Except for discrimination laws...

My latter example would be with regards to US Constitutional rights, and is possibly something that won't change in your lifetime. If anything, there was political energy to Constitutionally define heterosexual marriage as the only marriage, as it was a presidential get-out-to-vote issue for George Bush Jr.

But it does motivate discussion on fraternity. A discussion of the disarmament of relations must begin with the movement of not only words.

Why is a "freedom" to not employ gay people a freedom? And why freedom of association?

Why another person chooses to do with their genitals is generally no not your business.

It is not a "freedom". It is prejudice and bigotry

It’s a freedom in the US because of the US Constitution and because of Supreme Court precedence. It’s reasonable to forecast that this will not change in your lifetime.

In that way I would argue these moral results, which speaks more loudly than moral actions or moral speech combined, hangs in the air like a moral odor as we discuss the disarmament of relations.

I agree that it’s bigotry.

Do we think people should be free to be bigoted?

People? sure. Businesses? Nope.

People can discriminate all they want to so long as they don’t infringe of the freedoms of others. Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms. I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business. Should they discriminate against me I have no other option. If a person discriminated against me I can just punch them in the face (figuratively) and go elsewhere. Businesses should be required by law to abide by EEO/EOE laws for their customers as well as for their employees.

> “Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms.“

Being forced to do work they don’t want to do would impede the first party’s freedoms.

No one is forcing anyone to do work. If the business asks them to do something that goes against their personal freedoms they are free to leave.

This makes no sense in light of what you said earlier:

If you claim this:

“I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business.”

Then you claim that people can simply leave a job.

What if they also have no choice and have to work at a certain business?

I agree. Businesses shouldn’t be allowed bigoted freedoms.

Who defines what counts as bigoted?

We do as a collective culture! Bigotry is subjective and changes with time. There is never going to be an ironclad list of protected classes that are going to remain fixed in time. That is because discrimination and what society feels counts as discrimination changes over time.

> We do as a collective culture

By what process? The list may not be ironclad, but presumably someone has to actually make a list.

Or are you saying we don’t need a list?

There are no clear boundaries, for any law. Almost. Which is why laws need courts.

Not refusing service based on sex/age/race/sexual orientation/religion is a good start. It’s also good for business.

If a patron of a business comes to do business, that business should welcome the business and ignore the personal biases and their own bigoted beliefs.

You didn’t answer my question. I asked who gets to define what counts as bigoted, not what you count as bigoted.

Bigotry is already defined: Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Criteria in this case being the same equal opportunity laws for employment should be applied towards the front of house.

Same folks who determine EOE law violations, same folks who determine discrimination violations.

> “Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction”

This is a completely subjective criteria.

So now you have an appointed group who gets to force people to do work, under penalty of law.

That seems like a bad idea.

I am against bigotry.

I question the use of force as a way to alleviate it.