"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

[bomberfox]

The problem is that anti discrimination laws weren't needed, they merely needed to do away with the discrimination laws and the market would have solved itself. The one color every business loves is green. There will always be bigots that will discriminate in some way, I personally would rather they simply had a sign out front that clearly stated who they won't serve so I will not to be a patron of that establishment.

This simply wasnt the case. Businesses conspire for a bit more than monetary gain. Racial propaganda and redlining was also a very lucrative business and an effective wedge issue to drive between laborers.

 

[bomberfox]

Ironically, I laid out a list of examples for you in the post directly above this one




AH. So, is this the No-True-Socialist Socialism where We Can't Say Socialism Doesn't Work Because It's Never Been Tried, or is it the Special Pleading Socialism where Socialism Is Only Socialism When It's Done By Country's Whose Actions I Happen To Approve Of?

No true scotsman fallacies are not even needed, Hitler was not a socialist and only heavily relied on state war control for the time he sought global domination. Nazis and Hitler especially are habitual liars and will happily lie about their positions to gain power. Their modern counterparts frequently pretend to care about free speech, they hide their positions to soften them, and talk about adopting leftist rhetoric to pull people in. Fascism relies on the capitalist mode of production free or unfree is irrelevant when discussing mode of production. To whit many businesses from Krupp to IBM happily supplied and supported the nazi party and Krupp got to profit from not only slave labor but also Germany’s military industrial complex all the way to the end of the war where Krupp had to answer for his crimes. Hitler was also a fan of privatization which was his key strategy for skirting international treaties. He was a reactionary through and through, so much so that even the soviets managed to be better for women’s rights. The third reich declared itself the enemy of socialism and bolshevism.

While fascism practically worships at the feet of the dictator hierarchy, it relies on capitalists to keep the workers in line and will happily crush any movement of laborers to organize themselves with utmost brutality. It is very hierarchical and it cements the subservience of the worker to the capitalist while capitalists are able to bid on contracts and maintain negotiating power even though the state directs national policy. This is what they call class collaboration.

 

[cpwill]

No true scotsman fallacies are not even needed, Hitler was not a socialist

Hitler was a Socialist - in particular he was a National Socialist, which, he stated, was based in Marxism, though with an added racial component, and which was one of many branches of general left-wing thought that sprang up in the latter 19th and early 20th Centuries.

So-named in contrast to International Socialists (such as Bolsheviks) who argued that the distinctions that truly mattered were class-based and that therefore the global proletariat was a single interest group, National Socialists imported Living State theory (which held that Nations were like biological organisms) and argued that National Identity was a major distinction that mattered, and that therefore their brand of Socialism would be pursued within each nation, rather than attempting in a COMINTERN like manner to create some kind of International Joining of Hands. An International Socialist slogan was that The Proletariat Had No Fatherland. National Socialists rejected that formulation.

As stated above, the Nazi Party (which is one party, but only one party, within the much broader National Socialist Movement) Platform included some pretty obvious call-outs to their intellectual home on the left, notably:

...7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood....

...9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
​

None of which are exactly what you call the Classic Liberalism that Conservatism "conserves" today, nor anything you'd call an example of "capitalism".

Nazis and Hitler especially are habitual liars and will happily lie about their positions to gain power. Their modern counterparts frequently pretend to care about free speech, they hide their positions to soften them, and talk about adopting leftist rhetoric to pull people in.

I'm not aware of National Socialists ever being in favor of Free Speech as an individual and inalienable right. Quite the opposite, in fact:

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved. ​

 

[cpwill]

Fascism relies on the capitalist mode of production

This is incorrect. Fascism uses Corporatism to organize its modes of production:

Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. Its supporters claimed that corporatism could better recognize or "incorporate" every divergent interest into the state organically, unlike majority-rules democracy which they said could marginalize specific interests. This total consideration was the inspiration for their use of the term "totalitarian", described without coercion (which is connotated in the modern meaning) in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:

When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.​

A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"). ​

Which, they argued, offered a "Third Way" in between International Socialism and Free Market Capitalism. It's similar-ish to Syndicalism, which, of course, is also a left-leaning mode of organization of production.

free or unfree is irrelevant when discussing mode of production.

Unless, of course, that level of freedom is one of the defining characteristics of a particular mode of production

 

[bomberfox]

Its fine and dandy to use propaganda of the nazi party but in action they lied, their entire buildup prior to the war relied on the private economy and Hitler privatized many industries that were previously nationalized. I would suggest reading books that detail the nazi policy and how they used the language of socialism to get whst are more commonly known as Strasserites or ”nazbols” on boardonle to kill them later. Like i said, the capitalists in Germany as a class supported the regime whole heartedly primarily because he would crush all opposition to their power, same thing happened in Italy, same thing happened in Chile under

I never said they actually cared about free speech but that they pretend to. They train themselves to use enlightenment values in order to crush them.

