What's your opinion? Does that clarify the meaning of "immutable" as it's being used in this discussion?Which of the following hypothetical statements to prospective customers make sense, and which are to be rejected as wrong and discriminatory?
1. “You can come in, but you have to leave your skin color outside.”
2. “You can come in, but you have to leave your sexual orientation outside.”
3. “You can come in, but you have to leave your religious affiliation outside.”
4. “You can come in, but you have to leave your gender outside.”
5. To the paraplegic: “You can come in, but you have to leave your wheelchair outside.”Versus
6. “You can come in, but you have to leave your gun outside unless you’re a police officer.”
Clearly, the first five statements are racist, homophobic, religiously discriminatory, sexist and discriminatory against the physically challenged and are unacceptable.
Why? Among other reasons, they are all impossible to comply with. All of those traits are immutable characteristics of individuals and cannot be separated from the person. It is impossible to comply with those statements because if you exclude one, you exclude both.
The sixth and last statement, however, obviously does not fall into that category, because guns can be separated from people. A gun is a thing outside human identity.
Please leave a comment.
What's my opinion? My opinion is that Starbuck's should continue to do what they do best: make coffee. Why would they want to take either side in this debate and risk alienating some of their customer base? That's just bad business.
ReplyDeleteNone of this really matters because Starbucks does not wish to discriminate against anyone.
ReplyDeleteBrady argues that all of those guns are dangerous, then why do they make an exception for cops. Are their guns any less dangerous?
Religion isn't "immutable." Should businesses be able to bar you from entering because you're carrying a bible? A Koran? You're wearing a necklace with a cross or the Star of David?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be Bigotry if your friends at the Brady Campaign were calling on Starbucks to bar anyone who was "openly Jewish?"
Saying "you can come in but you have to leave your gun....unless you're a cop" is at a minimum inherently discriminatory.
Oh, and the guy's wheelchair is not immutable. It's a tool. It can be separated from him.
ReplyDeleteWould it be fine for Starbucks to require that someone carry him inside & seat him, leaving his chair at the door?
I hadn't realized there was any disagreement or confusion about the meaning of "immutable"--it's not, after all, that complicated. The issue is whether or not "immutability" is the only relevant test for bigotry. To say that it is the only relevant test is to say that it's not bigotry to demand that people make any changes (so long as those changes are possible) that you desire them to make.
ReplyDeleteA corporation doesn't like overweight people? Weight loss is possible, so fatness is not "immutable"--would banning fat people therefore not be bigotry?
The Brady Bunch is just getting pissy because noone is listening to them anymore, except some guy in Italy.
ReplyDeleteReligion is not immutable, it's a choice. You can have all you want and talk about it all you want--at home or in your church. When you're on the street or in a private place of business various ordinances or company policies re: praying and prosletyzing come in to play.
ReplyDeletemikey:
"Oh, and the guy's wheelchair is not immutable. It's a tool. It can be separated from him.
Would it be fine for Starbucks to require that someone carry him inside & seat him, leaving his chair at the door?"
The wheelchair is not immutable, the users disability is. Yes, actually, in some locations where, for any number of reasons ADA compliant facilities are not available business owners or event organizers will do what is necessary to ensure that the disabled are accomodated.
You're such an idiot.
Religion and gender are not immutable. And depending on who you ask, neither is sexual orientation. See: Gay-for-Pay and LUGs.
ReplyDeleteBrady lost. They need to get used to it and move on. There are dozens of significant pro-gun bills coming up in several states and Brady is going to continue to lose time and again. They need to learn how to lose gracefully. Unless of course they want to get discouraged and fold. That would be best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThey need to learn how to lose gracefully. Unless of course they want to get discouraged and fold. That would be best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteYeah!!! Although, come to think of it, I'd kinda miss 'em. Hearing Henigan's whiny, sniveling voice, as he complains about this advancement of freedom, or that setback for tyranny, warms the cockles of my heart.
It's like this, Leave the guns and the chainsaws in the car or at home. Bring in your religion and sexual orientation and of course your skin color.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that simple enough.
