Filner, Mayor of San Diego. When Does He Resign?

Quote: AZDuffman

Tax burden to the community? How would that be?

Indentured servants who became pregnant automatically had the period of their indenture extended a year so if a landowner repeatedly impregnated his servants there was a presumption that bastards would become uneducated burdens to the community and thus taxation was the only liberating social welfare force at the time.

In citing this situation I am merely showing that what is proper in male-female relations in the home and workplace changes and that the Mayor's actions would have hardly raised an eyebrow but a few decades ago.

Quote: Fleastiff

Indentured servants who became pregnant automatically had the period of their indenture extended a year so if a landowner repeatedly impregnated his servants there was a presumption that bastards would become uneducated burdens to the community and thus taxation was the only liberating social welfare force at the time.

The first part I get, if the servant had lost her husband the landlord could keep her bonded near forever. But with no government social programs the second part is where I don't quite agree. Back then almost everyone was uneducated, and if the kids were able-bodied they could find some kind of work on some farm.

Quote:

In citing this situation I am merely showing that what is proper in male-female relations in the home and workplace changes and that the Mayor's actions would have hardly raised an eyebrow but a few decades ago.

Even in the 1960s I would say his actions would have been near the edge, though they would have been covered up better.

Quote: AZDuffman

Back then almost everyone was uneducated, and if the kids were able-bodied they could find some kind of work on some farm.

Reading, writing, instilling a work ethic (ie, beating a child) were the duties of the workhouse warder. The workhouse was supported by taxes forced on the community.

Covering up? Yes. I once profiled a criminal in the Kansas City area as having an intense hatred of women and knew that in the workplace he would be a tyrant but knowing that large cities have active women's rights groups, I knew he would be working for a much smaller municipality.

Quote: TheCesspit

I think someone does, yes. The persecution of the Jews was not a subtle, law-driven persecution. It was violent, forceful and on the streets. it was not done in the law courts. The law backed up the violence, with the various rules and laws to remove the rights, but it was physical force, not a legal one.

That's a pretty fair assesment. But just to be clear, there were plenty of laws against Jews in addition to the violence perpetrated on them. This differs from Czarist Russia in principle and in degree. But the current situation in Russia regarding gays and lesbians is similar in principle to what was going on in Germany in the 30s. There is a difference in degree, and I doubt that Putin, or anyone else, seriously intends to wipe out all GLBTQ people. But the similarities are still there.

Yet the bigots residing, mostly*, in the (religious) conservative wings of the GOP do have a point. There is such a thing as freedom of association, and many anti-discrimination laws infringe on that. But claiming they're under Nazi-style persecution blows things out of all proportion, and amkes them look even more bigotted and paranoid than they really are. Of course, I don't mind if they choose to shoot themselves in the foot, and succeed in shooting themselves in the heart.

* Incidentally, one very outspoken, and loud, bigot recently in the news is a long time Democrat, and formerly a competent Science Fiction author, called Orson Scott Card. He also has a massive problem as regards Muslims.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not saying there was no violence, I am saying they used law over violence far more pre-1939. Homophile "violence" in the USA has so far been more of demonstrations and disruption to private businesses that do not support the homophile agenda (eg: the Chick-Fil-A "kiss-in.) I don't see them getting violent, but I do predict them throwing more public hissy-fits.

Kristalnacht was 1938. The first forced deportation were in around 1938, but there was a low level street violence before then. I don't see any parallels at all between the Nuremberg laws and the hotch potch of minor laws passed by ill-guided city officials. You will note there is wide spread condemnation of the actions by mayors wanting to stop businesses opening based on the charitable givings, or political positions of the CEOs. And on the other hand, there's nothing morally wrong with a group making a peaceful protest against company policies. As much as there isn't anything wrong with folks like Huckabee doing a reverse protest.

Quote:

Talk to S2 about that, he brought it up, not me.

And you continued the rather threadbare analogy. S2 brought up a parallel between the current violence and persecution of gay men and women in the USSR with the persecution of the Jews. You tried to reverse it. It's a poor analogy, and a horse that doesn't run.

Quote: TheCesspit

I don't see any parallels at all between the Nuremberg laws and the hotch potch of minor laws passed by ill-guided city officials.

You do not see the correlation with the mayor of the third largest city saying a business owner is not welcome in his city?

Quote:

And on the other hand, there's nothing morally wrong with a group making a peaceful protest against company policies. As much as there isn't anything wrong with folks like Huckabee doing a reverse protest.

There is when they do it on the target's property with the express intent to disrupt the target's business. Lets reverse it. If a skinhead group planned to dress in paramilitary garb and hang out drinking coffee in Starbucks would you support that?

