Indiana legislation allows discrimination against homosexuals

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why in your opinion was this law needed? its just to help with the inevitable law suits. First amendment v crybaby is effectively clogging the systems. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the truth. Originally posted by Omega Vision
The best one is when conservatives say "vote with your dollars."

As opposed to...voting with your votes? Dollars make more of an impact...Originally posted by Digi
Except it doesn't work like you think. After a similarly homophobic announcement, Chik-Fil-A sales actually went up considerably. There's that old adage about any attention being good attention. And while that doesn't always hold true, there are some unfortunate cases where it does.

Since this is a different case, though, there's a chance you're right. But even then, 'weeding out bigots' is just going to be a positive spin on 'hurting the Indiana economy.' So I'm not sure there's a whole lot of positives to get out of this. With bills legalizing gay marriage and the like, any positive we perceive in a bill like this is going to be tangential to the regression it ultimately represents. here is my very stripped down reasoning.

If you were gay, would you want to force an anti gay person to bake your cake?
///
Just for reference I'm very pro gay marriage and atheist. BUT I'm very anti forced relationship and support "the right to not serve" rules

Robtard

Originally posted by Henry_Pym

Just for reference I'm very pro gay marriage and atheist. BUT I'm very anti forced relationship and support "the right to not serve" rules

So in your opinion it should be legal for businesses to have something like "No dogs or Blacks allowed"?

Time Immemorial

Everyone here is gay.

Mindset

We've all never made eye contact.

100% hetero.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Mindset
We've all never made eye contact.

100% hetero.

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/user_sigs/1/7/customsig_147017_5x.gif

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
So in your opinion it should be legal for businesses to have something like "No dogs or Blacks allowed"?

confused

How often do dogs place business orders where YOU'RE from?

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
confused

How often do dogs place business orders where YOU'RE from?

Is it painful being you?

riv6672

Originally posted by Mindset
Quiet your face, scumbag.
Ha, well okay then.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
confused

How often do dogs place business orders where YOU'RE from? laughing out loud

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
its just to help with the inevitable law suits. First amendment v crybaby is effectively clogging the systems. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the truth. Dollars make more of an impact... here is my very stripped down reasoning.

If you were gay, would you want to force an anti gay person to bake your cake?
///
Just for reference I'm very pro gay marriage and atheist. BUT I'm very anti forced relationship and support "the right to not serve" rules
I wasn't aware of these lawsuits being a big problem.

Maybe, but economic pressure often takes much longer than direct political action in achieving change. Look at South Florida, after the Cubans snubbed Mandela for not renouncing Castro in the 90s, black businesses boycotted the region. It was a huge financial drain that ended up doing jackshit because at the end of the day the Cubans would rather have their anti-Castro agenda than make money, and any kind of stubborn, intolerant mindset works the same way. Russia right now is the ultimate example. They're prepared to go into a full on recession rather than get with the 21st century program.

I say business owners should stop being crybabies and just serve whoever wants their service regardless of whether they believe their 3000 year old book condemns their customers' lifestyle.

Time Immemorial

Can we ban Riv, cause he's a raging homo.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Omega Vision

economic pressure often takes much longer than direct political action in achieving change.

I don't know if, on the whole, you're correct on this one.
The only effective case I can think of at the moment, where economic pressure achieved change, was the desegregation of the bus systems in the South.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

I say business owners should stop being crybabies and just serve whoever wants their service regardless of whether they believe their 3000 year old book condemns their customers' lifestyle.

Question: What if some patrons are loyal to the business BECAUSE they follow the practices of a 3000 year old book?

Chik Fil A, despite, or perhaps even because of Cathy's statement of traditional marriage support, had its most successful year ever right after that supposed controversy.

Its relatively easy to get behind a business like them, though, truthfully. They DON'T actively discriminate against anyone, despite what many falsely claim. Many of their workers are models of the kind of behavior we think of as ideal.
And the company itself is so committed to its ideals that it willingly gives up a full day of business every week, arguably amounting to untold millions of dollars. That's practically unheard of in our money-oriented society.
Chik Fil A backs up what is rhetoric for most others in the industry.
I suspect even many Chik Fil A detractors secretly admire many elements of the company; what I've listed are precisely the traits and behaviors many Americans say they value and want to adopt as their personal code.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The best one is when conservatives say "vote with your dollars."

As opposed to...voting with your votes?

Coming from the people with some of the least dollars... who vote for those with some of the most?

I don't see any irony in that. haermm

Edit: I know there are rich Conservatives, too, which would explain their aligned interest, but enough about this.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wasn't aware of these lawsuits being a big problem.

Maybe, but economic pressure often takes much longer than direct political action in achieving change. Look at South Florida, after the Cubans snubbed Mandela for not renouncing Castro in the 90s, black businesses boycotted the region. It was a huge financial drain that ended up doing jackshit because at the end of the day the Cubans would rather have their anti-Castro agenda than make money, and any kind of stubborn, intolerant mindset works the same way. Russia right now is the ultimate example. They're prepared to go into a full on recession rather than get with the 21st century program.

I say business owners should stop being crybabies and just serve whoever wants their service regardless of whether they believe their 3000 year old book condemns their customers' lifestyle. so Gay rights supersede your rights? I don't feel it's the laws job to force buissnes to cater to customers, if you don't want their money it's your right (imo) not to take it.

On the earlier point, yes the courts are swamped with dumb sh*t cases.Originally posted by Sacred 117
Coming from the people with some of the least dollars... who vote for those with some of the most?

I don't see any irony in that. haermm

Edit: I know there are rich Conservatives, too, which would explain their aligned interest, but enough about this. ... You realize that political stance =/= monetary income right?

I'd discuss the point your making but it just seemed to be a baseless partisan mud fling.

Newjak

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
... You realize that political stance =/= monetary income right?

I'd discuss the point your making but it just seemed to be a baseless partisan mud fling.

My statement was a humor-intensive knock at the "rich 1℅" issue that sometimes comes up. (If you don't get it, we have nothing to discuss.) It has nothing to do with "income = partisanship" (as I declared in my previous post, actually), nor does it have anything to do with partisanship on my part, as I have no side; I pretty much hate them all.

|King Joker|

Freedom of religion =/= freedom to be an intolerant, discriminatory douche.

Impediment

This law that allows people and businesses to discriminate against LGBT people is the equivalent of people hanging signs up that read "No N*ggers Allowed"; it's just going back to square one in the civil rights movement.

Screw you and your "religious freedom".

Just my opinion.

ares834

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so Gay rights supersede your rights?

so Black rights supersede your rights?

It's virtually the same thing.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Impediment
This law that allows people and businesses to discriminate against LGBT people is the equivalent of people hanging signs up that read "No N*ggers Allowed"; it's just going back to square one in the civil rights movement.

Screw you and your "religious freedom".

Just my opinion.

Pretty much.

While their "religious right" to dislike gay people for no credible, justifiable reason is technically allowed by law, unfortunately, it is, on the other hand, constitutionally unsound and contradictory to deprive people (gay or otherwise) of the same rights, which includes the right to NOT share their "faith" and the right to the services that they are (or at least should still be) legally obliged to.

What a f**king paradox basic human rights have become. I'm glad (certain) people can't help but to make it more complicated than it should be. mad

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Sacred 117
Pretty much.

While their "religious right" to dislike gay people for no credible, justifiable reason is technically allowed by law, unfortunately, it is, on the other hand, constitutionally unsound and contradictory to deprive people (gay or otherwise) of the same rights, which includes the right to NOT share their "faith" and the right to the services that they are (or at least should still be) legally obliged to.

What a f**king paradox basic human rights have become. I'm glad (certain) people can't help but to make it more complicated than it should be.

1. Why are the worst slams and curses sexual references?
("Screw you", "f**king paradox", etcetera)

2. Which side actually presents more complicated arguments?

3. What is the average age of people presenting arguments here?

ares834

Originally posted by Sacred 117
While their "religious right" to dislike gay people for no credible, justifiable reason is technically allowed by law, unfortunately,

Nothing unfortunate about it. Yes, it sucks that bigots exist. But to deny people their opinions and thoughts (even if wrong and discrimatory) would undermine perhaps the greatest thing in America (and much of the "civilized" world), freedom of thought and expression.

Lestov16

But do people have freedom of ignorance?

Newjak

Originally posted by ares834
Nothing unfortunate about it. Yes, it sucks that bigots exist. But to deny people their opinions and thoughts (even if wrong and discrimatory) would undermine perhaps the greatest thing in America (and much of the "civilized" world), freedom of thought and expression. No one is saying they can't have their opinions or thoughts. Just that you should not be allowed to discriminate your services based on them.

A doctor should not be allowed to refuse to treat a patient because they don't agree with that person's lifestyle or because of their religion.

bluewaterrider

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/06/new-census-data-show-more-americans-are-tying-the-knot-but-mostly-its-the-college-educated/

Mindset

Originally posted by Lestov16
But do people have freedom of ignorance? Is this America?

Of course we do, it's our God given right and we exercise it daily.

ares834

Originally posted by Newjak
No one is saying they can't have their opinions or thoughts. Just that you should not be allowed to discriminate your services based on them.

A doctor should not be allowed to refuse to treat a patient because they don't agree with that person's lifestyle or because of their religion.

And I completely agree. I was disagreeing with his point that its "unfortunate" that people have the right to bigoted thoughts.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by ares834
And I completely agree. I was disagreeing with his point that its "unfortunate" that people have the right to bigoted thoughts.

You're right. Perhaps "unfortunate" was the wrong word to describe it. I suppose the true misfortune lies with the fact that those thoughts exist to begin with, or those who can't be happy with that freedom and wish to zealously overextend that to intrude on the freedom of others, effectively defeating the concept of freedom altogether.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to tell people what to do. They're welcomed to tell me all about how "God hates f*gs", and I'll happily argue with them (and likely turn their faith against them to do so). In fact, going back to what Imp said, if you want to slap on a back windshield sticker that says "I hate n*ggers", by all means, feel free to do so. Just don't expect anything good to come of it.

Robtard

People =/= business. You're allowed to think and overall say foul thoughts about a person's skin color, lifestyle, marriage choice etc. But when you refuse to let an interracial couple into your bar because it goes against your beliefs, that's discrimination.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Robtard
People =/= business. You're allowed to think and overall say foul thoughts about a person's skin color, lifestyle, marriage choice etc. But when you refuse to let an interracial couple into your bar because it goes against your beliefs, that's discrimination.

