I love that video clip! Great contribution!
You may missed the rest of that post. Or, maybe the start of this thread.
halftimes basic point starts out as a loyal Hoosier complaining about Indiana being considered backward. And dose of rather heavy handed assertion that it is a liberal canard.
While I didn't actually say that Indiana is backward, somebody else did mention that as a possibility, and I do think we look that way, and that Ohio did not seem as backward to others, and also that Indiana had shot itself in the foot with the RFRA.
All of which brought halftime to his defense of absolute free choice and into a state of denial about that law.
While halftime was just plainly wrong that the RFRA would not weaken protection for LGBT rights and potentially override many other statutes, he got focused on individual choice instead of the appearance of being backwards. In that we have gone off topic. And, I don't think America sees Indiana as taking heroic libertarian view on principle. More like a repressive backward discrimination against a minority group.
Only late in the thread with his child molester argument and vigorous defense, protecting macho biker culture from a gentleman like him entering a biker bar, has halftime veered a little bit toward homophobia. Which would definitely be backward.
Perhaps I was unfair to pay too much attention to that. Your point is well taken, Jackson.
Still. I think we are just a little off topic here, and I'm one who believes in supporting the rules and traditions of our forum. Without laws our culture will fail. We are likely just to become savages and we need to keep the high standards of civility, decorum, and rational debate without personal comments that this forum stands for.
I'll take some responsibility for that off topic thing, and will welcome discussion back on topic about whether Indiana appears backward or not, and whether it has anything to do with the NBA.
Darn.
Sadly, I think you have been taken in by halftimes silver tongued deviltry.
Social interactions generally are lightly regulated and have been since law was invented. Commercial interaction has been more heavily regulated. Seems very logical to me that there is legal liability and public standards are set.
Take food and beverages. You go over to the neighbors for dinner. You know them, little reason for regulation and mostly unregulated, although if they poison you the law will step in. But when you go to out to a bar or restaurant, that's different. A little regulation seems in order. The public is at much greater risk, there is a state interest, and from early days communities regulated food providers and created legal liability. Must be some reason.
Perhaps it is as simple as that commercial transactions are far more likely to be between strangers and often there is asymmetry of information. A business by it's nature deals with many people and puts them at risk.
I am reasonably pleased when I travel on business or for pleasure that planes are regulated, restaurants, bars, other public businesses. Awfully expensive and inconvenient for me to get to know the pilot or cook or commercial seller of a product or evaluate the interaction in advance. Awfully risky if I have no legal recourse if harmed. We have a legal system evolved to provide public safety, maybe?
None of that is very similar to social interactions.
Every legal system in the world makes the distinction. Why do you find the two situations the same? Don't you think there is a reason?
Of course I didn't say anything like that. I am shocked you would use a straw man argument...
I know of no regulation like that in the past, and doubt legislators are going to see the gain from reducing risk great enough to offset the cost of the regulation. More to the point, of course, is that blind dates do include a trusted intermediary and are not generally in the "public" realm where there are many people at risk on a blind date.
Now, a commercial blind dating activity would be much different, wouldn't it?
A better question would be whether something like internet dating services, even social media which can be easily used to facilitate criminal or terrorist activity, even child abuse and sex traffic, should be regulated, and to what degree. Carefully crafted exceptions to liability law is and should be made in the case of many anonymous internet forums and their activity to protect free speech.
That's a major factor, I think. But not the only one distinguishing the two categories of interaction. I mentioned scale of the activity being different above. Restaurants affecting many more people, for example. As well as it and being very inconvenient and expensive for individuals to know enough to trust the enterprise, that surely makes creation of a legal norm more sensible. Greater risk to more people surely justifies more regulatory cost.
To me that is a key. There should always be attention to a cost benefit analysis in any government activity or regulation. Private activity can have, and commercial activity some what more likely can have externalities that impose costs on others (not involved in the interaction). Completely private interaction (perhaps commercial) will balance the rights of those in the interaction, but NOT protect those who are involved in the interaction.
For example, burning trash on your own property is perhaps all plus to you, nobody else voluntarily involved. Prevailing wind carries smoke away, but it is a cost to your neighbors downwind. So regulation and liability law maybe should apply. You and your neighbor voluntarily take the risk of doing some target shooting in your back yard, on your own property. That could harm others not involved in the activity.
A commercial operation in either case, which would be larger scale and done on a regular basis, would certainly up the stakes and more likely justify regulation than isolated cases of leaf burning in the Autumn.
