Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Meadmaker]

The is actually incorrect. Race is a protected class, you cannot discriminate against someone because of their skin colour or race, that means you can't discriminate against black people, but also white people, asians, arabs, Persians, etc. as well.

The protected classes are: Race, Religion, Gender, and Sexuality (in some places Age also)

Political Affiliation (which Nazism falls under) is not a Protected Class.

In Michigan, weight is a protected class.

 

[Ziggurat]

The is actually incorrect. Race is a protected class, you cannot discriminate against someone because of their skin colour or race, that means you can't discriminate against black people, but also white people, asians, arabs, Persians, etc. as well.

The protected classes are: Race, Religion, Gender, and Sexuality (in some places Age also)

Political Affiliation (which Nazism falls under) is not a Protected Class.

There are more protected classes than that even at the federal level, though keep in mind protected class status only applies to specific areas (employment, housing, etc), and a class that's protected in one area may not be protected in another. State and city laws often provide for additional protected classes beyond federal law. In California, for example, political affiliation IS a protected class for employment purposes.

 

[blutoski]

There are more protected classes than that even at the federal level, though keep in mind protected class status only applies to specific areas (employment, housing, etc), and a class that's protected in one area may not be protected in another. State and city laws often provide for additional protected classes beyond federal law. In California, for example, political affiliation IS a protected class for employment purposes.

I have a question about how that works. Is it protecting employees with membership in specific parties? (Is that what's meant by "affiliation" ?)

In contrast, if it's not formal membership that's the criteria... is an employee protected for any random political belief?

I'm thinking specifically, if I discover my toddler daycare employee's "independent" political belief is that he's all about NAMBLA... that feels like it's incredible that I would be charged if I used it as reason for termination.

 

[mgidm86]

It's kind of amazing.

This is the one time where the only rational thing right wingers can do is to say "Nazis and white supremacists have no place in our society" and "Nazism is not just another view point" or words to that effect, and then leave it at that. Instead, there's always a 'but', or a quibble here or there.

Take a ******* stance against this filth! Stop your equivocating. Defending Trump on this will only make you look bad.

Only rational thing to do according to whom? This is a critical thinking site. Just because we are talking about a group of people most of us consider vile does not mean we turn off our thinking caps. That is the whole point of this site.

I see this a lot with the left and Democrats - that their view just has to be right and there's no room for discussion. "It's the obvious answer, it's the only right answer", etc. My friends wife uses this all the time. She storms away when the topic gets uncomfortable.

People here are actually accusing each other of being Nazis, if not here then in other threads. This would be laughable if it wasn't so creepy.

Replace the word "nazi" with some other and see how that works. How about Islam?

 

[PhantomWolf]

For the purposes of the current debate, it does make them equivalent. Morals are not absolute, but we can surely say that a certain breed of Christian hates gay people just as much as the average person hates Nazis. You may think those Christians are wrong, stupid and evil but that's really irrelevant.

So if Shopkeeper Bob hates Nazis and Gay people, why can he turn one of those away but not the other? Keep in mind that it isn't the government's place to dictate morals or interfere with sincerely held religious views.

You might argue: "Because Nazis are morally repugnant and gays are not." OK, that's your viewpoint, but Shopkeeper Bob disagrees. Why should the government reinforce your sincerely held beliefs but not Shopkeeper Bob's?

And please, I know what the law is. I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.

The biggest difference is that you can stop being a Nazi. No one was born one, it was their choice to become one.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Only rational thing to do according to whom? This is a critical thinking site. Just because we are talking about a group of people most of us consider vile does not mean we turn off our thinking caps. That is the whole point of this site.

I see this a lot with the left and Democrats - that their view just has to be right and there's no room for discussion. "It's the obvious answer, it's the only right answer", etc. My friends wife uses this all the time. She storms away when the topic gets uncomfortable.

