Political correctness scares me .

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Wrong thread.

a reply to: Greathouse

I think we are still on the same page. Allow me to elaborate my positions outside of this thread's topic:

I believe that anti-segregation laws in terms of public schooling and service are sound and should be enforced.

I do not believe that a business should be disallowed -via legislation- from re-creating the "white counter" & "black counter" or "no coloreds allowed" situations that were common place during the civil rights movement. To me, those who choose these roads are doomed to - most deservedly - fail. Our current situation with gay marriage and gay rights is a parable. The government should have no power over exercise of those rights.

However, I do not believe that those decisions were made in order to allow a white guy and a black guy to sit next to each other at breakfast. The reasons for those decisions were to bring down Jim Crow laws that were left over from the civil war. Laws that were enacted by state and local governments to legally discriminate against race or national origin. These effected alot of people, not just rural southern blacks, who by law were second class citizens.

To that, gays have never been second class citizens unless sodomy laws were pursued. Then, they most definately were, and they should have never been. They stayed in the closet with plenty of company for fear of being tied to a barbwire fence and beaten to death (or some such situation). A recognizable portion of our people should never have to face that when their actions simply do nothing but offend the religious idiots who do this to another human being.

Again, I do believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In their best form, we wouldn't have these kinds of struggles, because I do not see how gay people being married is an affront to the religious, as long as the religious affirm their rights to not carry out the ceremony or business or what have you. That is their right to do so - not the states.

The Oregon case is a case happening in a very "liberal" or "progressive" state. If the federal court upholds it, the case will appeal to the SCOTUS eventually, and I hope that the state law/decision is found unconstitutional.

I realize your point - we should not have this crap to deal with. If a business does not want to serve gays, blacks, whites, mexicans, french, and most importantly the Zulu tribesmen of Africa, then they should have that right. Another business will take their business and profit because of the former's own ignorance or opinion or belief, whatever you want to call it.

a reply to: Greathouse
I guess I am just too diplomatic.(not according to some members here though) . I look toward the more peaceful resolution .However , if I can be denied service for no shirt or shoes.....which is the natural state of man and woman..
Just sayin.

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: Greathouse

But a judge from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that they did violate state law against discrimination by way of sexual orientation. Link

You can't run a public for-profit business, openly break state law and claim religious freedom. It would open up a huge can of worms.

*edit* just to add I agree that the fine in your link is ridiculous, and should be overturned - but it has no baring on the actual law nor the commission's ruling. I also agree they should of done their discriminating a bit more discreetly, like other successful businesses.

OK we were talking about the state of Oregon. Now were talking about the state of Colorado . Your link said it wasn't actually a state judge that made the ruling. It was a administrative judge from within the department of Colorado civil rights commission .

There is legislation against open discrimination for a reason - it causes conflict. What happens to a minority population in an isolated area with very few business/a monopoly that refuses to do business with that population, and they can't receive basic services? Is it all right for a population to be subjected to abject poverty, starvation, etc, based on "freedom"? Are people really advocating the right to be a dbag, with no consequences for dbag actions as a freedom now?

a reply to: Greathouse

I'm sorry, it does appear I messed up - Apparently there are quite a few lesbian cake cases floating about out there. I agree that the fine is ridiculous, and that it should most definitely go before a court. BUT - don't expect to openly discriminate someone and not have the discriminated party not be offended, and possibly pursue legal recourse. As other posters have pointed out, they could of made this decision in a discreet manner, but they decided to openly agitate the person they refused service to.

Breaking a state law such as this and gaining media attention is a good example of civil disobedience in many ways. They weren't arrested for not paying a poll tax for voting. They were charged with a state legislation that could very well be deemed unconstitutional because it is their religious freedom to discriminate due to their particular sect of that damned zombie cult.

Any ruling for or against the state law that somehow makes it to SCOTUS will set a major precedence if the court hears it.
I don't want to use a slippery slop argument, they don't hold water (if they did you would swim instead of slip...) and I am convinced that the majority of the current court wanted to avoid that situation and simply allow gays to marry.

We as a society need to step back from all the political and social changes being suggested and use some logic. First...do we want to allow anyone to tell people what they are allowed to say and what they can't? And if they can tell us what we can't say...can they prosecute or persecute us if we think it? Yes, there are people out there that would stifle everyone and dictate what is allowed to be said and thought. I won't name names or call out labels...you all know who is pushing this agenda.

We are allowing an out of control group to define what we are as individuals. How scary is that? Do we really want to be controlled? And even if you believe that some of these ideas are valid...just think what is going to happen when you DON'T agree with the next group of people in charge.