There is other justification to have government intrusion in "private" or public interaction too. For example, there are a variety of child welfare laws.
My point is that legal structures have evolved over time to create a society in which we have accepted a baseline of regulation. That generally speaking reflects accepted social norms. Whether it is civil liability which puts a price tag on our activity when we harm others, or criminal liability, or other regulatory burdens, these legal norms have developed, been adopted and accepted in our community. We all make assumptions on the basis of the laws, and in many cases put our trust in the law to inexpensively and practically protect us, so we don't have to spend a lot of time negotiating private contracts in commercial settings.
In a public setting, it is similar to when we see a green light driving. We drive through an intersection with much less care than if there is a red light.
In the case of commercial activity there is much more regulation accepted and I would suggest that reflects a variety of reasons, and reflect clear differences between private activity and public commercial activity.
No.
There is no exclusive list of reasons that explain all regulations.
Information asymmetry can justify regulation to make commercial transactions cheaper and efficient, relative to the cost of acquiring information.
In most cases it makes sense that the law reflects community standards and expectations of the members of the community.
We should pay attention to cost benefit analysis when we choose to regulate.
We should not ignore externalities which may justify a lot of regulation.
Yes.
The fact communities have adopted regulations is a factor that justifies them, since it can reflect acceptance and approval, and reflect a social contract.
Regulation of private activity and commercial activity may be justified.
No.
You misstated the factors I did suggest, and I did not at any time say they were the sole factors.
Each particular regulation is likely to have factors unique to the situation which motivate it's creation, whether private or commercial.
Perhaps I don't understand your question. I thought I gave several factors that generally might make commercial activity different, more appropriately subject to regulation. Do you think the two types of interactions are the same and can't be distinguished?
See my private message, regarding this thread.
While I may not have been as clear as you like, I believe I have that done that.
My posts have been GREAT posts. And I am sure they will be GREAT in the future as well. Any disagreement is simply FAKE news. I am shocked to see the failing liberal JacksonStreet postings ignore the GREAT explanations I have offered.
But seriously, Jackson, I might try to do more if you would answer my questions as well, or tell me where you disagree or agree! Do you think the two types of interactions are the same and can't be distinguished? If not why not?
BTW, whether we agree or not completely on the political philosophy about what should be, I suggest we pay attention to those traffic lights in the real world. Probably the most important point I have made.
Private and commercial interactions are plainly different. With different impact and need for protecting the public.
I don't get why you disagree?
I tried to take it to PM...
After all that study, do you have any idea why Jackson thinks the law should treat doing business and private social interaction as if they create the same kinds of legal problems for a community?
I have given several reasons how business interaction is different from social interaction. You haven't said a word about that.
When a business opens up to the public they give up some rights(not all rights) to complete and absolute "free association." It is reasonable cost of doing business as a public commercial enterprise, they gain a great deal by the bargain and they obtain legal protections as a business as part of the social contract.
If we agree that in general terms the state has an interest in regulating business to protect the public, then the question about this specific case of protecting the LGBT community as part of that public would be a question partially answered by cost benefit analysis, part in terms of how much protection does the religious issues involved deserve in a public setting as opposed to how much protection the LGBT public deserves.
In this specific case the legislature by writing an overly broad law, choosing the most extreme version of RFRA, and in how they handled it, have balanced the rights of religious practice and the LGBT community at a point considered backwards as judged by the backlash.
Tell me why the legislature had any urgent reason to limit those communities who had passed civil rights protections. In this argument you are champion of big government telling the local communities what they can do. We should be arguing about where to draw the line. You have offered no opinion on that. It's not clear to me where you think it should be drawn(you have answered no questions on the matter).
EDIT: If you'd like to answer the question I'm still interested.
C'mon, not even a good example. A private liquor store is open to the public over 21 and Crestview or Player's Club are public golf courses and advertise as such. Even some Country Club courses are open a day a week to the public, or do public business in their facility, for example wedding receptions.
If you want to call stores and restaurants "privately owned" that is one thing, and certainly that might have some impact on government regulation that would apply, but, to call most business "private" in terms of their business model is ridiculous. Their doors are open to the public. Your private home where you are a social host surely is different.
Most businesses advertise to the public inviting commercial interaction. Find a business not on the web, without public signage, without any such invitation to deal, maybe that is a "private" business model. And sure, sometimes businesses limit their invitation to deal by product or service type.
Private or public, a business is regulated in some ways. Being open to the public and soliciting the public creates some obligations. That means you don't have the right for example to choose not to associate with members of the public of a certain race, or gender, or age, or with disability, or for other reasons. You want to do business, you need to give up that absolute right to associate only with those not in those classifications.