Precisely. thumb up

Newjak

Originally posted by ares834
And I completely agree. I was disagreeing with his point that its "unfortunate" that people have the right to bigoted thoughts. Okay fair enough smile

Lestov16

http://www.boyculture.com/.a/6a00d8341c2ca253ef01bb081225a5970d-popup

bluewaterrider

From Wikipedia:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so Gay rights supersede your rights? I don't feel it's the laws job to force buissnes to cater to customers, if you don't want their money it's your right (imo) not to take it.

On the earlier point, yes the courts are swamped with dumb sh*t cases. ... You realize that political stance =/= monetary income right?

I'd discuss the point your making but it just seemed to be a baseless partisan mud fling.
As Newjak pointed out, the personal right to be intolerant (if such a right even exists) should never supersede another person's right to participate in the economy and society and be treated like a normal person. There's no substantive difference in terms of rights between a gay person and a black person, the only difference is that the Bible doesn't mention how to treat racial minorities but has a few things to say about homosexuals. If the Bible said black people were inferior, that would be no more justification for segregating blacks than there is to discriminate against homosexuals.

This line of thinking has spawned many idiotic anti-gay marriage arguments where the whole basis of the argument is essentially "gay people marrying makes me feel uncomfortable, I shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable so they shouldn't be allowed to marry."

Omega Vision

To add to my post, i think this is a case where a utilitarianist model would be useful. While it might be true that there is going to be some discomfort caused by a socially conservative shop keeper being compelled by the law to serve a lesbian couple that walks into his store, the anguish caused to the lesbian couple if they're turned away and treated like second class citizens will be an order of magnitude higher. Ergo, it's ridiculous to say that the two things are equal.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As Newjak pointed out, the personal right to be intolerant (if such a right even exists) should never supersede another person's right to participate in the economy and society and be treated like a normal person. There's no substantive difference in terms of rights between a gay person and a black person, the only difference is that the Bible doesn't mention how to treat racial minorities but has a few things to say about homosexuals. If the Bible said black people were inferior, that would be no more justification for segregating blacks than there is to discriminate against homosexuals.

This line of thinking has spawned many idiotic anti-gay marriage arguments where the whole basis of the argument is essentially "gay people marrying makes me feel uncomfortable, I shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable so they shouldn't be allowed to marry."
Originally posted by Omega Vision
To add to my post, i think this is a case where a utilitarianist model would be useful. While it might be true that there is going to be some discomfort caused by a socially conservative shop keeper being compelled by the law to serve a lesbian couple that walks into his store, the anguish caused to the lesbian couple if they're turned away and treated like second class citizens will be an order of magnitude higher. Ergo, it's ridiculous to say that the two things are equal.

thumb up

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Sacred 117
My statement was a humor-intensive knock at the "rich 1℅" issue that sometimes comes up. (If you don't get it, we have nothing to discuss.) It has nothing to do with "income = partisanship" (as I declared in my previous post, actually), nor does it have anything to do with partisanship on my part, as I have no side; I pretty much hate them all. no, your post was flaming. And incorrect in its insult.Originally posted by ares834
so Black rights supersede your rights?

It's virtually the same thing. ...? No, that's my point. Do you as a consumer have the right to demand someone sell you something? This is just standard buissness protection, no one is out lynching anyone.

>>not you, possibly<<
People are over hyping a first amendment protection as a discrimination tactic.Originally posted by Sacred 117
Pretty much.

While their "religious right" to dislike gay people for no credible, justifiable reason is technically allowed by law, unfortunately, it is, on the other hand, constitutionally unsound and contradictory to deprive people (gay or otherwise) of the same rights, which includes the right to NOT share their "faith" and the right to the services that they are (or at least should still be) legally obliged to.

What a f**king paradox basic human rights have become. I'm glad (certain) people can't help but to make it more complicated than it should be. mad

Serious question: Do you believe you have the right to refuse service? And why would you want service from those people?

You realize it's places like churches and small businesses that are requesting this? It's not like Walmart was like we hate fa**ots. If the person doesn't feel like they should bake a cake, why in the fu*k should we care, period.

Honestly, you sound like an anti-religious bigot.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To add to my post, i think this is a case where a utilitarianist model would be useful. While it might be true that there is going to be some discomfort caused by a socially conservative shop keeper being compelled by the law to serve a lesbian couple that walks into his store, the anguish caused to the lesbian couple if they're turned away and treated like second class citizens will be an order of magnitude higher. Ergo, it's ridiculous to say that the two things are equal. lol, no.

Sorry mam I don't feel I can make you a cake, again I'm sorry

Vs

Well if you don't, I'll sue!
///
This is a law that protects against lawsuits like that one I just outlied.
If you assumed the first line was from a religious nut job, your the reason we need this law!

Henry_Pym

General Question for everyone here:

Does a Private School with a known (as in she is informed), strict dress code have the right to suspend a female Muslim student if she deviates from it based on religious reasons?

if you answer yes, and you are against this law, you are a hypocrite.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol, no.

Sorry mam I don't feel I can make you a cake, again I'm sorry

Vs

Well if you don't, I'll sue!
///
This is a law that protects against lawsuits like that one I just outlied.
If you assumed the first line was from a religious nut job, your the reason we need this law!

Bullshit. Sounds equivalent of racial segregation.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
General Question for everyone here:

Does a Private School with a known (as in she is informed), strict dress code have the right to suspend a female Muslim student if she deviates from it based on religious reasons?

if you answer yes, and you are against this law, you are a hypocrite]

Good thing I answered no then.

ares834

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
General Question for everyone here:

Does a Private School with a known (as in she is informed), strict dress code have the right to suspend a female Muslim student if she deviates from it based on religious reasons?

if you answer yes, and you are against this law, you are a hypocrite.

Not at all. It's a false analogy. It would only hold if she were suspended solely because she was a Muslim.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
no, your post was flaming. And incorrect in its insult.

Whatever. Don't try to tell me what I intend to say. I can decide that on my own, and I needn't justify it to someone who decides for whatever reason that they have some personal problem with me.

If you were (or are) gay, and you were asking for a cake, you'd care then, wouldn't you? (Seriously, Omega already addressed this. Funny how you skipped over that.)

And you sound like someone with an unrelated vendetta looking for a reason to run his mouth at me.

If it makes you feel better, I'm NOT antireligious and actually come from a religious background, but I don't have time to entertain your suspiciously sudden interest in my beliefs. Go start shit with someone else.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by ares834
Not at all. It's a false analogy. It would only hold if she were suspended solely because she was a Muslim.

thumb up

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Sacred 117

If you were (or are) gay, and you were asking for a cake, you'd care then, wouldn't you?

There's flip side you're not addressing.

You think you're gay and want a cake.
Alright.

But the cake bakery owner believes that making you a wedding cake will, ultimately, harm both you AND him. To that cake bakery owner, it would be like selling wine to someone who has cirrhosis of the liver.

It would simply be unconscionable to do so.

Your argument only works if you arbitrarily assume your side is the correct one.

|King Joker|

I mean, as a fabulous gay myself, if a business were to deny me service just 'cause of that I'd be pretty pissed. But I wouldn't sue them or anything. I'd go somewhere else. If they want to live in their little bubble of ignorance and stupidity, whatever.

dadudemon

Originally posted by |King Joker|
I mean, as a fabulous gay myself, if a business were to deny me service just 'cause of that I'd be pretty pissed. But I wouldn't sue them or anything. I'd go somewhere else. If they want to live in their little bubble of ignorance and stupidity, whatever.

thumb up

Sacred 117

"It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean you should hate someone because they're an a**hole or a pervert or snob or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to. You have to learn to despise people on a personal level. Not because they're red or because they're blue but because you know them and you see them every single day and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total ****ing douchebag." - Pvt. Leonard Church (RvB)

Not entirely sure why, but this felt somewhat appropriate... and I just like the quote. (It's not as if I expect this to remain on-topic for very much longer, so f**k it.) big grin

Bentley

In before someone gets killed because this law allowed people to kick them out thumb up

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by ares834
Not at all. It's a false analogy. It would only hold if she were suspended solely because she was a Muslim. so dodging? Her reasoning is based on religion, the schools are based on their beliefs. Originally posted by Sacred 117
Whatever. Don't try to tell me what I intend to say. I can decide that on my own, and I needn't justify it to someone who decides for whatever reason that they have some personal problem with me.

If you were (or are) gay, and you were asking for a cake, you'd care then, wouldn't you? (Seriously, Omega already addressed this. Funny how you skipped over that.)

And you sound like someone with an unrelated vendetta looking for a reason to run his mouth at me.

If it makes you feel better, I'm NOT antireligious and actually come from a religious background, but I don't have time to entertain your suspiciously sudden interest in my beliefs. Go start shit with someone else. 1.) lol, back track then or explain why your insults = flaming

2.)not really, I'd go to another cake shop and write a poor review on yelp.

3.) deflecting, your saying that their religious rules are less valid than someone's need to not be bothered. The fact that you keep attacking religion makes you sound like a bigot, you keep posting and I'm arguing... I'm not stalking you. Originally posted by |King Joker|
I mean, as a fabulous gay myself, if a business were to deny me service just 'cause of that I'd be pretty pissed. But I wouldn't sue them or anything. I'd go somewhere else. If they want to live in their little bubble of ignorance and stupidity, whatever. this thumb up

It's like a Jew walking into a Nazi mixer and wondering why it's so hostile.

Or a Black dude rolling into a Clan wood carvers business and wondering why their cross looks a little messed up.

ares834

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so dodging? Her reasoning is based on religion, the schools are based on their beliefs.

How is it dodging? I straight up said your analogy is flawed. The school suspended her because she didn't conform to their dress code not because she was a Muslim. By contrast the business are not serving gays simply because they are gay.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Henry_Pym

It's like ... a Black dude rolling into a Clan wood carvers business and wondering why their cross looks a little messed up.

mmm

Boll weevils.

I'm gonna blame that on boll weevils today ...

Existere

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - I support things like gay-marriage, gay-parent adoption, etc. Go figure! I can have my cake and eat it, too. WEEEEE! Unless you're gay and in Indiana, purchasing from a Christian baker.

Then you can't have your cake.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by ares834
How is it dodging? I straight up said your analogy is flawed. The school suspended her because she didn't conform to their dress code not because she was a Muslim. By contrast the business are not serving gays simply because they are gay. its dodging because you won't answer the question; the definition of dodging.

The School is punishing her for not conforming, much like the (hardcore) Christians are "punishing" gay couples because they don't conform to their beliefs on marriage.
///
Capitalism fails in a government controlled bubble, Christians will support these places & SJW's will cry about them. Circle of life.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Existere
Unless you're gay and in Indiana, purchasing from a Christian baker.