You do realize that number 9 is completely antithetical to their stance on free speech for example? Can you see why listing a campaigning platform does not yield actual knowledge of their real ideology?

Ill have to re hunt down my sources when i get home as unfortunately lunch break doesnt yield enough time.

Unfortunately i cant fit the full quote of your post so instead of having to clip it and leave out context this will have to do.

 

[bomberfox]

This is incorrect. Fascism uses Corporatism to organize its modes of production:

Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. Its supporters claimed that corporatism could better recognize or "incorporate" every divergent interest into the state organically, unlike majority-rules democracy which they said could marginalize specific interests. This total consideration was the inspiration for their use of the term "totalitarian", described without coercion (which is connotated in the modern meaning) in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:

When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.​

A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"). ​

Which, they argued, offered a "Third Way" in between International Socialism and Free Market Capitalism. It's similar-ish to Syndicalism, which, of course, is also a left-leaning mode of organization of production.




Unless, of course, that level of freedom is one of the defining characteristics of a particular mode of production

It doesnt. The level of freedom is irrelevant otherwise you may as well call every country on earth corporatist. Syndicalism relies on the workers making collective decisions, corporatism relies on the capitalist as a sort of feudal lord who has complete power over the workforce. Its why they crushed labor movements for the capitalist class.

“However, authors have noted that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.[33]“

The de facto is what i care most about when analyzing structures.

 

[cpwill]

It doesnt. The level of freedom is irrelevant

:shrug: when you are asking whether or not something conforms to a system of economic organization that prioritizes and depends upon individual freedom of action.... no, it's not.

otherwise you may as well call every country on earth corporatist. Syndicalism relies on the workers making collective decisions, corporatism relies on the capitalist as a sort of feudal lord who has complete power over the workforce. Its why they crushed labor movements for the capitalist class.

No, Corporatism's argument is that the state is the mediating institution between the requirements of the workers and the leadership, and, under National Socialism, was supposed to bend both to the good of the "People". That, of course, is why Hitler, Lenin, and Mao all got rid of labor unions, arguing that the Labor Unions were now the State. All within the State, nothing outside the State.

“However, authors have noted that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.[33]“

The de facto is what i care most about when analyzing structures.

:shrug: and that's not surprising at all (politics is politics), but it also doesn't make it not corporatism.

 

[bomberfox]

:shrug: when you are asking whether or not something conforms to a system of economic organization that prioritizes and depends upon individual freedom of action.... no, it's not.



No, Corporatism's argument is that the state is the mediating institution between the requirements of the workers and the leadership, and, under National Socialism, was supposed to bend both to the good of the "People". That, of course, is why Hitler, Lenin, and Mao all got rid of labor unions, arguing that the Labor Unions were now the State. All within the State, nothing outside the State.



:shrug: and that's not surprising at all (politics is politics), but it also doesn't make it not corporatism.

Uhh i didnt say fascism isnt corporatism. What you are showing is what they initially say about their system vs the de-facto and that gives very misleading results. Ever wonder why Milton Friedman was congratulating Pinochet’s Chile on their supposed move closer towards a capitalist mode of production despite Chile being less free than under Allende?

Heres a mind blower i didnt realize when i was a ron paul fan. You can have markets without capitalism as co ops that are owned by the workers lack the capitalist-worker paradigm.

 

[bomberfox]

As i said i would provide. Some sources to consider
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

I think the constitution guarantees that right.

There should be no obligation on the part of private parties to grant you a service.

Plus what is wrong with discriminating against public celebrations of sodomy? Sodomy is a gravely disordered behavior.

 

[Dayton3]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

Of course.

 

[yankintx]

I personally would have thought Freedom of association would have given that right. Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with? I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.

As a gay man i would take my money elsewhere. We gays generally have more disposable income than straights. No ex wives, no children, no alimony. My money is green, not pink.

 

[Lisa]

As a gay man i would take my money elsewhere. We gays generally have more disposable income than straights. No ex wives, no children, no alimony. My money is green, not pink.

I'm surprised that merchants haven't figured that out. LGBT tend to be above average in earnings and they aren't spending it on the kids, so they have more disposable income. Those are the customers that you want to attract and keep.

 

[yankintx]

I'm surprised that merchants haven't figured that out. LGBT tend to be above average in earnings and they aren't spending it on the kids, so they have more disposable income. Those are the customers that you want to attract and keep.

Oh yes

I take 3 vacations a year, something not possible if you got an ex wife and children sucking the cash out of you lol

 

[Lisa]

Oh yes

I take 3 vacations a year, something not possible if you got an ex wife and children sucking the cash out of you lol

I always thought it was strange for pro-life social conservatives to be attacking LGBT. This is one group that isn't having abortions. But they never cared about the fetus/child but instead only seek to further their conservative religious control over the lives of others.