I'm seriously afraid of where the US has been going recently. If you look at the level of control some are giving to the government and that which the government is taking without permission...we have set ourselves up for real thought police. A funny version of this situation we are in can be seen in the movie Demolition Man. A horrible version, and more likely realistic is Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. But the stupidity, the ignorance is us...the people...giving ANYONE this level of power. Do you really believe they will use it for "good" or will they follow their history and use it for their own benefit...which is always to the detriment of us all.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Greathouse

I can say offensive things if I want to, like calling a person illegal instead of undocumented. I don't feel an entire person can be illegal I can make fun of handicapped people and call them retards, but I don't. At one time that would have been considered 'OK'.

How is calling an person illegal offensive? THEY ARE illegal and are all criminals.

They cross the boarder illegally. Hense the name ILLEGAL.
By doing so they break a law. Hense First criminal offense.
IF they stay here with out notifying the government. Second criminal offense.
If they work without ID. Third criminal offense.
If they use a false ID. Four criminal offense and a FELONY crime.
If they don't pay taxes. Fifth criminal offense.
If they receive any Federal Aid they are not entitled to. Sixth criminal offense.
And if they did happen to be in on any other type of thing on their boarder crossing. (IE: carrying drugs, helping others enter illegally.) They could have many more.

So ALL Illegals are multiple count criminals and many, if not most, are felons. (That false ID SSN they use to get a "legal" job?) So just how many laws are they allowed to break before they are "criminals"? I know as a US citizen I'm allowed 0 broken laws.

I 100% support immigration. I 100% oppose ILLEGAL immigration. And yes we need to figure out a law system that works, not the current mess we have. I know the system well having to use it to get my wife's Green Card. But untill the laws are changed they are ILLEGAL and criminals.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: reldra

The out right and offensive words you mentioned have no need for the weight of political correctness . There's a term we use in the country it's called common courtesy and respect.

Myself if I was talking to a bigoted racist I would like to know it. Instead of that same person hiding his thoughts for fear of being discovered .


It's a lot easier to deal with people when you actually know what they're about . Instead of listening to them flap their gums while you try to figure out what their true position is .

I agree.

There is a BIG difference between political correctness and common courtesy and respect. Many of the people on ATS ar PC but a big majority have no common courtesy and respect. I can disagree with you and not be politically correct and still do so with courtesy. Many time in the pass few weeks I have started to reply to some PC thing here, only to stop myself because I truly believed it would do no good and I would just be bashed as a conservative, Christian bigot just because I didn't toe the line.

In fact I did ask one time what the difference between them calling me a conservative, Christian bigot and me disagreeing with the OPs view. I was told because the OPs view was a "reasoned logical" view and my was a backwards conservative, Christian. By the way I'm pretty religious neutral. I was raised Baptist, but don't practice and my wife is Muslim, so... And as far as being conservative, I'm probably closer to Libertarian then anything else.

I don't agree with gay marriage or the gay lifestyle, but in my day to day life I don't really care who sleeps with who as long as you don't shove it in my face. (That common courtesy thing you know.)

I support the 2AD and own guns. If you don't want to own them? Fine, no problem. I don't see a need to walk around with one strapped to my back everyday anyway.

I could go on and on with this, but I think I made my point.

PC is a danger and an ever growing one. The resent SCOTUS decisions are going to start causing problems. Where is the line between my 1st AD rights of religion and the gay community? According the them there is no line; we must toe their line, but freedom of religion is the 1ST AD so where does that leave us? The 1st is in black and white written on the original document, the SCOTUS decision is based on a hog-pog of reasoning and is the OPINION of 5 people. (Which by the way, the Chief Judge stated is based on NO solid Constitutional grounds.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Does political correctness have a political preference?

Or do all sides use PC equally?

From my experience the Liberals and the Democrats use it most often. Conservatives and Republicans use it more as "defense" method to keep from being pointed and and "shamed"

Look at Trump and his immigration thing. Yes he could of worded the statement MUCH better, but I understood that he was talking about the illegal immigrants and the problems they bring to the US. (Both directly and in the support structure on the Mexican side of the boarder that drives them.) I also think that most people understood what he meant. The press jumped right on top of him and used the WORDS as a weapon, not the idea. Look at what happened with the rest of the GOP pack. Instead of standing behind him and pushing the MEANING of what he said. They folded and jump on the PC bandwagon so to minimize the backlash.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

Yes, you are sooo right. How dare I send my child to school with a brown bag lunch that contains a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? That was terribly racist and offensive of me.

Don't forget that it's also illegal most places. Heaven forbid some OTHER kids steals your child's lunch, eats it and is allergic to peanut butter.