Then you can't have your cake. Well, wedding cake... I'm sure you can buy normal cakes.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Lestov16
Bullshit. Sounds equivalent of racial segregation.

Good thing I answered no then. Im honestly fairly positive you don't know the words that your saying.

No one is taking away any rights here, well except you in the second part; it's the right of a private business to be able to exercise thier religon. It's not the Goverment taking Cake away from gay folks.

Second point, you just proved your an insane person. Congrats, your not a hypocrite.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Well, wedding cake... I'm sure you can buy normal cakes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillips, who said he also rejected another same-sex couple's request for a wedding cake earlier this year, continued, "If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake -- not the people ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/jack-phillips-denver-bakery-gay-couple-wedding-cake_n_1721093.html

NemeBro

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Im honestly fairly positive you don't know the words that your saying.

No one is taking away any rights here, well except you in the second part; it's the right of a private business to be able to exercise thier religon. It's not the Goverment taking Cake away from gay folks.

Second point, you just proved your an insane person. Congrats, your not a hypocrite. You're, not your.

You've been doing this throughout the entire thread. Stop it.

Ushgarak

I understand that the governor of Indiana is now going to introduce legislation to make it clear that this law cannot be used to deny services to anyone.

Indeed, this was rather the point; RFRA laws don't specifically spell out such a right and are mostly used to protect religious minorities from being legislated against more than is needed, but the problem is that in other States there had been attempts to use them to deny business to gays which didn't work because of state anti-discrimination laws. Trouble is, Indiana has no such state-wide law (though local jurisdictions, including Indianapolis, do) and hence there was this worry about RFRA.

Frankly, just focussed on the law itself, it was a bit academic; a fringe worry in the grander scheme that was unlikely to cause much trouble, though a viable thing to protest about as a symbol. Indiana having no state-wide anti-discrimination law was a far bigger issue, and it's good to know that the first steps to that changing are now under way.

The idea, incidentally, that the free market is a way to control discrimination has been utterly discredited for decades by the civil rights struggle. All that does is entrench discrimination. Public discriminatory attitudes must be fought else they legitimise outdated and unacceptable views that worsen life for many- and that people can choose to shop elsewhere is utterly irrelevant. In a modern day civilized society, no-one should have to shop elsewhere on this kind of basis or even consider the issue.

Once you are doing business with the public, you take on a set of new responsibilities that are not equivalent to, say, the privacy of your home. It is absolutely and utterly unacceptable to deny people any form of service based on their beliefs, all the more so beliefs that have no place being condemned in modern society. If you don't accept that then tough- you shouldn't be in business with the public. That this furore- somewhat exaggerated- ends up with Indiana modernising its laws in this way is a positive outcome.

Still, the fight goes on- Arkansas next.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I understand that the governor of Indiana is now going to introduce legislation to make it clear that this law cannot be used to deny services to anyone.

Indeed, this was rather the point; RFRA laws don't specifically spell out such a right and are mostly used to protect religious minorities from being legislated against more than is needed, but the problem is that in other States there had been attempts to use them to deny business to gays which didn't work because of state anti-discrimination laws. Trouble is, Indiana has no such state-wide law (though local jurisdictions, including Indianapolis, do) and hence there was this worry about RFRA.

Frankly, just focussed on the law itself, it was a bit academic; a fringe worry in the grander scheme that was unlikely to cause much trouble, though a viable thing to protest about as a symbol. Indiana having no state-wide anti-discrimination law was a far bigger issue, and it's good to know that the first steps to that changing are now under way.

The idea, incidentally, that the free market is a way to control discrimination has been utterly discredited for decades by the civil rights struggle. All that does is entrench discrimination. Public discriminatory attitudes must be fought else they legitimise outdated and unacceptable views that worsen life for many- and that people can choose to shop elsewhere is utterly irrelevant. In a modern day civilized society, no-one should have to shop elsewhere on this kind of basis or even consider the issue.

Once you are doing business with the public, you take on a set of new responsibilities that are not equivalent to, say, the privacy of your home. It is absolutely and utterly unacceptable to deny people any form of service based on their beliefs, all the more so beliefs that have no place being condemned in modern society. If you don't accept that then tough- you shouldn't be in business with the public. That this furore- somewhat exaggerated- ends up with Indiana modernising its laws in this way is a positive outcome.

Still, the fight goes on- Arkansas next.
thumb up

bluewaterrider

jaden101

By far the best thing to come out (joke intended) of this whole thing is the term 'Big Gay' in reference to equal rights lobbyists.

Hilarious stuff.

Bashar Teg

same old shenanigans

http://i.imgur.com/T2TwZCu.jpg

Sacred 117

Ushgarak

To bluewaterrider

You are mistaken either in what you think I am referring to or what you are. I am referring to his press conference on Tuesday which was the day after this thread started. He previously said he wanted to clarify it, but that at the time was just vague talk about side-stepping the issue. Only on Tuesday did he specify that he was going to enshrine anti-discrimination into law, which is the climbdown/u-turn the press are talking about. It's a significant change.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're, not your.

You've been doing this throughout the entire thread. Stop it. someone is a bit pouty? What's wrong cupcake?

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I understand that the governor of Indiana is now going to introduce legislation to make it clear that this law cannot be used to deny services to anyone.

(shortened for ease) The biggest issue I find with your comparison is that Gay people have civil rights. What we are looking at isn't Gay rights, it's Small Business Owner rights. You have no right to demand service, just like I can't legally force you to let me sleep on your couch, just because you let a friend do it once.

I'll strongly oppose civil service or Goverment funded businesses discriminating but some Ma & Pa that sells homemade cakes to church weddings isn't a hate group. Honestly if a business not DIRECTLY profiting from gay marriage is the worst discrimination a LGBT couple faces on their quest more marriage I'd say we are living in a fine time to be gay.
////
Instead of us fighting over a 5 person shop not baking cakes, let's go after real issues, like the states that don't even allow gay marriage.

Bashar Teg

Originally posted by Henry_Pym

Instead of us fighting over a 5 person shop not baking cakes, let's go after real issues, like the states that don't even allow gay marriage.

or we could...you know...do both.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
or we could...you know...do both.

One step at a time, I suppose. (Though, a leap would be preferable.) smile

Ushgarak

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The biggest issue I find with your comparison is that Gay people have civil rights. What we are looking at isn't Gay rights, it's Small Business Owner rights. You have no right to demand service, just like I can't legally force you to let me sleep on your couch, just because you let a friend do it once.

I'll strongly oppose civil service or Goverment funded businesses discriminating but some Ma & Pa that sells homemade cakes to church weddings isn't a hate group. Honestly if a business not DIRECTLY profiting from gay marriage is the worst discrimination a LGBT couple faces on their quest more marriage I'd say we are living in a fine time to be gay.
////
Instead of us fighting over a 5 person shop not baking cakes, let's go after real issues, like the states that don't even allow gay marriage.

Nope, not so- this is directly comparable to a civil rights issue; denying people goods and services based on their beliefs is exactly that. It trumps your vague idea of 'small business owners' rights' by a long margin. You absolutely have the right to demand service- or more to the point, not to be refused service due to your beliefs (as opposed to your behaviour, which is a different matter), and your comparison to sleeping on a couch is not useful- that's a private matter, not a public one. If you were offering public accommodation, then once more you are open to public accountability and must not discriminate. If it;s just your house, that's not a business and noting to do with it at all.

As for it not being the worse example of discrimination- well that's true, and nor is the penalty for flaunting it some great jail term. It's also irritating if, for example, a gay couple deliberately demands pro-gay goods from businesses they know to be uncomfortable in that area with the specific intention of winding them up- but that's a side of the rights struggle you have to live with. Nonetheless, these social battles must be won. The point remains allowing people to discriminate in the provision of goods and services based on beliefs encourages a segmented and discriminatory society. It needs to be stopped via legislation- which is precisely what is happening.

Meanwhile, the fight against states not allowing gay marriage goes on the same. It's not as if it is either/or. Discrimination really just needs to be fought at all levels. I would also point out that the attitude of "Gays have won the important battles and shouldn't sweat the small stuff" is not a useful attitude at all- they should not have to make do or compromise. That is the point of equality.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
or we could...you know...do both. or Neither because we can't be in two places at once and dividing our time is just making our stance weaker. Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, not so- this is directly comparable to a civil rights issue; denying people goods and services based on their beliefs is exactly that. It trumps your vague idea of 'small business owners' rights' by a long margin. You absolutely have the right to demand service- or more to the point, not to be refused service due to your beliefs (as opposed to your behaviour, which is a different matter), and your comparison to sleeping on a couch is not useful- that's a private matter, not a public one. If you were offering public accommodation, then once more you are open to public accountability and must not discriminate. If it;s just your house, that's not a business and noting to do with it at all.

As for it not being the worse example of discrimination- well that's true, and nor is the penalty for flaunting it some great jail term. It's also irritating if, for example, a gay couple deliberately demands pro-gay goods from businesses they know to be uncomfortable in that area with the specific intention of winding them up- but that's a side of the rights struggle you have to live with. Nonetheless, these social battles must be won. The point remains allowing people to discriminate in the provision of goods and services based on beliefs encourages a segmented and discriminatory society. It needs to be stopped via legislation- which is precisely what is happening.

Meanwhile, the fight against states not allowing gay marriage goes on the same. It's not as if it is either/or. Discrimination really just needs to be fought at all levels. I would also point out that the attitude of "Gays have won the important battles and shouldn't sweat the small stuff" is not a useful attitude at all- they should not have to make do or compromise. That is the point of equality. Private businesses are private. Do you think I can refuse service to you if I just dislike you? Legally I can, just opinion wise.

Honestly, we have more than Ma & Pa bakerys. Your not really denying them goods and services, your just saying you won't provide them.

I'd argue until legal marriage equality happens nationwide the LGBT struggle hasn't won its battle.
///
Honest question: Iyo, does the Goverment have the obligation to arrest Christians from a church if a gay couple wants to elope there? Does the Goverment have the right to jail a religious leader with the ability to marry people, who refuses to marry a gay couple?

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Sacred 117
One step at a time, I suppose. (Though, a leap would be preferable.) smile

we have tried it, it lead to increases in hate crimes.

Honestly, if you were an anti-gay business owner and lost your business because of gay people. Are you

1.) "shucks, I've seen the error of my ways"

Or

2.) "f***ing fa**ots ruined my life"

You have to be delicate or you force a MAJOR divide, and no intelligent person wants that.