When you are talking about people that want a Totalitarian Government who will genocide or enslave anyone that isn't of their imaginary master race, darn right there is no wiggle room. You either support that idea or you oppose it. There is no sitting on the fence suggesting that perhaps some of those people aren't really too bad after all. Nazism is bad period. If you can't figure that out, here's a link to help you.

Replace the word "nazi" with some other and see how that works. How about Islam?

If you really mean Islam, then it would make as much sense as replacing it with "Christian" or "Buddhist". If you are meaning "Islamic Extremists" then that is far more fitting, and frankly neither have a place on the planet. Islamic Extremists are pretty much the Nazi's of the Muslium World and funnilt enough hold to many of the same beliefs that Nazis do in the West, you know, Racial Superiority, Totalitarian Government, Genocide of the Jews and anyone that disagrees. It's probably why Radical Islam and the Nazi's were bed fellows in WW2!

 

[Tony Stark]

For the purposes of the current debate, it does make them equivalent. Morals are not absolute, but we can surely say that a certain breed of Christian hates gay people just as much as the average person hates Nazis. You may think those Christians are wrong, stupid and evil but that's really irrelevant.

So if Shopkeeper Bob hates Nazis and Gay people, why can he turn one of those away but not the other? Keep in mind that it isn't the government's place to dictate morals or interfere with sincerely held religious views.

You might argue: "Because Nazis are morally repugnant and gays are not." OK, that's your viewpoint, but Shopkeeper Bob disagrees. Why should the government reinforce your sincerely held beliefs but not Shopkeeper Bob's?

And please, I know what the law is. I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.

Because I'm right and Homophobe Bob is wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

For the purposes of the current debate, it does make them equivalent. Morals are not absolute, but we can surely say that a certain breed of Christian hates gay people just as much as the average person hates Nazis. You may think those Christians are wrong, stupid and evil but that's really irrelevant.

So if Shopkeeper Bob hates Nazis and Gay people, why can he turn one of those away but not the other? Keep in mind that it isn't the government's place to dictate morals or interfere with sincerely held religious views.

You might argue: "Because Nazis are morally repugnant and gays are not." OK, that's your viewpoint, but Shopkeeper Bob disagrees. Why should the government reinforce your sincerely held beliefs but not Shopkeeper Bob's?

And please, I know what the law is. I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.

Originally, it was because the protected classes, which started with race and religion/ethnicity, then sex, then sexual orientation, were all groups of people who experienced widespread and pervasive discrimination. It wasn't just Shopkeeper Bob, it was a whole heck of a lot of shopkeepers and employers and others, to the point that these protected classes really found it difficult to participate fully in society. They needed the protection of these laws in order to be full citizens. Furthermore, at the time those protected class laws were passed, there was still an awful lot of discrimination, but the majority, or at least a very active minority, were able to convince legislatures that these classes were worthy of protection, and that action was needed to make that happen.

No one felt that way about Nazis. Anti-Nazi discrimination is ok with most people.

Today, I am not sure that those laws are needed. If Shopkeeper Bob has anti-gay or anti-black views, and doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple or a mixed race couple, the couple on the opposite end of the discrimination probably wouldn't suffer significantly, because the vast majority of shopkeepers would be offended by Bob. The couple could go elsewhere, and the backlash against Bob might hurt him more than his intended victim. Of course, this depends on the locality, and the specific circumstances.

Nevertheless, they remain the law, and they still serve a purpose, even if it is not as important today as it was in the 1950s when black people couldn't eat in most restaurants in some cities. They haven't been repealed because they do no harm, at least in the mind of most people.

 

[uke2se]

Only rational thing to do according to whom? This is a critical thinking site. Just because we are talking about a group of people most of us consider vile does not mean we turn off our thinking caps. That is the whole point of this site.

I see this a lot with the left and Democrats - that their view just has to be right and there's no room for discussion. "It's the obvious answer, it's the only right answer", etc. My friends wife uses this all the time. She storms away when the topic gets uncomfortable.