Where to draw the line is a fair question. I say the RFRA pushes it too far. Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Being a commercial enterprise doesn't mean you have no right to exclude customers. Generally you can. But in this case, Bloomington and other municipalities said you had no right to do so with regard to otherwise lawfully behaving members of the LGBT public.
Federal law says the same thing about race, religion, age, gender, disability and so on. Do you oppose those laws as well? On similar grounds?
And how does the RFRA distinguish those cases where state law might burden a religious "practice," say regarding child abuse, or any other matter? If someone says his religious belief requires something and the law forbids it, and is burden to his religion, look back at the language of the law. Religion appears to be a defense.
The RFRA creates a "defense" which is over broad as it was written in Indiana and did not balance the rights of the parties.
Maybe Bloomington went to far? If that community wants an inclusive society, and voted to create protections, I can support their right to do so.
You are the one dodging the main question in the thread and that is whether this makes Indiana look backward. The backlash and reaction to the law, including the legislative changes say it does.
Private sector refers to ownership, not business practices.
There is no way to call doing business a "private" activity other than that.
Costco is another poor example. They are not a "private club" with very much or any exemptions from law or regulation that Kroger is. They certainly would be in the same situation in most ways. For example, they cannot exclude "members" on grounds of race, religion, etc.
Very good. You are starting to get it.
Costco and Kroger are only very slightly different in terms of legal burdens. Their membership model does allow them to build in some boilerplate in the membership contract which in some cases protects them, other ways protects the customer. A Kroger customer would not be necessarily similarly bound other than where the law required the same protections.
Geeze, I think being open to the public is fairly self explanatory.
I suppose we might say that advertising to the general public and inviting the public to deal is the basic idea. If Delaware Country Club advertised for membership and specified he "private" nature of the their business I suppose that might be different.
If businesses what to exclude members of the LGBT community, maybe the law should allow that if they would advertise their discrimination?
I don't know what you think about the employee of the firm who engages in discrimination on his own. Most businesses I believe would fire him, but he would appear not to be liable personally in any way under statute, and if he discriminated on the basis of religion or race, he would create liability for the company as it is.
Why did you bring up Costco with their membership model then?
As to women's health clubs, I have not researched this question, though being a male may not be a suspect class in some states, perfectly legal to discriminate against males on the basis of gender in some cases for sure...it is after all how the statute is written. Maybe if there is an ERA in the state, not so?
But probably mostly because the laws have a number of exceptions, such as for bona fide occupational necessity in employment.
Not against the law to discriminate against young people, that's the statute...
No. It's because the Congress many years ago did not see a problem in this area.
Have you any reason to believe the Bloomington ordinance would have this result? If so, it's the good citizens of Bloomington who should correct it, not the state legislature in absence of any existing problem.
If the State should correct Bloomington's error, they should not shoot it with a cannon like the RFRA which goes way to war in what it protects and when.
That beach argument is the silliest one yet. I think business (and beaches) are open to the public enough to be regulated.
If you are a commercial enterprise open to the public and solicit business from the public I think you should be subject to reasonable regulation. I certainly don't think anyone here has lost all their freedom of association. I didn't say you forfeited all rights at all, but only that the RFRA went too far in protecting rights. There was no real problem, and the law is too broad. I have said the latter in almost every post, and you ignore the incompetent and extreme decision the State made which created the appearance of our being a bigoted backwards state.
Where would you draw the line?
The guy giving away food may qualify as a business, I have no idea. If so he would be subject to applicable laws. Most civil rights laws exempt many activities. This is one that I don't know about. Should we really have the RFRA with all its flaws in order to guard against this possible food giveaway problem? Don't you think it is overkill?
I don't see much problem with people being confused about when they are in business or when they are engaged in social activity or other noncommercial activity. Nor do I think "opening your house" for your dinner guests is the same as advertising food and drink for sale to the public. I doubt anyone is confused about when they are going to a restaurant in ordinary course of business.
I don't think government has as much interest in regulating your private non economic activity in your home. Operating a business enterprise, whether from your home or not is different than entertaining guests.
I don't think we see very much of the example you are so worried about. A large scale distribution of food, whether it is a business or not, likely would run into some regulations, I just know what regulations apply here.
