you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There are a lot of professions which require a license. That doesn’t make them public employees.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's both true and not my point. They benefit from the public trust in licensed professionals. People cannot make up licenses privately that carry the weight of one issued by the state. If you want that privilege, then you shouldn't be discriminating against people while you profit from it.

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Conversely, the state shouldn't license people to do jobs, because it opens up opportunities like this to compel action because they bEnEfIt FrOm ThE pUbLiC TrUsT. The idea that the government is superior in licensing individuals is nonsensical.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Welp, you should tell that to the government then. :-) All of them, everywhere.

And why shouldn't the state compel people performing essential services to comply with a mandate to not arbitrarily discriminate? Have you never been in a group that was subjected to this? (I ask this rhetorically, because I have not kept track of anything you've shared about your background, but you sure do sound like someone who has been insulated from a lot of the types of harm that others here haven't had the luxury of avoiding. Are you seriously cool with the state rubber-stamping self-important nitwits who think they have the prerogative to deny services that all people in a society at some point might require? Because, I'm not cool with that. And I don't know anyone else who is either. So I can't relate to this sentiment.)

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not gonna get into a competition of suffering, however, I support people's right to discriminate economically because half of the source of hatred is a false sense of oppression on the part of the oppressor. Additionally, I don't want to give my money to a homophobe or racist or sexist, so I would like them to be open with their views so I can avoid them like the plague. I don't like people who discriminate, but in the end, I would prefer for them to change their ideas of their own free will, not be forced to conform by a society that they will grow to hate. I'm not saying you have to agree with my sentiment, I'm just saying that in the case of sexuality, it's the law in the US, and I - for my part - desire it to stay that way because of its long-term implications.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, this response makes me think we are talking past each other, but I'm a little too spent at the moment to figure out how. Will try to remember tomorrow.