Bashar Teg

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
or Neither because we can't be in two places at once and dividing our time is just making our stance weaker. Private businesses are private. Do you think I can refuse service to you if I just dislike you? Legally I can, just opinion wise.

you can absolutely refuse service to an individual so long as your reason is not simple bigotry. for example a clerk can turn away a customer, who happens to be black, for not wearing shoes or a shirt. this does not give them the right to turn someone away for being black. pretty sure that this is the point you are missing.

Ushgarak

No, sorry, you are wrong again there. Private businesses may be privately owned but they deal with the public- indeed, perform a vital part of public existence- and hence they are beholden to laws related to dealing with the public; this is one of them.

To be honest, if there was an epidemic of people refusing service to people they did not like, then absolutely yes, that would need to be legislated against too. There isn't, though, so it doesn't matter. There certainly is a problem of refusing service to gays and the like; that needs to be dealt with.

Religious exemptions are often part of equality legislation for marriage,. Personally, though- well, you say 'arrest', I doubt it generally comes to that, but I would indeed prefer it to be illegal for churches to discriminate when offering a vital public legal mechanism like marriage, But then I think marriage should be entirely secularised and religious ceremony done separately, whioch would make the whole deal irrelevant.

Ushgarak

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you can absolutely refuse service to an individual so long as your reason is not simple bigotry. for example a clerk can turn away a customer, who happens to be black, for not wearing shoes or a shirt. this does not give them the right to turn someone away for being black. pretty sure that this is the point you are missing.

Indeed as I said- you can turn people away based on their behaviour but not their beliefs.

Ushgarak

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
or Neither because we can't be in two places at once and dividing our time is just making our stance weaker.

Just on this point in particular- not only do I think there is no evidence for this (it's like saying police should ignore minor crimes and focus only on big ones- whereas crime is better dealt with by attacking the whole spectrum), I would also say that the very issue we are talking about in this thread proves the opposite. The massive adverse reaction to this law, causing a u-turn, is a victory for gay rights campaigners that has generally strengthened their position for all their fights. The show of public support and boycott threats from state governments and businesses has been a huge positive.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
we have tried it, it lead to increases in hate crimes.

What specifically are you referring to; the "leap" or the "small steps"? (If the latter, I'll be all the more curious.)

If public services were allowed to be made exclusive on a discriminating basis, we might have a sample. (Though, there could be one from the era of the Civil Rights Movement I'm overlooking/forgetting about.) Thankfully, according to the apparent updates, it isn't. thumb up

Also, was it not you who recommended businesses be "left to deal with the consequences," so to speak?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Honestly I kinda support this,

Free markets will weed out bigots, and you should be free to express yourself anyway you want, but you deal with the backlash.

You'll have to answer this question for yourself. You tell me what you think would happen

Ush basically already answered this. I refer you to him.

Henry_Pym

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, sorry, you are wrong again there. Private businesses may be privately owned but they deal with the public- indeed, perform a vital part of public existence- and hence they are beholden to laws related to dealing with the public; this is one of them.

To be honest, if there was an epidemic of people refusing service to people they did not like, then absolutely yes, that would need to be legislated against too. There isn't, though, so it doesn't matter. There certainly is a problem of refusing service to gays and the like; that needs to be dealt with.

Religious exemptions are often part of equality legislation for marriage,. Personally, though- well, you say 'arrest', I doubt it generally comes to that, but I would indeed prefer it to be illegal for churches to discriminate when offering a vital public legal mechanism like marriage, But then I think marriage should be entirely secularised and religious ceremony done separately, whioch would make the whole deal irrelevant. I can sell hate group swag. If I wanted I could sell "go Isis" bumper stickers. I don't see a reason for either side to complain as the law stands now. You can refuse customers without needing to explain your reasoning, that's my take.

An Epidemic? Not really... There is probably less than 50 bakerys in the state that won't. I'd be amazed if it's greater than 10%.

Ok I'll concede on arrest, I'm not sure on ministers punishment, but I'd wager their loss of ability to wed couples.
///
I'm more apt to go against a business that sabotages a gay wedding than refuses to take part in it.

QE�

This law is stupid. As a gay man. I would at least hope big chain stores still let us shop. But as for small business owners, I don't care. I buy from them because I feel bad for them. If you don't want my money, go broke loser.

Henry_Pym

Cool beans.

Newjak

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I can sell hate group swag. If I wanted I could sell "go Isis" bumper stickers. I don't see a reason for either side to complain as the law stands now. You can refuse customers without needing to explain your reasoning, that's my take.

An Epidemic? Not really... There is probably less than 50 bakerys in the state that won't. I'd be amazed if it's greater than 10%.

Ok I'll concede on arrest, I'm not sure on ministers punishment, but I'd wager their loss of ability to wed couples.
///
I'm more apt to go against a business that sabotages a gay wedding than refuses to take part in it. You can sell hate stuff all you want. Sell all the ISIS and Nazi banners you want. But if someone comes into buy that stuff and you refuse to sell it to them you should be sued.

Nobody is trying to limit the products you are selling but if you discriminate against people that is wrong.

Robtard

The "111 Bakery" that sparked controversy has closed its doors for good. Link

Despite the claims, seems the rise in profits from the gay-haters only lasted a few months while the supporters for equality were in it for the long haul.

Henry_Pym

Which kinda proved my point...Originally posted by Newjak
You can sell hate stuff all you want. Sell all the ISIS and Nazi banners you want. But if someone comes into buy that stuff and you refuse to sell it to them you should be sued.

Nobody is trying to limit the products you are selling but if you discriminate against people that is wrong. kinda hypocritical, no? Well maybe "hypocritical" isn't the right word, but an odd stance.

I can profit off hate, but if I don't want to profit off hate, that's when I'm bad.

SayWhat

It is a boilerplate law from ALEC, which is sometimes funded by the Koch Brothers, the Catholic Church and Phyllis Schlafly. Another attempt for religion and billionaires to tell other people how to live. Despicable.

Newjak

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Which kinda proved my point... kinda hypocritical, no? Well maybe "hypocritical" isn't the right word, but an odd stance.

I can profit off hate, but if I don't want to profit off hate, that's when I'm bad. No the difference is one is the freedom to offer any legal services you want. The other is discrimination against another person and infringing on their rights.

Seems small like a small difference but it is huge.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
The "111 Bakery" that sparked controversy has closed its doors for good. Link

Despite the claims, seems the rise in profits ... only lasted a few months while the supporters for equality were in it for the long haul.

Does the argument of your implication work if you DON'T assume the bakery owners were lying in their response?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 111 Cakery was still profitable, said co-owner Randy McGath, but McGath's 45-year-old wife, Trish, who did most of the baking, wanted more time to spend with the couple's four grandchildren. The business "was wearing her out," her husband said. She has been taking a break from working since Dec. 31, when the bakery went out of business, he said ...

McGath insisted sales never dipped below their pre-flap levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Robtard

... from the gay-haters

More of this language.

But the threshhold for being called a "hater" isn't very high where this subject is concerned is it?

Pretty sure I've heard these bakers called "haters" for their mere refusal, for instance. But does that gel with the following information?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGath said he and his wife, who attend a Baptist church on Indianapolis' Westside, were well aware of the neighborhood's gay culture when they opened their bakery there in 2012. He said they served the gay community gladly for several years but "just didn't want to be party to a committment ceremony" because such an event reflected "a committment to sin."

Despite McGath's views his discourse remained civil even in talks with his most virulent critic, the lone picketer Todd Fuqua, both he and Fuqua said.

"There was zero hate here," said McGath, who is now selling recreational vehicles. "We were just trying to be right with our God. I was able to speak to many homosexuals in the community and to speak our opinion and have a civil conversation. I'm still in touch with some."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2015/02/26/bakery-refused-cake-gay-couple-closes-doors/24074691/

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Does the argument of your implication work if you DON'T assume the bakery owners were lying in their response?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 111 Cakery was still profitable, said co-owner Randy McGath, but McGath's 45-year-old wife, Trish, who did most of the baking, wanted more time to spend with the couple's four grandchildren. The business "was wearing her out," her husband said. She has been taking a break from working since Dec. 31, when the bakery went out of business, he said ...

McGath insisted sales never dipped below their pre-flap levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More of this language.

But the threshhold for being called a "hater" isn't very high where this subject is concerned is it?

Pretty sure I've heard these bakers called "haters" for their mere refusal, for instance. But does that gel with the following information?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGath said he and his wife, who attend a Baptist church on Indianapolis' Westside, were well aware of the neighborhood's gay culture when they opened their bakery there in 2012. He said they served the gay community gladly for several years but "just didn't want to be party to a committment ceremony" because such an event reflected "a committment to sin."

Despite McGath's views his discourse remained civil even in talks with his most virulent critic, the lone picketer Todd Fuqua, both he and Fuqua said.

"There was zero hate here," said McGath, who is now selling recreational vehicles. "We were just trying to be right with our God. I was able to speak to many homosexuals in the community and to speak our opinion and have a civil conversation. I'm still in touch with some."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2015/02/26/bakery-refused-cake-gay-couple-closes-doors/24074691/

Seems you didn't understand what "seems" implied.

Seems you didn't understand who I was calling a "hater".

Existere

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Pretty sure I've heard these bakers called "haters" for their mere refusal, for instance. But does that gel with the following information?

He said they served the gay community gladly for several years but "just didn't want to be party to a committment ceremony" because such an event reflected "a committment to sin."

"I'm not a hater, I just think your life is immoral and wicked"

Haters gonna hate.

Omega Vision

They had a priest on NPR today who made the argument that no priest should be required to officiate in a ceremony that they don't agree with, and I think I can agree with that, because that's taking issue with the nature of a service, i.e. a gay marriage. Let them have that, there are plenty of other priests who will do it.

What I can't agree with is the wedding cake makers who refuse to serve gay couples, because that isn't a reservation with the service itself but rather with the customer engaging the service. The same excuse that would allow these people to turn away gays could be applied to literally any other type of person.

For an analogy, think of taxis. I think a cab driver would be in his rights to refuse to admit someone if they were smoking (because the passenger smoking would change the nature of the service), but I wouldn't ever accept a cab driver refusing to admit someone just because they were a smoker, regardless of their behavior while in the cab.

If someone is willing to pay you money, behaves with the proper decorum, and is respectful, you do your ****ing job and serve them. And yes, I am willing to bite the bullet and say I'd serve Hitler a snowcone if he was polite and paid.

Well, maybe not that far, but you get what I mean.