Just think of people being carried around in a crowded area with boards around their necks, COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY, this happened its real it killed millions and millions in china. Political correctness kills and it helps turn family member against family member. At the start of the French revolution there were 4 people in the Bastille, a few weeks later the revolutionary council had tens of thousands, the king executed less than a hundred soon the councils were doing thousands per week. Careful what you remove, the safeguard of the law is only missed when YOU stand alone. Old saying " I disagree with all my heart with what you say, but I will fight with all my might for your right to say it".

originally posted by: christophoros
I'm sorry but some people just don't like getting made fun/stereotyped for things they can't change (nationality,gender,sexuality,race) . It seems the only people scared of political correctness are the dominant social and culture group in America who feel they need to make fun of people's differences.

UMM

But you can change all those now. I thought that was the whole point of the LBGT movement.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: christophoros

Who is the dominant social and culture group in America?

As a white, religious, ginger, redneck, mason that's short, I get made fun of on a daily basis. It doesn't bother me one bit and I always dish it back waaaaay worse! And when I do, the person that tried to offend me gets upset that I'd say such hurtful things. Sticks and stones brother.

PS, 5' 7" is NOT a midget and go to hell Randy Newman!!!!

Umm I looked it up
whites are the dominant ethno-racial group 63.7%
Christian is the Dominant religion 78.5%
heterosexual 92%
Middle Class 46% (working class is 40-45%)

And as far as 5'7" nothing wrong with that at all. My feet touch the ground perfectly at that height and I hardly ever bumb my head on anything.

thesocietypages.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

One of the major difference is that no laws was pushed to "correct" the issue, no law suits where issued (as far as I know) I don't remember anyone standing outside their house and picketing them. (maybe there was?)

As far as the bulldozer thing. I bet each and every one of those CDs where paid for and they got their money for them.

It was purely a financial thing. The courts, or the state, or the federal government where never directly involved in it. The ACLU was never contacted. All of these tactics are used by liberals. I can think of a few cake companies that have fallen into this hole just lately and I think its wrong. Now if these companies folded due to boycotts and financial pressure, I would have less issue with it. If you don't like something boycott it and get others to do the same.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

u support freedom of speech so long as certain people don't complain about certain things - because you believe they're saying them out of political correctness

You are still unable to understand the concept aren't you ?

No I fully support freedom of speech for someone to complain about a word. I do not support political correctness attempts to deem a word or a symbol inflammatory .

That's not true. You've determined that certain kinds of speech are wrong - and should be curtailed

Wrong again, nowhere in my statement here did i say that certain kinds of speech are wrong . I have determined that movements to ban certain types of speech are wrong .

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the freedom of speech has a flip side. The freedom to listen . If I don't like what someone is saying I DON"T have to keep listening to it. I can just walk away, or close the webpage.

You are correct nothing should be banned. But like many other things, there are consensuses to your actions. That is one of the primary reasons for being polite. Some language should be used carefully as to not risk having your nose broke.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Greathouse



It's government land. Does a religious display belong on government land?

Should tradition be more important than the First amendment? Is this about political correctness, or is this about not being able to have things the way you want them?

Umm just as an order of point:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No where does it say freedom FROM religion. Also no where does it say separation of church and state. "Congress shall make no law" That means not one supporting it OR denying it. People seem to always forget the freedom of religion part of the 1st. So yes it does belong on government land. Just like a Jewish menorah if some one wished to place it there, or a Muslim Crescent, or even a Druid emblem. (What ever they may be called.)

originally posted by: seasoul
a reply to: Greathouse

What about "white privilege," does that scare you too?

Damn I've been looking for that my whole life.

Never found it yet.

I have found Black privilege, Hispanic privilege, Women privilege, handicap privilege, income (both high and low) privilege and even age privilege.

This is a figment of imagination that was never really there. I remember some years ago in college. I was working on my financial aid package and did a couple of tweaks. As a white male with my families income I was only eligible for loans. I change it to black and had 7-8 grants/scholarships show up. It was also similar when I tried Hispanic and Women.

the PRECONCEPTION is that whites are privileged. The truth is that SOME whites are privileged, just as some of other classes are to a lesser degree. This is due to the fact that historical whites have been greater then 70% of the population of the US, so have a larger number of wealthy just on this alone with out factoring in any other data.

I unfortunately didn't come from one of these families and therefore had LESS privileges then some of the others. Part of this falls directly on me. I was not a member of the Boy Scouts, or the 4H clubs, or any of the other clubs I COULD have joined in High School that would have had some grants I might have been able to get. But because of this PRECONCEIVED white privilege idea there where no general grants just for being "white". That being said I have no issues with the system. If someone wants to fund a grant/scholarship for a certain group that is thier business and they should be free to use it.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: introvert

I understand your position now. You think that in a free society certain people's individual rights are allowed to be held over other people's individual rights.

Sorry that does not sound like a truly free society to me .

You individual rights end at the end of your noses, or at your property line.