tennesse anti-gay bill

[Racket_Man]

a bill, now passed and signed into law, would make anti-discrimination laws equal across the state, barring rules or statues that are stricter than the state rules or statues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_865581.html

[Greenday]

Hopefully the governor gets it on his desk, looks at it, and says, "You actually thought I'd sign this garbaga? LOL! GTFO"

[lordlundar]

Hopefully the governor gets it on his desk, looks at it, and says, "You actually thought I'd sign this garbaga? LOL! GTFO"

Guess again. The update says he signed it into law last night.

[Andara Bledin]

So, basically, the bigoted bastards in TN wanted to be able to be just as discriminatory in Nashville as the rest of the state. Assholes.

I love how the TN CoC did a complete 180 on the matter the day it was signed into law. I bet they point to that and act like they opposed it the entire time despite being one of the strongest supporters up until the final hour. >_<

^-.-^

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Really is pretty disgusting that this could even be up for discussion.

[Boozy]

It's fascinating that I'm hearing support here for civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating.

In previous threads, I've only heard choruses of "It's up to the businesses to decide what to do, and consumers to decide where to spend their money". Libertarian nonsense.

I'm a big supporter of anti-discrimination laws, since I am certain that racial segregation would still exist without them in many areas. But I've never seen much support here for them.

[Ghel]

This legislation is weird, in part because it's backwards from how the law normally goes. Normally it follows nation->state->city with the law being strict->stricter->strictest. It's weird for a state to say that a city cannot have any stricter anti-discrimination laws than the state does.

It makes me wonder if there's a precedent for this sort of law. I'm guessing not, since it normally goes the other way.

[Andara Bledin]

In previous threads, I've only heard choruses of "It's up to the businesses to decide what to do, and consumers to decide where to spend their money". Libertarian nonsense.

I like how you just dismiss an entire philosophy as "nonsense."

An outstanding article regarding libertarianism and discrimination legislation, how they relate, the pros and cons of such an ideology, and what it really means.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

^-.-^

[Boozy]

That article is a mixture of wild speculation, logical fallacies (the old "slippery slope" argument), and statements that are just factually wrong.

The free market does not protect minorities from discrimination to any degree. The United States have shown themselves starkly willing, time and again, to shoot themselves in the face to maintain racial and religious bigotry. This has been happening since the time of slavery, a policy which has seriously damaged the economy in the Southern US, and from which they have never recovered.

Discrimination is incredibly damaging to economies as a whole, and any economist who tells you otherwise is lying or incompetent.

[Andara Bledin]

That article is a mixture of wild speculation, logical fallacies (the old "slippery slope" argument), and statements that are just factually wrong.

Oh, yeah, that slippery slope thing is a complete myth.

I mean, it's not like we'll ever hear about, say, kids being punished for wishing their fellow students a "Merry Christmas," or anything.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

This legislation is weird, in part because it's backwards from how the law normally goes. Normally it follows nation->state->city with the law being strict->stricter->strictest. It's weird for a state to say that a city cannot have any stricter anti-discrimination laws than the state does.

It makes me wonder if there's a precedent for this sort of law. I'm guessing not, since it normally goes the other way.

I believe the governor, or maybe the attorney general, anyway someone like that in Virginia not long ago declared that the state's antidiscrimination laws must be interpreted to bar universities from having stricter ones, for the same reason: to stop their protecting gay people. Or something enough like that that it's not worth looking up the difference right now.