RuffRidr said, "Starbuck's should continue to do what they do best: make coffee."
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe they could have continued doing just that if it weren't for your buddies making a show of their open carry rights. The Brady think and all the uproar came after.
Isn't that simple enough.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we get it, Mikeb, that that's what you (and the Brady Campaign) want. What you seem to have trouble grasping is that that's not your call (or the Brady Bunch's) to make.
I'll tell you what, though, I don't have much interest in carrying a chainsaw around with me (did you really say something somewhere about carrying a chainsaw on one's belt? That would be something to see), so if you want, you can declare "victory" on that one--your side seems, after all, to be kinda hard-up for victories.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe they could have continued doing just that if it weren't for your buddies making a show of their open carry rights.
As far as I can tell, Starbucks has "continued doing just that," while treating the Brady Bunch's noise as the inconsequential triviality that it is.
Zorro:
ReplyDeleteThis:
"I hadn't realized there was any disagreement or confusion about the meaning of "immutable"--it's not, after all, that complicated. The issue is whether or not "immutability" is the only relevant test for bigotry."
Really? Explain.
I'm beginning to understand how the minds of a lot of Type 2A's work; something along the lines of:
"We love the law when it's on our side, otherwise, not so much."
Slavery and the issue of universal suffrage were both enshrined in law. It took amendments to the constitution to stop slavery and to guarantee universal suffrage. It also took an amendment to prohibit the sale, use or making of intoxicating alcohol--and another to repeal it.
The Type 2A mindset is that THEIR amendment is inviolate and immutable. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong. In any case I know they would all comply with any new laws about regulating or surrendering their guns in a moment if the 2nd amendment was repealed.
"In any case I know they would all comply with any new laws about regulating or surrendering their guns in a moment if the 2nd amendment was repealed."
ReplyDeleteThere is a process in place for repealing ANY amendment.
Good luck with that.
The only amendment to ever be repealed was the ban on alcohol. Throughout our history, we have constantly expandedour freedoms, we don't make it a habit of flushing them down the shitter.
Except for gun control folks.
"In any case I know they would all comply with any new laws about regulating or surrendering their guns in a moment if the 2nd amendment was repealed."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't.
a corporation violating an Americans constitional rights? Would never happen in America......think again and learn American history.....every time someone used Western Union during the Cold War, which was owned by ITT, a copy of the financial and the telegram text was sent to FT. Meade and the NSA. one copy for the customer, one for the govenment, and one for the NSA.
ReplyDeleteSounds like something that the KGB would do on its citizens during the Cold War....
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteReally? Explain.
I thought I already did, and at some length, in this comment thread, but to very briefly recap, in deference to your freakishly short attention span:
This dictionary definition of "bigotry":
obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions.
. . . Makes clear that a characteristic doesn't have to be "immutable" (religion isn't, for example) for intolerance of it to be bigotry. Before I'm accused of being insufficiently specific, I am not referring to statutory protection against bigotry under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other statute.
I also reject the notion that a personal characteristic that a person exhibits as a matter of choice is somehow less honorable than one that he or she was born with--what's wrong with personal choice?
Democommie also says:
I'm beginning to understand how the minds of a lot of Type 2A's work; something along the lines of:
"We love the law when it's on our side, otherwise, not so much."
So, Democommie, what sorts of folks do you know who don't "love the law when it's on [their] side, otherwise not so much"? Doesn't that describe just about everybody?
As for repealing the 2nd Amendment--as kaveman said, there's a process for that--and good luck. I'd especially love to see the other side try to get 3/4ths of the states (38, in other words) to ratify a repeal. That means that 13 liberty-loving states would be enough to block it. Perhaps you remember enough of American history to realize that this wouldn't be the first instance of 13 (of what soon became states) standing up for liberty. So Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, New Hampshire, Arizona, Utah, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Missouri, and Colorado (for example) could block the repeal all by themselves--do you seriously believe that any of them wouldn't do so?
Besides, repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn't instantly ban guns. For decades (until Heller), after all, the 2nd Amendment had been treated as meaningless, but guns weren't banned.