 

[weaver2]

As a gay man i would take my money elsewhere. We gays generally have more disposable income than straights. No ex wives, no children, no alimony. My money is green, not pink.

I agree, money talks louder than laws and that should take care of the problem. Unfortunately there is something that talks louder than money: the intolerance of religious bigots and for some reason way too many Congress men and women are listening to the their demands for laws legitimizing their bigotry.

 

[NotreDame]

I agree, money talks louder than laws and that should take care of the problem. Unfortunately there is something that talks louder than money: the intolerance of religious bigots and for some reason way too many Congress men and women are listening to the their demands for laws legitimizing their bigotry.

and for some reason way too many Congress men and women are listening to the their demands for laws legitimizing their bigotry.

This is a feature of a representative republic or a representative democracy. Yes, it may seem unfathomable to some, but religious voters, religious constituents, including Christians, can, like everyone else, lobby Congress/state legislatures, and Congress/state legislatures can, just as they does for other people and groups, listen and respond with lawful legislation.

 

[weaver2]

This is a feature of a representative republic or a representative democracy. Yes, it may seem unfathomable to some, but religious voters, religious constituents, including Christians, can, like everyone else, lobby Congress/state legislatures, and Congress/state legislatures can, just as they does for other people and groups, listen and respond with lawful legislation.

And that is the seed of destruction carried deep within all democracies: the democracy can be voted out of existence in favor of a theocracy by legitimate democratic processes.

 

[Glitch]

And that is the seed of destruction carried deep within all democracies: the democracy can be voted out of existence in favor of a theocracy by legitimate democratic processes.

Thankfully, the US is a republic and not a democracy. Which means that the majority do not always get what they want. As you pointed out, that is the failing of all democracies - the tyranny of the majority.

The founders specifically created a republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority from ever happening. It would require, at the very minimum, two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of all the States to agree before any changes can be made. That is much more difficult to achieve than just a simple majority.

 

[VanceMack]

So you agree the Constitution and the Supreme Court have given businesses the right to discriminate?

Are you still laboring under the lie and delusion that the Masterpiece Cake shop refused to serve homosexuals?

 

[weaver2]

Are you still laboring under the lie and delusion that the Masterpiece Cake shop refused to serve homosexuals?

The Masterpiece Cake shop refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. They said they would bake any other kind of cake but not a wedding cake.

 

[VanceMack]

The Masterpiece Cake shop refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. They said they would bake any other kind of cake but not a wedding cake.

Ah...thats different though, isnt it. They didnt discriminate against homosexuals...in fact it has been said that many of their customers were openly gay and never a concern. No...it was about the contracting to designa cake specifically for a gay wedding...something against his religious beliefs.

 

[smallvoice]

And that is the seed of destruction carried deep within all democracies: the democracy can be voted out of existence in favor of a theocracy by legitimate democratic processes.

Nah, the only way a democracy can be "voted out of existence" is by Liberal/Progressive voters padding their pockets at the expense of the taxpayers.

 

[weaver2]

Ah...thats different though, isnt it. They didnt discriminate against homosexuals...in fact it has been said that many of their customers were openly gay and never a concern. No...it was about the contracting to designa cake specifically for a gay wedding...something against his religious beliefs.

I believe when someone opens a business they are required to get a license to sell all products and services to all of the public without discrimination. I believe there are exceptions if the individual customer is drunk and disruptive or the customer is clearly intent on harming the shop or the shop owner.
What would you call refusal to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals when baking wedding cakes was the bakers primary occupation?
If a retailer can pick and choose their customer based on religious principles what is next: I won't sell you a wedding cake because you had sex before marriage? Where do you think the line should be drawn?

If your free speech, or right to assembly has been violated by a customer should you be allowed to refuse service?

 

[VanceMack]

I believe when someone opens a business they are required to get a license to sell all products and services to all of the public without discrimination. I believe there are exceptions if the individual customer is drunk and disruptive or the customer is clearly intent on harming the shop or the shop owner.
What would you call refusal to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals when baking wedding cakes was the bakers primary occupation?
If a retailer can pick and choose their customer based on religious principles what is next: I won't sell you a wedding cake because you had sex before marriage? Where do you think the line should be drawn?

If your free speech, or right to assembly has been violated by a customer should you be allowed to refuse service?

Your belief is fine...for you. However the fact is there are MANY organizations that routinely discriminate on gender, race, and other types of affiliation.

I'd call refusing to back a cake for a gay wedding the business owners right and prerogative. And if it was the business owners policy to not sell wedding cakes to people that engage in premarital sex the I would suggest the couple either a-buy their cake from somewhere else or be, dont make an issue of it when they are ordering the cake.