Free association is not an absolute right. Laws limit freedom. You make it sound as if you give up ALL rights. The limits are limited and recognize the community standards. Perhaps, you can't associate with you biker buddies if they want to sit on your lawn at night in the neighborhood and make a lot of noise, or if you want to form a gun club and take target practice in your back yard, or if you want to dance naked with your girl friend in your living room with the blinds open. In all those cases your free association is limited. Your community makes law which will impact you if you choose to live there.
So. Yes, if you go into business, or choose to live in the city limits, or do any number of other things that makes you subject to law which MIGHT limit your free association. In a relatively small way.
This is important so we can have communities. The law balances rights of people. In business and in private life there is a trade off of absolute freedom by an individual versus the rights of others.
That is BS, the argument I present was quite general in nature, and applies to that aspect of free association
All within a quite limited range of situations. Your argument would imply you could refuse to associate and serve people on the basis of race, religion, etc. In Bloomington and many other places local law said LBGTQ was such a classification. If you disagree with the law, fine, but the state has the power to make that law.
Note it applies in business, and with exceptions defined by statute. This does limit your rights, but in a quite reasonable way.
You don't have to invite any of those LGBTQ folks to dinner. Just serve them in your restaurant when they are law abiding members of the public.
You are perfectly free to limit those rowdy bikers who interfere with your business by their illegal or inappropriate behavior, or rowdy LGBTQ folks for that matter...because they are rowdy and disturb your business, not because they are LGBTQ.
What the state law did was set up not just an exception that could be a bogus religious excuse, but potentially to allow that excuse to invalidate what the city wanted to do about LGBTQ, but with language so broad it was an excuse potentially for almost any law to be broken.
It was too broad. .
We were talking about free association and legal limits on it. You can't always choose completely freely.
I don't see anything I said off topic.
What's your position anyway?
These questions seem pretty obvious to me. No need to get technical.
Give a borderline case where it matters. Something real not the backyard food give away at your place.
Where's the problem you see?
The question is more how free can society be?
There is no totally free lunch.
No, but you could take it to mean that absolute freedom is not reality. Or, that society is not about absolute freedom. It's about law to guarantee a reasonable amount of order which does limit freedom.
Or, you could take it that you can continue to bar those LGBTQ folks from your home but that if you go into business whether you can completely be able to avoid the association may depend on the law. Without which legal system orderly commercial transactions are very difficult if at all possible.
Why would they be the same is the better question.
your home is surely private and you are making nothing like an implicit invitation for people to come there and engage in commerce of mutual benefit. The community has much less interest in what you do in private non commercial use of property.
Most business is quite different and the community has much greater interest in creating standards.
All businesses can discriminate. Not completely free. Depends on the statute what classification they can use.
If you think lawyers in business are like restaurants or retail establishments, I do not agree.
First, many businesses can discriminate on many factors. For example "No shoes, no shirt, no service." Why not talk about limitations in context of the relatively few constraints there are. Stop pretending we are talking about some great intrusion into personal freedom.
Second, you seem to be in denial that we live in a society governed by law and nobody is arguing the fact law inherently "restricts" freedom. But there are limits, and there is a mechanism through which law is created by the governed. So there is no "you" creating restrictions for "me." We are living in a society with custom, history, and social organization which includes laws. Where else are you going to go to live with no laws? Would you really want to live there?
Third, practice of law, medicine, many other businesses are actually MORE regulated than retail or the vast majority of commercial enterprises. That is precisely to create protection for the public. Lawyers, doctors, others, often in fact must take on obligations with clients and can't just drop them or refuse to deal with them without protecting their interests. You are apparently unfamiliar with licensing and the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs lawyers.
Fourth, we are awfully far afield from the original position you took to defend Indiana's over broad restriction on communities creating a standard to protect LGBTQ members of their city. Do you really want that law which could create so much bogus litigation? If you want specifics and less intrusion why not argue for a more limited version of the law as many states have done to balance the rights of all involved?
Why do you call it "coercion?" Looks to me like rather reasonable regulation of those who gain substantial advantage from legal protections given those engaged in commercial activity?
Bloomington and other Indiana communities have adopted laws they believe balance the rights of individuals to do business against the rights of the public to expect non discrimination in a number of circumstances, on a number of specific grounds, including race, gender, and others. With a number of exceptions. The political decision of those communities seems warrant some respect.
The law is I am sure not perfect, but should be able to make sure the balance is a fair one. Best chance we have anyway. What is your alternative to a system of laws? How much law do you accept as necessary and appropriate?
I have answered that. How about answering my questions?
We need to balance rights of individuals and there is great utility of law in our system resolving disputes where individuals disagree on rights and duties.