Quote: AZDuffman

You do not see the correlation with the mayor of the third largest city saying a business owner is not welcome in his city?

No, as no act was passed, and he met wide spread condemnation.

Quote:

There is when they do it on the target's property with the express intent to disrupt the target's business. Lets reverse it. If a skinhead group planned to dress in paramilitary garb and hang out drinking coffee in Starbucks would you support that?

The right to peaceful assembly. So yes. Seeing as they are purchasing goods as well. It would be rather wrong of me to say no, wouldn't it? I wouldn't go into that shop, but that's hardly the point. I have a right to choose where I go and purchase coffee.

The coffee shop owners can then decide if they want to continue to have these customers as patrons.

Lets just look at the Nuremberg laws quickly here:

Quote:

Section 1
- Marriages between Jews and citizens (German: Staatsangehörige) of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
Section 2
- Extramarital sexual intercourse between Jews and subjects of the state of Germany or related blood is forbidden.
Section 3
- Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens under the age of 45, of German or kindred blood, as domestic workers.
Section 4
- Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national colours.
- On the other hand they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.
Section 5
- A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.
- A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
- A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.

Now lets look at the Chicago mayor's statement:

"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values, they disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

and from one alderman:

"“Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward,".

I've not seen any law passed on the banning a company from opening, or the CEO being told he has to do hard labour. I have seen several people (liberals too) state things like:

""This is where a fine line is drawn, and you have to make clear that official decisions, permitting, licensing aren't based on religious beliefs or political ideology," - Harold Krent, Illinois Institute of Technology's Kent College of Law.

As far as I know, no case has come to court where a licence has been denied due to the beliefs of the CEO.

I fail to see any parallels. I do see over reaction and idiocy by some elected officials, but that's like saying I see wet people when it rains.

Quote: TheCesspit

Now lets look at the Chicago mayor's statement:

"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values, they disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

and from one alderman:

"“Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward,".

I've not seen any law passed on the banning a company from opening, or the CEO being told he has to do hard labour.

Uh, you need to look more carefully. They didn't need to pass a new law, they simply said they will use their current right to grant a business license to punish a company with a CEO who does not share their views.

How about if they said Apple Stores would not be allowed to open and Ben and Jerry would not be allowed to be sold because of the ignorance of their CEOs?

Quote:

""This is where a fine line is drawn, and you have to make clear that official decisions, permitting, licensing aren't based on religious beliefs or political ideology," - Harold Krent, Illinois Institute of Technology's Kent College of Law.

There was no fine line at all, CFA was denied the license because the CEO would not toe the homophile line.

Quote:

I fail to see any parallels. I do see over reaction and idiocy by some elected officials, but that's like saying I see wet people when it rains.

Perhaps you will when the law is used against a belief you have.

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, you need to look more carefully. They didn't need to pass a new law, they simply said they will use their current right to grant a business license to punish a company with a CEO who does not share their views.

Uh, thats abuse of power, testable in the court of law. Not passing of a wide ranging set of laws banning homophobes from operating businesses, removing their rights to vote, marriage and citizenship. It is not the Nuremberg race laws.

You are make a false equivalency, where the abuse of existing powers (and I've only seen statements that they -would- refuse, not that any licences were actually refused, but maybe it did happen) is the same as passing explicit laws.

Quote:

How about if they said Apple Stores would not be allowed to open and Ben and Jerry would not be allowed to be sold because of the ignorance of their CEOs?

Erm, that would be wrong. As it was in the Chick-fil-a case.

Quote:

There was no fine line at all, CFA was denied the license because the CEO would not toe the homophile line.

Harold Krent is supporting your point of view. He (along with many other commentators) clearly stated that the statements by the alderman in the first ward were NOT LEGAL.

Quote:

Perhaps you will when the law is used against a belief you have.

No I won't, because the Nuremberg laws were a specific set of laws designed to persecute a minority, while the laws being threatened here are being used in a way that you object to, by officials that seem not to be in the majority.

Stop making false equivalences. You've made a ridiculous comparison, and don't seem to like being told so. There is plenty you could say as being wrong, but it's not 'Nazi Germany', there is not massive 'homophile' line that will start a riot and drive out good ol' businessmen at the drop of the hat, put all the homophobes in prison and then starve them to death and gas them. I find it almost offensive that you try to tie a simple abuse of power to the systematic removal of rights, disenfranchisment, imprisonment and killing of millions of people in Germany together. It's in no way at all the same.

Laws often get used against a belief I have. I don't start shouting Nazi Germany.

It's not helpful to do so.