People here are actually accusing each other of being Nazis, if not here then in other threads. This would be laughable if it wasn't so creepy.

Replace the word "nazi" with some other and see how that works. How about Islam?

The 'view' that this leftist is convinced is right is "Nazis are bad m'kay".

I see with a lot of conservatives that they don't fully agree with that.

 

[xjx388]

Maybe examine the underlying principles of what it means to be a Nazi, and then you might begin to understand why someone might not want a violent extremist for a patron.

I totally understand it. If I owned a cake shop, I wouldn't bake a Nazi cake and I'd be happy to have a part in celebrating a Gay wedding. But the reasoning behind why someone hates another person or group of persons is irrelevant. We have the right to hate whoever we want for whatever reasons we want.

Hating gays is rooted in ignorance and bigotry. Hating Nazis is rooted in history and common sense. Your attempt to equate the two is both sad and offensive.

Is it possible to have a debate without getting emotionally involved? Why can't we just discuss the idea in the abstract? I don't mean any offense and I apologize if you were offended.

You say hating gays is rooted in ignorance and bigotry. I agree with you. But others don't see it that way. They have a different moral viewpoint than ours. We can say they are wrong all we like but 1)this isn't likely to change their mind and 2)there are no moral absolutes.

Why is it the government's job to enforce our moral viewpoint over theirs?

 

[xjx388]

Because I'm right and Homophobe Bob is wrong.

And the government should side with you . . .why exactly? Are you the Final Arbiter of Morals?

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
Why is it the government's job to enforce our moral viewpoint over theirs?

Because the government represents the collective moral judgement (in a broad sense) of us, the governed. If we believe some moral stance justified we are obligated to alter the world to meet that standard. This is, in the end, what we mean when we say something is moral or not - should we do it?

The fact that opinions/morals vary doesn't help a bit. Even if we know there are no moral absolutes we must act as if there are in the limited-choice landscape we inhabit.

 

[xjx388]

The biggest difference is that you can stop being a Nazi. No one was born one, it was their choice to become one.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Why would that difference affect whether or not the government should enforce a moral viewpoint?

 

[xjx388]

Because the government represents the collective moral judgement (in a broad sense) of us, the governed. If we believe some moral stance justified we are obligated to alter the world to meet that standard. This is, in the end, what we mean when we say something is moral or not - should we do it?

The fact that opinions/morals vary doesn't help a bit. Even if we know there are no moral absolutes we must act as if there are in the limited-choice landscape we inhabit.

Then why don't we alter the world to outlaw Nazi/White Supremacist speech entirely? I would think the collective moral judgement is that such speech is morally repugnant.

 

[xjx388]

The 'view' that this leftist is convinced is right is "Nazis are bad m'kay".

I think that's an almost universal view. The views and actions of the people that call themselves Nazis are among the worst views and actions of any group of humans ever.

I see with a lot of conservatives that they don't fully agree with that.

I know a lot of conservatives and I think you are wrong.

 

[Tony Stark]

And the government should side with you . . .why exactly? Are you the Final Arbiter of Morals?

Certainly closer to it than some bigot baker.

And many people agree with me. Much fewer give a flying **** about nazi scum.

 

[Tony Stark]

I know a lot of conservatives and I think you are wrong.

The President of the United States thinks that good people march with Nazi/KKK scum. And most of his supporters don't give a ****.

 

[xjx388]

They should side with me if enough people agree.

Lots of people think it is disgusting to discriminate against gay people. Fewer people give a **** about nazi scum.

So if enough people agree, should we just ban NN/WS speech entirely?

 

[xjx388]

The President of the United States thinks that good people march with Nazi/KKK scum. And most of his supporters don't give a ****.

I think you are wrong about that too. I, for one, thought that was an especially stupid thing to say.

 

[Tony Stark]

So if enough people agree, should we just ban NN/WS speech entirely?

Yes. Seems to work out fine in Europe.