punching someone is not free speech.

In the USA, it would depend on the state.

punching someone isn't free speech around here, either, but people generally don't call the police in a fight because it can be seen as a blow to one's masculinity. You can still serve jail time, but the police isn't generally called unless it gets serious.

 

[Mike]

Freedom of speech.

Just as homosexuals have the right to express their pride for being homosexual, and african americans expressed black power during the civil rights movement, the opposite side has the right to say whatever.

Let's say this; one guy punches someone who is known for going to gay pride protests and is gay. Even though it was the man's intent to punch him for being gay, he can lie and say whatever to absolve him of a hate crime. Same instance, one guy punches the same homosexual, but not because he's gay. Should he be arrested of a hate crime?

I believe you're getting off topic (rofl, what was this thread about? :CHappy:)

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's an equality issue. If someone punches someone else in the face he's done wrong and the government knows it. If someone discriminates against a human being for reasons including race, sexuality, religion ect... then they've also done wrong. That's why the laws are changing to promote equality in this respect.

 

[Sovereign]

Who's to say he was fired for being gay. An employer can make up any excuse and get away with it. And if it's a private business, then the government is breeching on rights.

What "right"? No company has the right to discriminate employees based on something as unimportant as sexual orientation. Should companies be allowed not to hire black folks? It's the same thing. Our free-market, democratic society is based on the notion of equal opportunities and those laws are there to ensure that.

punching someone isn't free speech around here, either, but people generally don't call the police in a fight because it can be seen as a blow to one's masculinity. You can still serve jail time, but the police isn't generally called unless it gets serious.

You said it was a protest. If you punch someone at a protest, then the cops will usually notice it.

 

[Enishi]

What "right"? No company has the right to discriminate employees based on something as unimportant as sexual orientation. Should companies be allowed not to hire black folks? It's the same thing. Our free-market, democratic society is based on the notion of equal opportunities and those laws are there to ensure that.

In a private business, an owner has the right to do whatever they please. State ownership vs. private ownership -- look at Ambercrombie and other companies, they discriminate on looks. A european store in a town not far from mine only wants 1 american worker. They can hire who they wish.

Perhaps "right" wasn't the best word. But a company can still discriminate with "discriminating", if that makes sense

You said it was a protest. If you punch someone at a protest, then the cops will usually notice it.

"one guy punches someone who is known for going to gay pride protests and is gay."

I believe you're getting off topic (rofl, what was this thread about? :CHappy:)

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's an equality issue. If someone punches someone else in the face he's done wrong and the government knows it. If someone discriminates against a human being for reasons including race, sexuality, religion ect... then they've also done wrong. That's why the laws are changing to promote equality in this respect.

In the end, it's all tied.

 

[Mike]

"one guy punches someone who is known for going to gay pride protests and is gay."

This isn't an issue of right and wrong, this is an issue of avoiding justice, which happens all the time. That doesn't mean we should surrender to anarchy.

 

[Enishi]

This isn't an issue of right and wrong, this is an issue of avoiding justice, which happens all the time. That doesn't mean we should surrender to anarchy.

Read the whole example.

Are both punchers penalized for the same crime?

 

[Mike]

Let's say this; one guy punches someone who is known for going to gay pride protests and is gay. Even though it was the man's intent to punch him for being gay, he can lie and say whatever to absolve him of a hate crime. Same instance, one guy punches the same homosexual, but not because he's gay. Should he be arrested of a hate crime?

Okay, this still isn't an issue of right and wrong. It's an issue of evading justice in the first case and misunderstanding in the second.

 

[Enishi]

Okay, this still isn't an issue of right and wrong. It's an issue of evading justice in the first case and misunderstanding in the second.

You're missing a point.

There's no way to know whether or not they did it for different reasons. If you were to enforce anti-homophobia, then both would be arrested for the same crime. Excuses are irrelevant.

 

[Mike]

I'm arguing ideals, not practicalities. I accept that this is an imperfect world and that injustices can, and will, come to pass on both sides (innocent bar fights blown out of proportion into hate crimes on the one side, and rotters that try to dodge the system with excuses on the other) Once again, this doesn't mean that we should surrender to aharchy. I'm trying to make a case for the ideal so that we're on firm moral ground before we move into application.

 

[Santoro]

Wow, does EVERY random thread have to evolve into a crazy debate?

I'd love to have a conversation about guns, but that only turns into anti-guns. RRR PEOPLE.

 

[Mike]

Please don't get started on guns =3 I need to go to sleep at some point y'know XD

 

[Enishi]

I'm arguing ideals, not practicalities. I accept that this is an imperfect world and that injustices can, and will, come to pass on both sides (innocent bar fights blown out of proportion into hate crimes on the one side, and rotters that try to dodge the system with excuses on the other) Once again, this doesn't mean that we should surrender to aharchy. I'm trying to make a case for the ideal so that we're on firm moral ground before we move into application.

You can't force ideals onto one person. Trust me, I think homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals and that they shouldn't be discriminated against. However, someone's personal rights shouldn't be stomped on in order to achieve tolerance.

 

[Ser Yorick]

In a private business, an owner has the right to do whatever they please. State ownership vs. private ownership -- look at Ambercrombie and other companies, they discriminate on looks. A european store in a town not far from mine only wants 1 american worker. They can hire who they wish.

Perhaps "right" wasn't the best word. But a company can still discriminate with "discriminating", if that makes sense

No, even private businesses have to abide by employment laws. Sure, discrimination still happens, but it's not because it's "allowed" due to the employers being "private businessmen". It's because it's ****ing hard to prove discrimination at times.

 

[Mike]

You can't force ideals onto one person. Trust me, I think homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals and that they shouldn't be discriminated against. However, someone's personal rights shouldn't be stomped on in order to achieve tolerance.

So let's debate and see if we can find a common ground that balances the two. =3 That's what I've been trying to do.

 

[Santoro]

Please don't get started on guns =3 I need to go to sleep at some point y'know XD

That's the point exactly. I said I wanted to have a conversation ABOUT guns, not a debate about gun laws and shit. Just talking- things like pros of the 9mm vs the .45.

 

[Enishi]

No, even private businesses have to abide by employment laws. Sure, discrimination still happens, but it's not because it's "allowed" due to the employers being "private businessmen". It's because it's ****ing hard to prove discrimination at times.

In a private business, an owner has the right to do whatever they please. State ownership vs. private ownership -- look at Ambercrombie and other companies, they discriminate on looks. A european store in a town not far from mine only wants 1 american worker. They can hire who they wish.

Perhaps "right" wasn't the best word. But a company can still discriminate with "discriminating", if that makes sense

---

So let's debate and see if we can find a common ground that balances the two. =3 That's what I've been trying to do.

let's discuss this in the free and fair thread.

---

That's the point exactly. I said I wanted to have a conversation ABOUT guns, not a debate about gun laws and shit. Just talking- things like pros of the 9mm vs the .45.

Believe it or not, crazy sites like neo-nazis will tell you the ins and outs of any weapon and reccommend any weapon for whatever. You know, what with them being cop killers.