Finally, if the ban does come down, I won't just be keeping my guns--I'll be using them.
"In any case I know they would all comply with any new laws about regulating or surrendering their guns in a moment if the 2nd amendment was repealed."
ReplyDeleteAztec Red: "I wouldn't."
That reminds me of an article I read about the Armenian genocide -- it was not about guns, but I zeroed in on the part that mentioned guns.
Before the killings, the Turks had banned Armenians from owning guns (surprised?). Then they searched Armenian homes and found that many Armenians still owned guns. They then proclaimed this to be evidence that Armenians were lawbreakers, and thus deserving of even harsher treatment.
FishyJay, I think the Turk / Armenian example works much better than some of the others, but what exactly does that have to do with us? Do you mock people who say, "that can't happen here?" I think they're right.
ReplyDeleteil principe says:
ReplyDeletea corporation violating an Americans constitional [sic] rights? Would never happen in America......
I can't imagine anyone making such a claim. The point is that Starbucks is refusing to do so here. I'm not claiming that this is a principled stand on Starbucks' part, instead, I think it's just a smart, pragmatic avoidance of--I'll say it again--someone else's culture war.
I see, by the way, that the Brady Campaign is gloating over another restaurant's decision to ban Open Carry by private citizens. That allows the Brady Bunch to chalk up California Pizza Kitchen, Peet's Coffee and Tea, and now the Buckhorn Grill as "victories." Note that the Buckhorn Grill is solely a California operation, and while the other two have expanded beyond California, that's still where their bread is buttered, so to speak. California is, of course, the closest thing to Brady Paradise in the U.S.--if the Brady Campaign can't manage some influence there, where else is it going to?
I bring this up because Starbucks is, on the other hand, a nationwide chain, and is well-advised to take care not to cause offense to customers in Dallas and Boise. The three operations that have "caved to" the Brady Campaign, can more safely take sides (the side that is likely to be well supported in California).
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteFishyJay, I think the Turk / Armenian example works much better than some of the others, but what exactly does that have to do with us? Do you mock people who say, "that can't happen here?" I think they're right.
I'm not FishyJay, obviously, but why can't it "happen here" (whether "here" is Italy, or the U.S.)? What's so magical about any nation, to make it immune to devolving into genocide?
Well, actually, if we're talking about the U.S., there is one thing--the fact that the people will always be armed, and thus capable of resisting such evil.
"Do you mock people who say, "that can't happen here?" I think they're right."
ReplyDeleteA lot of people thought a terrorist attack that could claim thousands of lives could never happen here.
Using your doctrine of shared responsibility, those who say it can't happen here are responsible for when it does happen here.
Mikeb, my Armenian story was in response to this from democommie:
ReplyDelete"In any case I know they would all comply with any new laws about regulating or surrendering their guns in a moment if the 2nd amendment was repealed."
It's true that there would be resistance to surrendering guns if the 2nd amendment was repealed and gun ownership was banned. One reason is because that has sometimes turned out badly in the past. I don't think that what happened to Armenians could happen here, BUT if the 2nd amendment was repealed and gun ownership was banned, I might start to worry about the path down which we were heading.
Also, if the 2nd amendment was repealed and gun ownership was banned but there was resistance to surrendering guns and some were to say "See? Many gunowners are NOT law-abiding"...
Then those who said that would be using the same circular logic that the Turks used.
Go ahead and repeal the 2nd Amendment. It's not like MikeB or Demo would come to my door and try to confiscate my guns.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe they could have continued doing just that if it weren't for your buddies making a show of their open carry rights. The Brady think and all the uproar came after.
ReplyDeleteAnd why couldn't they continue to make coffee? Nothing has changed. Starbuck's does not seem to be bothered by the status quo. Again, it is in their best interest not to piss off customers. Policies that put restrictions on law abiding citizen's rights pisses off customers. Not getting involved seems like a very shrewd move to me.
That's strange. I leave my sexual orientation in the house unless I think I'll be using it.
ReplyDelete