Robtard

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They had a priest on NPR today who made the argument that no priest should be required to officiate in a ceremony that they don't agree with, and I think I can agree with that, because that's taking issue with the nature of a service, i.e. a gay marriage. Let them have that, there are plenty of other priests who will do it.

While I want to agree with that on the surface, it's a bit of the bullshit since churches/religious institutions get tax exemptions on the premise that the money they're taking in, is then used to help others/the community in some fashion.

So what we're essentially allowing is for these religious figures to say "will help you, won't help you" based on bigotry. If that's the case, revoke their tax exemption status.

edit: iirc, similar happened with The LDS church in the 70's and not allowing black people to attain priesthood status.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Robtard
While I want to agree with that on the surface, it's a bit of the bullshit since churches/religious institutions get tax exemptions on the premise that the money they're taking in, is then used to help others/the community in some fashion.

So what we're essentially allowing is for these religious figures to say "will help you, won't help you" based on bigotry. If that's the case, revoke their tax exemption status.

edit: iirc, similar happened with The LDS church in the 70's and not allowing black people to attain priesthood status.
I don't think churches should be allowed to turn away gays, but I'm willing to allow individual priests to stick to their convictions.

It's a private-public distinction--churches are public places, priests are private individuals who should have a say in the services they render (but not solely on the basis of who their "customers" are--for instance no priest should ever be allowed to refuse to allow a homosexual to attend their sermon)

Henry_Pym

It's crazy the hypocrisy with this debate.

"Stop hate with hate"

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
It's crazy the hypocrisy with this debate.

"Stop hate with hate"
Lol, what hypocrisy?

dadudemon

I'll never agree that it is a good idea to force businesses to do business with people that they do not want to do business with. That's very shitty to force your morals and beliefs on people.*

That's no different than me forcing you to get baptized as a Mormon because I believe it is morally correct and it is an action/behavior that you should be expected to do. Oh, what's that? You don't like me forcing my moral beliefs on you? Too bad! Now that the politically correct police are on my side, we will rape you in the public opinion forum, verbally, until you submit to our will. Line up for your baptisms. And let me remind you, you have to get baptized as a Mormon several times a month. Even if you personally believe that Mormons are satanic and by getting baptized as a Mormon, you are directly offending God, too bad! The politically correct thought police want you to go f*ck yourself and do this because there are enough vocal supporters of it. It's just despicable that you guys want to resist this. It's clearly morally wrong that you refuse to get baptized as a Mormon. Everyone knows that getting baptized as a Mormon is the correct thing to do. It will prevent you from offending your friends, family, and coworkers. You don't want to look like a close-minded bigot, right? So come get your Mormon baptisms while the water is hot!

Forcing people to do things against their will is one of the worst things we can do to each other. It would be different if you were forcing them to stop doing something. This is not. This is forcing them to DO something. "But, dadudemon, doesn't that mean a doctor can refuse to treat a Jew and then the Jew dies due to the Doctor's refusal to help? How can you possibly reconcile this with your statements that people should not be forced to do things against their will?" You can either accept the fact that you're a shitty person for wanting to force your beliefs and behavioral actions on people or you can select extremely rare scenarios that almost never ever happen to justify your shittiness. With the ability to let people chose for themselves comes the very cold reality that some people will choose something that you don't like.

"dadudemon is just salty." Just because I'm pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of this entire discussion does not mean I'm salty. wink

Robtard

Except no one was forcing their "moral and beliefs" on said bakers when said homosexuals asked for a wedding cake. Said gays asked said bakers to do their job and were willing to pay for it, ie bake a ****ing cake.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Except no one was forcing "moral and beliefs" on said bakers when said homosexuals asked for a wedding cake.

Sure, asking to be served a cake with two brides or two grooms does not force anyone to do anything. But that's pretty obvious and it is also irrelevant to my points.

Robtard, will you be baptized with me? I'll baptize you.

Robtard

I stopped reading after: "I'll never agree that it is a good idea to force businesses to do business with people that they do not want to do business with. That's very shitty to force your morals and beliefs on people.*"

That's what I was responding too. If the rest of your post was about something entirely different, so be it.

And no, I won't be baptized, that would be you forcing your "morals and beliefs" on me. But I'd happily bake you a cake showing the time-line of Mormon awesomeness, even though I'm not a Mormon and don't believe in any Mormoness.

jinXed by JaNx

Originally posted by krisblaze
I love americans.

bigot

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
That's what I was responding too.

No you weren't. Because what you stated is not applicable to to what I stated. Just tangentially relevant.

Originally posted by Robtard
And no, I won't be baptized, that would be you forcing your "morals and beliefs" on me.

Oh really? Well, I believe you agree with me, then. So you believe we should prevent laws, laws which are strongly based on beliefs/morals, that force people to perform certain actions? If so, right-o, ol' chap! If not, you just agreed with me but now you're changing your mind.

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
No you weren't. Because what you stated is not applicable to to what I stated. Just tangentially relevant.

Oh really? Well, I believe you agree with me, then. So you believe we should prevent laws, laws which are strongly based on beliefs/morals, that force people to perform certain actions? If so, right-o, ol' chap! If not, you just agreed with me but now you're changing your mind.

Yes, I was.

Bit silly of you to edit my post so it doesn't convey exactly what I said and then reply to that.

But if you can't tell the difference between forcibly converting someone to a religion and asking a business to serve you like they serve the rest of the public, then you got some issues, brah.

Sacred 117

Incidentally, I was baptized as a Mormon when I was thirteen...

Just throwing that out there. haermm

Newjak

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll never agree that it is a good idea to force businesses to do business with people that they do not want to do business with. That's very shitty to force your morals and beliefs on people.*

That's no different than me forcing you to get baptized as a Mormon because I believe it is morally correct and it is an action/behavior that you should be expected to do. Oh, what's that? You don't like me forcing my moral beliefs on you? Too bad! Now that the politically correct police are on my side, we will rape you in the public opinion forum, verbally, until you submit to our will. Line up for your baptisms. And let me remind you, you have to get baptized as a Mormon several times a month. Even if you personally believe that Mormons are satanic and by getting baptized as a Mormon, you are directly offending God, too bad! The politically correct thought police want you to go f*ck yourself and do this because there are enough vocal supporters of it. It's just despicable that you guys want to resist this. It's clearly morally wrong that you refuse to get baptized as a Mormon. Everyone knows that getting baptized as a Mormon is the correct thing to do. It will prevent you from offending your friends, family, and coworkers. You don't want to look like a close-minded bigot, right? So come get your Mormon baptisms while the water is hot!

Forcing people to do things against their will is one of the worst things we can do to each other. It would be different if you were forcing them to stop doing something. This is not. This is forcing them to DO something. "But, dadudemon, doesn't that mean a doctor can refuse to treat a Jew and then the Jew dies due to the Doctor's refusal to help? How can you possibly reconcile this with your statements that people should not be forced to do things against their will?" You can either accept the fact that you're a shitty person for wanting to force your beliefs and behavioral actions on people or you can select extremely rare scenarios that almost never ever happen to justify your shittiness. With the ability to let people chose for themselves comes the very cold reality that some people will choose something that you don't like.

"dadudemon is just salty." Just because I'm pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of this entire discussion does not mean I'm salty. wink

Edit - I wish there were more people who valued personal freedom over legislated beliefs/morals/behaviors, on this forum. For me, I find it ridiculous that I even have to make these arguments. There are almost no religious people on this forum. The only people I know that make my kind of arguments are atheists who oppose religion. It should be obvious as to why they make my arguments: when you start legislating morals/behaviors/beliefs, it's a slippery slope. What happens if the majority of Americans are now Muslims and they are the vocal majority? What happens if they want Sharia Law? Now what? Where are you gay-cake arguments, now? Maybe it's not such a good idea to legislate and force people to do things against their beliefs and against their will, eh? Well, it's too late: you already set a precedence with your gay-cakes. This is why atheists are the only ones making my arguments. I have never heard a Christian or Jew make my particular arguments (agreeing with my conclusion, that people shouldn't be forced to serve gay-couples if they don't want to, is not the same thing as making my argument).

*Ushgarak made a good argument against that (but I will address it with a lengthy video on Sunday** because it will take forever to put that together) by saying that we had to force people to stop being racist f*cks.

** We all know I'm a procrastinating bastard and it won't happen on Sunday. But if it does, it's just a pleasant surprise. I still owe inimalist a video from 2008. I can understand the point you trying to make. I don't believe it though. Some of society is forcing morals unto people.

For instance I want you to listen to this phrase.
"I want to go kill someone. Wait you're telling me I can't. Stop trying to force your morals on me I don't think it's wrong therefore I should be allowed to do it."

Or

"Hey I don't see anything wrong with serving people the rats I kill as food stop trying to regulate my business just let me run it the way I want to."

I would highly doubt you would agree with the those statements. The truth is we as a society have to agree with what we think is wrong and be willing to say we won't allow it.

Discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, race, sex, and nationality is something most of us has decided is wrong and is something we want to eliminate.

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on those things can not be allowed if we say we are going to treat those groups as equals.

The thing I think people are not getting. Why people are so against this is that we have decided that people are equal under the law and equal in terms of rights given by our government. Allowing businesses to legally discriminate against a law abiding citizen based on one of the above criteria undermines that basic principle.

There should be no reason a law abiding lgbt person should not be allowed to buy a cake from that store. The only reason they are not allowed is because of a person's bigoted ways.

Now I understand that person has sold cakes to gay people in the past and they only chose not to do this because it was for a wedding but is still just as bad. Your basically saying you don't recognize those people's right to marry or saying that it is wrong even though they should be equal under the law.

That kind of thinking should not be praised or supported by law.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Newjak
I can understand the point you trying to make. I don't believe it though. Some of society is forcing morals unto people.

For instance I want you to listen to this phrase.
"I want to go kill someone. Wait you're telling me I can't. Stop trying to force your morals on me I don't think it's wrong therefore I should be allowed to do it."

Or

"Hey I don't see anything wrong with serving people the rats I kill as food stop trying to regulate my business just let me run it the way I want to."

I would highly doubt you would agree with the those statements. The truth is we as a society have to agree with what we think is wrong and be willing to say we won't allow it.

Discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, race, sex, and nationality is something most of us has decided is wrong and is something we want to eliminate.

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on those things can not be allowed if we say we are going to treat those groups as equals.

The thing I think people are not getting. Why people are so against this is that we have decided that people are equal under the law and equal in terms of rights given by our government. Allowing businesses to legally discriminate against a law abiding citizen based on one of the above criteria undermines that basic principle.

There should be no reason a law abiding lgbt person should not be allowed to buy a cake from that store. The only reason they are not allowed is because of a person's bigoted ways.

