Replies

RE: The exercise of a particular instance of discrimination may be morally wrong as far as YOU’RE concerned. But the freedom to choose is a God-given and right or wrong, it is the exercise of God-given liberty, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the life and liberty of another. You’re standard of morality is not necessarily the same as another’s standard pf morality. The morality issue is debatable.

____________________________________________

I agree with the second paragraph of your post:

“What isn’t debatable is the Constitution gives the federal government NO AUTHORITY to interfere with an individual or a business in their freedom of choice.”

However I take issue with the sentence: “The moral issue is debatable”

If so, it begs the question -— is it REALLY OBJECTIVELY, MORALLY WRONG to discriminate against a person based solely on his race or ethnicity?

You mentioned God.... well, is it an offense against the moral law of God to be a racist?

I say it is. What say you?

We need to distinguish between the values and "good manners" of a healthy, free society and the constitutionally delegated powers of the federal government, because these two are easily confused. I wouldn't mind discussing and delving into the subject of individual morality - that's an interesting and important topic. But it is out of place in this context because it has nothing to do with valid, constitutional federal authority.

This particular case, however, is a state's issue, but the shadow of the feds looms large. States should be able to generally do what the majority of the people of that state wish. I don't agree with Brewer's decision if she vetoes this bill, but it's up to the people of the state to change this by election or state constitutional amendment if necessary. The people have great leverage at the state and local level. Ultimately, if necessary, one can move to another state that lines up closer to one's preferences. Far and away the biggest threat to our country is the federal government as when they try to muscle in on what a state is choosing to do.

In general, I would say that the healthiest of all societies is one that respects the life and liberty of each individual and that each adult individual has the (legal) right to exercise his freedoms and choices as long as it doesn't harm or interfere with another's freedom. A society like that fosters a culture where individuals have a high regard and respect for one another. It fosters a peaceable and happy society not unlike the first century or so of America.