Now I understand that person has sold cakes to gay people in the past and they only chose not to do this because it was for a wedding but is still just as bad. Your basically saying you don't recognize those people's right to marry or saying that it is wrong even though they should be equal under the law.

That kind of thinking should not be praised or supported by law.

I addressed your angle, already, in that post your quoted:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Forcing people to do things against their will is one of the worst things we can do to each other. It would be different if you were forcing them to stop doing something. This is not. This is forcing them to DO something.

Also, I addressed your angle in my first post on this topic, as well:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are those people that are potentially going to get discriminated against, getting physically harmed or getting their possessions/livelihood taken from them? No?

While you feel it is okay to force people to do things because you believe it is morally acceptable to force people to do things, that does not mean it is morally right when placed under scrutiny and a lens. When you start forcing people to do things that you believe are right, we end up in quite big messes.

I'm all for outlawing actions and behaviors that cause physical or financial harm to others. That's okay. That's stopping harmful action, x. But I am not okay with forcing people to do actions that are against their personal beliefs.

The best argument against my position is forcing a parent to take care of their child. What if the parent believes all children should take care of themselves?

I am okay with arguing with myself but it gets boring.

Newjak

Originally posted by dadudemon
I addressed your angle, already, in that post your quoted:

Also, I addressed your angle in my first post on this topic, as well:

While you feel it is okay to force people to do things because you believe it is morally acceptable to force people to do things, that does not mean it is morally right when placed under scrutiny and a lens. When you start forcing people to do things that you believe are right, we end up in quite big messes.

I'm all for outlawing actions and behaviors that cause physical or financial harm to others. That's okay. That's stopping harmful action, x. But I am not okay with forcing people to do actions that are against their personal beliefs.

The best argument against my position is forcing a parent to take care of their child. What if the parent believes all children should take care of themselves?

I am okay with arguing with myself but it gets boring. That doesn't really negate what I said.

The people are being harmed, maybe not in a physical manner but they are being treated as second class citizens.

As for forcing people to DO things vs Not DO things is bit off center.

Anything you tell them to Not Do is essentially telling them to DO something else.

For example telling a restaurant owner they can not use wild rats in their food is the same as telling them you can ONLY use FDA certified meat. I understand this totally accurate for the above statement but you can also use it as the government saying you NEED to use FDA certified meat only which means you cannot use wild rats as they are not FDA certified.

So that counter-argument doesn't really fly with me. So if it makes you feel better it's not the government telling them they have to serve gays it's them being told they are not allowed to discriminate clientele.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, I was.

Yes, you may have intended that to be the case but you missed the boat and posted something irrelevant. It probably sounded like a good rebuttal before you submitted it but it actually ended up being irrelevant.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bit silly of you to edit my post so it doesn't convey exactly what I said and then reply to that.

Oh? I edited your post, eh?

As fact, I quoted your post and started typing my reply at exactly 10:40 my time: very shortly after you made your post. You edited your post and I did not see your edit until after I posted my reply.

Note that you cannot hide behind the fact that you edited your post because it took you about 2-ish minutes to add more to your post.

http://i.imgur.com/CpK1Y1kh.png

Now, just in case you made an honest mistake and thought I edited your post, let's be clear that the only thing you did in your edit was added that second sentence. When I quoted your post, only the first sentence existed. I did not alter that text. Behold, that text matches your text:

http://i.imgur.com/oXwYSmMh.png

Originally posted by Robtard
But if you can't tell the difference between forcibly converting someone to a religion and asking a business to serve you like they serve the rest of the public, then you got some issues, brah.

So there must be something wrong with me because I find it despicable to force people to do things against their will and against their beliefs (whether those beliefs are religions or a-religious: doesn't matter), eh? Perhaps the error is yours in thinking you have any say over what another person can object to doing?

You don't want to be baptized? Okay. Fine. I'm glad. I promise not to legally force you to get into a baptismal font and allow me to dunk you.

See how easy that is? No need to for us to force you to do things against your beliefs.

Robtard

Except of course it wasn't since it was right on the subject.

I actually last edited at the :50 mark. But if you quoted while I was adding, then my error.

Again, you're missing the point. Telling a business they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public isn't "forcing morals and beliefs" onto said business, it's telling them they can't discriminate.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe a business should be allowed to close their doors to people based on skin color or ethnicity?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Newjak
That doesn't really negate what I said.

It actually does negate what you said and it negates it in the most direct and literal manner, too. You used a faulty comparison because your comparison made the incorrect assumption that a person who wants to murder people should be allowed to do so under my logic. Let's break down your point even further: you assume that these two statements are equivalent:

Person A wants to do harmful action x.

Person B does not want to do un-harmful action y.

x and y are not logically equivalent

Originally posted by Newjak
The people are being harmed, maybe not in a physical manner but they are being treated as second class citizens.

That's a whole new can of worms. But let's be real: this is not the first grade. Billy is going to get offended because of something Jane says or does, sometimes. As long as Billy is not physically harmed and his livelihood remains intact, Jane can say whatever she wants.

Originally posted by Newjak
As for forcing people to DO things vs Not DO things is bit off center.

Anything you tell them to Not Do is essentially telling them to DO something else.

No, that's not really the case at all. I'll explain, below.

Originally posted by Newjak
For example telling a restaurant owner they can not use wild rats in their food is the same as telling them you can ONLY use FDA certified meat.

No, that's definitely not the case, at all.

View the set of things that can potentially be used in food as set A.

In set A is everything that can be used. Everything.

If we say that a restaurant can no longer use an element from set A, that element being "rats", then we have only removed element "rats" from set A. What is left in set A?

Everything else except "rats."

You are correct that some of the elements left in set A are FDA approved ingredients, of course. But that's definitely, far and away, not the only elements left in set A.

Originally posted by Newjak
I understand this totally accurate for the above statement

I'm not sure what you meant, here. I think you meant to say "this is totally inaccurate." If you didn't, let me know where I went wrong in my understanding. I just assumed you were making a tongue-in-cheek comparison to get your point across and were not aiming for perfect logic. I do understand your point about the ingredients implying the cooks have to now use stuff that more closely resembles FDA goods. It's just not logically sound.

Originally posted by Newjak
...but you can also use it as the government saying you NEED to use FDA certified meat only which means you cannot use wild rats as they are not FDA certified.

No you cannot use it to state that for the reasons I explained above about elements in set A.

If you make the declaration that a restaurant can only use ingredients on their approved list, you are preventing an action, not forcing an action. Keep in mind that my point is about forcing people to do things against their will.

Let me better explain that.

Action D is using rats as ingredients. You make a law the prevents action D. Action D is legally prevented.

That is not the same thing as what we are talking about. In fact, I cannot make a parallel to the above using that same form because they are not logically equivalent and, therefore, do not share the same logical form.

Originally posted by Newjak
So that counter-argument doesn't really fly with me. So if it makes you feel better it's not the government telling them they have to serve gays it's them being told they are not allowed to discriminate clientele.

Sort of. They are forced to serve everyone but can exclude people that do not fit a specific definition of what kinds of people they are forced to serve. Someone brought up that comparison, before: they can turn away shoe-less gay people because they are shoe-less, not because they are gay. It's creating a specific set of reasons people are forced to do an action <---- a bad thing because this shit gets out of hand and it continues to get more and more out of hand.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you're missing the point. Telling a business they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public isn't "forcing morals and beliefs" onto said business, it's telling them they can't discriminate.

That's not an accurate portrayal of the situation, now is it? It's not telling businesses they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public. It's forcing them to do things against their personal beliefs and morals. <--- If you can capture how the others side feels in an argument, then you can understand and move the discussion along. A great way to convince the opposing side to start holding your ideas in an argument is to accurately and sincerely show that you understand their position.

Your position is it is legally okay to force people to do things against their beliefs or morals because some people will refuse service to people based on certain traits. My position is that it is not okay to force people to do things because it is a very bad slippery slope and leads to shitty outcomes like forced Sharia Law.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just out of curiosity, do you believe a business should be allowed to close their doors to people based on skin color or ethnicity?

I thought I made myself very clear on this topic:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't care if I buy goods or services from animal sacrificing devil worshipers or from Buddhist monks. If I like it or have some sort of pragmatic utility from it, I'll buy it. If the food is good but they discriminate against gays? I don't give two shits: I want the food. I'll take my gay friends out to a better place, for sure, if we are deciding what to eat, though.

And in case you still missed it, I believe a business should be allowed to do business with the people that want to do business. The very obvious implication is this means businesses may want to only conduct business with Vietnamese immigrants or just white people. If you don't like that about a business because it offends you, I strongly recommend you not conduct your business with them.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Sacred 117
Incidentally, I was baptized as a Mormon when I was thirteen...

Just throwing that out there. haermm

No worries: I just got a new law passed that says you have to let everyone baptize you that asks if they can baptize you. You can't discriminate against anyone who offers, by the way. You have to accept the offers from anyone.

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not an accurate portrayal of the situation, now is it? It's not telling businesses they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public. It's forcing them to do things against their personal beliefs and morals.

Your position is it is legally okay to force people to do things against their beliefs or morals. My position is that it is not okay to do so because it is a very bad slippery slope.

I thought I made myself very clear on this topic:

And in case you still missed it, I believe a business should be allowed to do business with the people that want to do business. The very obvious implication is this means businesses may want to only conduct business with Vietnamese immigrants or just white people. If you don't like that about a business because it offends you, I strongly recommend you not conduct your business with them.

It's a very accurate portrayal, spot-on actually. Open to the public equals just that. Not "No Blacks, Jews or Mexicans allowed in this here establishment."

My position is that businesses can't (or shouldn't) discriminate.

That's allowing businesses to discriminate. But I will give it to you that you're for all around equal discrimination, as odd as that sounds.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a very accurate portrayal, spot-on actually. Open to the public equals just that. Not "No Blacks, Jews or Mexicans allowed in this here establishment."

Nope, that's still not an accurate portrayal. You want to pick and chose what it applies to. We explore that, further, down below. You're helping make my point, by the way. I suck at trying to make my point, at times.

Originally posted by Robtard
My position is that businesses can't (or shouldn't) discriminate.

So a business should allow smokers to smoke while in the buildings (and no laws made to prevent this because that would infringe upon the "businesses should not discriminate law" you just made), pee while conducting their transactions, poop on the tables or on the floor, jack-off while walking into the store, serve screaming customers, etc.

Right?

Because they cannot discriminate. They have to serve everyone.

But let's take your position a step further:

Now a plastic surgeon is required, by your law, to perform penectomies on vaginas. Sure, it makes no sense, but we don't want to offend those people, who happen to have just vaginas, that want their nonexistent penis removed.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's allowing businesses to discriminate. But I will give it to you that you're for all around equal discrimination, as odd as that sounds.

It's not that I'm for discrimination. That's not it at all. It's that I'm for allowing people to choose with whom and how they conduct business. To be even more basic about my actual position, I value personal freedom on what choices people make over your right to tell me what to do. This is, of course, dependent upon whether or not those choices cause physical harm or loss of livelihood. If they do, then that personal freedom infringes upon the personal freedom of others.

Another great example of how my approach is actually a good idea is when it comes to gay marriage. Gays should be allowed to marry because it does not physically harm others and it does not negatively impact the livelihood of others. In fact, it may increase the livelihood of others in some ways.

But, and here's the catch, this also means people can make choices that physically harm themselves (and only themselves) or make choices that impact their livelihood in a negative manner. That's the cost of personal choice. So if a business wants to go out of business by discriminating against homosexual couples who want cakes with 2 grooms, so be it. That's the cost of personal freedom.

Robtard

Really? Anyhow. Fine, I'll play along.

Smoking is harmful to others, that's why there are state-wide tobacco regulations of were you can and can't smoke. Someone's skin color, religion, sexuality and/or religion isn't harmful to others. Smoking isn't outright illegal either, it's just regulated where it can and can't be done. Safety reasons.

Peeing, pooping and masturbation are actions people choose to do at a given times and businesses can turn away customers based on actions. eg Choosing to yell loudly in a theater can get you kicked out. A Black movie-goer didn't choose to be darker skinned though.

A penectomy is the removal of a penis. I have no idea how one would remove a penis from a vagina and how this has anything to do with discrimination.

I wasn't implying that you're happy and like to discriminate. Just that you're okay with businesses doing it as long as it's equal across the board. I disagree with that sentiment.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Really? Anyhow. Fine, I'll play along.

Smoking is harmful to others, that's why there are state-wide tobacco regulations of were you can and can't smoke.

So we should make smoking illegal?

Got it!

Thanks for clarifying. big grin

I'm all for that, by the way, in principle. As you know, I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE walking into a face full of second hand smoke. Just being downwind of it pisses me off because I'm a whiny little shit when it comes to inhaling second hand smoke.

Of course, I would never support making cigs illegal because of the whole personal freedom and right to kill yourself beliefs I hold.

Originally posted by Robtard
Peeing, pooping and masturbation are actions people choose to do at a given times and businesses can turn away customers based on actions. eg Choosing to yell loudly in a theater can get you kicked out. A Black movie-goer didn't choose to be darker skinned though.

You get the point, by now, of course. I'm not sure why you are actually indulging those points. I mean, your answers are my answers. That was the implied.

We can't just blanket disallow discrimination, like you suggested. So I take you agree with me, now? big grin

Also, I would like to point how that people are not "born gay." The research has never supported that. There are a myriad of factors that affect how a person's sexuality is behaviorally manifest and some of those factors include genetics. And sexuality is dynamic, even then. Actually, you're one of the last people I would need to tell this too.

Originally posted by Robtard
A penectomy is the removal of a penis. I have no idea how one would remove a penis from a vagina and how this has anything to do with discrimination.

It's rather simple. You want to discriminate against a someone who is probably a woman simply because she was born with female parts.

Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't implying that you're happy and like to discriminate. Just that you're okay with businesses doing it as long as it's equal across the board. I disagree with that sentiment.

Cool. As long as you accurately understand and represent my point, I don't care if you agree with it or not because we will clearly never agree. But I do feel very comfortable with how you view my perspective and that is as much as any reasonable person should expect out of a very polarizing discussion like this one.

To boil it down even simpler, I want personal freedom which includes being a dick without harming others and you want to limit personal freedoms so that certain dickish ideas are excluded.

Robtard

If you going to take what I say out of context and/or add your own meaning, it's impossible to have a discussion.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
If you going to take what I say out of context and/or add your own meaning, it's impossible to have a discussion.

So I can be clear, you do not think it is dickish to discriminate against homosexuals when conducting business?* I thought that was your perspective.

*And, by extension, should be excluded in the set of things that are allowed when conducting business.

Robtard

It's obvious that I do think it's "dickish" to discriminate against homosexuals, along with discrimination against people for their ethnicity, sex, gender, skin color, physical/mental disability, religion. There's probably a few more I can't think of atm.

Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, eg I wouldn't hold it against a park if they didn't allow someone in a wheelchair on a rollercoaster where it would be dangerous for them (and others) to ride due to their physical limitations. But said wheelchair person should be let inside the park to enjoy other activities.

Robtard

On the other side of the spectrum to the '111 Bakery' closing (which may or may not have been due to this), it seems being bigoted can come with rewards:

'God Has Blessed Us For Standing Up': Indiana Pizza Shop Gets $500,000 In Donations

The owners of an Indiana pizza parlor who say they can't cater same-sex weddings are thanking God for the half-million dollars in donations they've received.

After a local Indiana news station aired an interview with Crystal O'Connor and her father Kevin, the Memories Pizza owners closed their doors to avoid the attacks they say they were receiving. The family said they welcome gay people into their restaurant, but couldn't cater a same-sex wedding, and supported Gov. Mike Pence's anti-gay "religious freedom" law.

Negative comments on social media, ugly images and remarks on the restaurant's Yelp and Facebook pages, one person on Twitter suggesting arson, and claims of death threats all quickly plagued the small eatery.

On Wednesday night Crystal went on a Glenn Beck TV show during which right wing activist Dana Loesch revealed her team had set up a GoFundMe page to accept donations. Less than 48 hours later, that fund has grown to over a half-million dollars.

O'Connor appeared on Fox News Business Thursday evening, telling host Neil Cavuto she and her father feel blessed for the donations, which at that point were just over $200,000.

"God has blessed us for standing up for what we believe, and not denying Him," she told him.

Crystal says she and her father "don't hate gays," they merely feel they cannot participate in or condone a same-sex wedding, because of their religious beliefs.

And she asked the LGBT community to respect her beliefs as she respects theirs.

"All we can do is pray for them, and truly, we're not really angry at them. We're sad for them. Very sad."

When asked, she told Cavuto she doesn't really have gay friends, except "down the friend line" she knows of gay people.

She says she's asking for mutual acceptance from the LGBT community.

"We have to accept them, and we just ask they accept us."Link

edit: Other sites say funds have well surpassed $500k

Sacred 117

Originally posted by dadudemon
No worries: I just got a new law passed that says you have to let everyone baptize you that asks if they can baptize you. You can't discriminate against anyone who offers, by the way. You have to accept the offers from anyone.

What if I'm gay? uhuh

They still want to baptize me? 131

Edit: Expected answer:

http://38.media.tumblr.com/aa57f818b9c9e6a16a2781a2019a55b8/tumblr_mmglrg8FA81qe7n8no2_500.gif

I'm not actually gay. Lol. stick out tongue

Robtard

They'll Baptist the gay away. Just like the Baptized Hitler's.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Sacred 117
What if I'm gay? uhuh

They still want to baptize me? 131

Edit: Expected answer:

http://38.media.tumblr.com/aa57f818b9c9e6a16a2781a2019a55b8/tumblr_mmglrg8FA81qe7n8no2_500.gif

I'm not actually gay. Lol. stick out tongue

Yes. Mormons are for LGBT rights. Just not having hot, stinky, man on man buttsex (they are okay with people being different just not actually being sinful), for example. They think of it just the same as a person born with a very strong genetic predisposition towards anger and violence: everyone is born with innate sin potential.

Mormons have a weird/different approach to homosexuality.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
It's obvious that I do think it's "dickish" to discriminate against homosexuals, along with discrimination against people for their ethnicity, sex, gender, skin color, physical/mental disability, religion. There's probably a few more I can't think of atm.

I just checked the American Civil Rights Act*: you can't list anymore. uhuh

*I didn't actually need to nor did I really check it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, eg I wouldn't hold it against a park if they didn't allow someone in a wheelchair on a rollercoaster where it would be dangerous for them (and others) to ride due to their physical limitations. But said wheelchair person should be let inside the park to enjoy other activities.

Yes, discrimination can get out of hand.

There's thousands of examples like that.

Tell me, what would it take to convince you that it should be okay to allow businesses to discriminate however they wish? For me, the turning point was some stuff I will cover in my response to Ushgarak's comment on this topic. I ran into some "stuff" that allowed me to be comfortable with the notion that it is okay for businesses to be ginormous assholes about who they want to serve.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard

http://i.imgur.com/5jjGHIX.jpg

Just saw that. What a ginormous piece of shit, putrescent human she is. Her attitude culminates the self-righteous attitude of the theistic that really does need to die.

The good news is, I went with a friend to a Christian church service. The preacher gave a sermon about "inviting people to the fold." When he got to the part about non-believers sins, he said, "You're just the witness in a court. You're not the judge or jury. Just bear witness and continue to be supportive of any questions you may receive." And then he talked about how wrong it is for CHristians to act like the jury or judge in those situations and said that's inappropriate and even wrong for you to judge....then he laid down a scriptural smack-down to back up that Christian Assertion.

And then...and THEN! I was like, "Wow. There is hope for finding good and decent Christians out there." Because I am getting jaded as I get older. It's nice to see Christians actually preaching the actual teachings of Christ, every now and then.

The one from that article? Piece of shit, for sure.

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon

Tell me, what would it take to convince you that it should be okay to allow businesses to discriminate however they wish? For me, the turning point was some stuff I will cover in my response to Ushgarak's comment on this topic. I ran into some "stuff" that allowed me to be comfortable with the notion that it is okay for businesses to be ginormous assholes about who they want to serve.

Nothing that comes to mind. Would hate to live in a society were "No N*****s", "No Wetbacks", "No F*****s" and the like signs were allowed.

Even though I believe it would be a very small portion of the business population that would do so, that would also open the doors for openly denying people jobs based on bigotry.

"Sorry DDM, even though you're highly qualified for the job, you can't work here because I don't like Mormons and quasi-Italians" *DDM tears*

Sacred 117

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just saw that. What a ginormous piece of shit, putrescent human she is. Her attitude culminates the self-righteous attitude of the theistic that really does need to die.

The good news is, I went with a friend to a Christian church service. The preacher gave a sermon about "inviting people to the fold." When he got to the part about non-believers sins, he said, "You're just the witness in a court. You're not the judge or jury. Just bear witness and continue to be supportive of any questions you may receive." And then he talked about how wrong it is for CHristians to act like the jury or judge in those situations and said that's inappropriate and even wrong for you to judge....then he laid down a scriptural smack-down to back up that Christian Assertion.

And then...and THEN! I was like, "Wow. There is hope for finding good and decent Christians out there." Because I am getting jaded as I get older. It's nice to see Christians actually preaching the actual teachings of Christ, every now and then.

The one from that article? Piece of shit, for sure.

God bless, brother! Well said. thumb up

I'm with you wholeheartedly on that. It's the fact that I come from religion that makes me f**king furious to see or hear of religiously sanctioned bigotry. Specifically, I grew up in East Texas, which, not to reinforce a stereotype, is rather saturated with such a line of thinking, and honestly, I'm not so sure some of the alleged faithfuls I've been surrounded by throughout my life (specifically those types) are true believers. Else ways, they would better recollect the fundamental teachings of Christianity (faith, charity, good will, all that good shit). More is the feeling (and I have the life experience to attest) that they were fearfully indoctrinated through bribery from childhood to simply believe as they were told, regardless of how little sense it made. Thus, they never bothered to question.

I concluded through this that hatred and intolerance were very much learned behaviors, and the fact that it can be, and is, so easily learned or even taught is sad in itself. Never mind "good Christians" and Christianity losing their identities to a polarized, contradictory idea, which effectively turns away potential followers.

On this subject in particular, I feel like all it takes is the simple realization that gay people are human beings, and just like the rest of us, they're capable of love. Last I checked, love is not a sin. Why else would God have sent his son on a suicide mission in the name of love?

There's really a lot I can say about this, but I'd rather not go on such a long-winded tangent right now. In conclusion, I know there are still true believers out there, and I retain hope that their voices will one day supersede that of who would distort faith with no respect or regard for its intent.

Newjak

Originally posted by dadudemon
It actually does negate what you said and it negates it in the most direct and literal manner, too. You used a faulty comparison because your comparison made the incorrect assumption that a person who wants to murder people should be allowed to do so under my logic. Let's break down your point even further: you assume that these two statements are equivalent:

Person A wants to do harmful action x.

Person B does not want to do un-harmful action y.

x and y are not logically equivalent

That's a whole new can of worms. But let's be real: this is not the first grade. Billy is going to get offended because of something Jane says or does, sometimes. As long as Billy is not physically harmed and his livelihood remains intact, Jane can say whatever she wants.

No, that's not really the case at all. I'll explain, below.

No, that's definitely not the case, at all.

View the set of things that can potentially be used in food as set A.

In set A is everything that can be used. Everything.

If we say that a restaurant can no longer use an element from set A, that element being "rats", then we have only removed element "rats" from set A. What is left in set A?

Everything else except "rats."

You are correct that some of the elements left in set A are FDA approved ingredients, of course. But that's definitely, far and away, not the only elements left in set A.

I'm not sure what you meant, here. I think you meant to say "this is totally inaccurate." If you didn't, let me know where I went wrong in my understanding. I just assumed you were making a tongue-in-cheek comparison to get your point across and were not aiming for perfect logic. I do understand your point about the ingredients implying the cooks have to now use stuff that more closely resembles FDA goods. It's just not logically sound.

No you cannot use it to state that for the reasons I explained above about elements in set A.

If you make the declaration that a restaurant can only use ingredients on their approved list, you are preventing an action, not forcing an action. Keep in mind that my point is about forcing people to do things against their will.

Let me better explain that.

Action D is using rats as ingredients. You make a law the prevents action D. Action D is legally prevented.

That is not the same thing as what we are talking about. In fact, I cannot make a parallel to the above using that same form because they are not logically equivalent and, therefore, do not share the same logical form.

Sort of. They are forced to serve everyone but can exclude people that do not fit a specific definition of what kinds of people they are forced to serve. Someone brought up that comparison, before: they can turn away shoe-less gay people because they are shoe-less, not because they are gay. It's creating a specific set of reasons people are forced to do an action <---- a bad thing because this shit gets out of hand and it continues to get more and more out of hand. Only in your opinion is y not harmful.

By the same logic turning away a black man is not harmful but is has been demonstrated it is harmful to one's mental state to be rejected for what you are.

Telling people they can only use certain ingredients is the government restricting how they can run their business.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Sacred 117

It's the fact that I come from religion that makes me ... furious to see or hear of religiously sanctioned bigotry...

I'm not so sure some of the alleged faithfuls I've been surrounded by throughout my life (specifically those types) are true believers. Else ways, they would better recollect the fundamental teachings of Christianity (faith, charity, good will ...).
More is the feeling (and I have the life experience to attest) that they were fearfully indoctrinated through bribery from childhood to simply believe as they were told, regardless of how little sense it made. Thus, they never bothered to question.

I concluded through this that hatred and intolerance were very much learned behaviors, and the fact that it can be, and is, so easily learned or even taught is sad in itself. Never mind "good Christians" and Christianity losing their identities to a polarized, contradictory idea, which effectively turns away potential followers.

On this subject in particular, I feel like all it takes is the simple realization that gay people are human beings, and just like the rest of us, they're capable of love. Last I checked, love is not a sin. Why else would God have sent his son on a suicide mission in the name of love?

There's really a lot I can say about this, but I'd rather not go on such a long-winded tangent right now. In conclusion, I know there are still true believers out there, and I retain hope that their voices will one day supersede that of who would distort faith with no respect or regard for its intent.

Problem.

Unlike the other posts, which are arguing largely on secular or legal grounds, you're trying to argue on Biblical terms.

117, I understand that people can and do use religion as a weapon.

I also agree if you want to say that what is called "Christianity" is a counterfeit of what Christianity is and was intended to be.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not support what you are arguing, either in what is called the Old Testament OR in what is called the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, for instance, a NEW Testament passage:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=AKJV

Please read the above carefully, and respond only if you are able to provide an answer to the content of the above.

You seem earnest.

However, whether you realize it or not, perhaps the only way your argument works is if you divorce your argument from what is actually written in the Bible, and/or if what you're calling "Christianity" is not actually based on what is written in that same book.

Sacred 117

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Problem.

Unlike the other posts, which are arguing largely on secular or legal grounds, you're trying to argue on Biblical terms.

117, I understand that people can and do use religion as a weapon.

I also agree if you want to say that what is called "Christianity" is a counterfeit of what Christianity is and was intended to be.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not support what you are arguing, either in what is called the Old Testament OR in what is called the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, for instance, a NEW Testament passage:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=AKJV

Please read the above carefully, and respond only if you are able to provide an answer to the content of the above.

You seem earnest.

However, whether you realize it or not, perhaps the only way your argument works is if you divorce your argument from what is actually written in the Bible, and/or if what you're calling "Christianity" is not actually based on what is written in that same book.

I think I see what you're saying, and on the difference between what is meant to be Christianity and what calls itself Christianity, we pretty much agree. But please, correct me again if my response deviates from relevancy.

You're right. I wasn't, nor did I intend to directly refer to the Bible. Don't get me wrong. There are some aspects of scripture I find agreeable and can honestly identify with (I'm actually curious as to whether or not DDM can remember what he was referring to), but I generally tend to avoid the Bible on somewhat of a personal basis, if that makes any sense.

Like I say, I don't dismiss it as a whole, but I've grown to approach it with caution or just forgo it almost entirely. To simplify, I wasn't using it in my arguement.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Newjak
Only in your opinion is y not harmful.

By the same logic turning away a black man is not harmful but is has been demonstrated it is harmful to one's mental state to be rejected for what you are.

I think you and I disagree on what constitutes "harmful."

Since I think adults should be adults and not lose their hsit if someone says or does something that offends, we can never agree, I don't think.

If I call you a butt-humping f*ggot, you need to be able to deal with that and not break down and cry OR rage out on me and burn my pubes.

This is why I don't place it under "harm." If you're a child, yeah, that's pretty f*cking cruel of me to do. But, no, an adult is not harmed by being turned away from a cake shop because bigots don't support gay marriage. Harming them would be pelting them with rocks to get out of the store (has happened).

Originally posted by Newjak
Telling people they can only use certain ingredients is the government restricting how they can run their business.

My opinion is consistent even with this. If people want to eat rats in their soup, they should get to and the government not restrict it.

However, remember my thing about harm? Fits better with food. But, that can be a very hard thing to define. Technically, American's children are LITERALLY and directly being harmed by all of the sugar in the foods we eat. So do we restrict sugar? Probably not. But keeping obvious poisons out of food may be okay. That's a very obvious "causes harm" situation.

Rat in food? Nah, doesn't cause harm if prepared properly. So rats should be okay (this is still about the metaphor, not literally about rats in food).

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing that comes to mind. Would hate to live in a society were "No N*****s", "No Wetbacks", "No F*****s" and the like signs were allowed.

I see that enough already that seeing it on a business wouldn't phase me. But I don't want to see that kind of bigotry, either. You know, because I'm a dirty hippie that wants love for everyone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Even though I believe it would be a very small portion of the business population that would do so, that would also open the doors for openly denying people jobs based on bigotry.

Yes, I agree. Very few would do that. But I'm okay if that stuff happens with jobs, too. I am consistent with this opinion. Like I said, I'll cover that tomorrow if I have time.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Sorry DDM, even though you're highly qualified for the job, you can't work here because I don't like Mormons and quasi-Italians" *DDM tears*

I wouldn't want to work at a place like that, though. So it's a win-win. Under my idea of how it should work, they would be open about it and I could avoid them.

Under the current system, they may hire me and then treat me like crap.

This is why I think political correctness and things like that need to go. There is definitely a necessity of respect of decorum that is needed: no doubt. But this "sweep all the shit under the rug" norm needs to die a very fast death.

The racism and bigotry are still there. Just under the surface. It will never go away unless we genetically modify humans. So we create these arbitrary and stupid rules that do little to change that...just so a few vocal minority can feel better about nothing (because the racism and bigotry are still there just not as overtly to avoid trouble...sometimes).

dadudemon

Originally posted by Sacred 117
I think I see what you're saying, and on the difference between what is meant to be Christianity and what calls itself Christianity, we pretty much agree. But please, correct me again if my response deviates from relevancy.

You're right. I wasn't, nor did I intend to directly refer to the Bible. Don't get me wrong. There are some aspects of scripture I find agreeable and can honestly identify with (I'm actually curious as to whether or not DDM can remember what he was referring to), but I generally tend to avoid the Bible on somewhat of a personal basis, if that makes any sense.

Like I say, I don't dismiss it as a whole, but I've grown to approach it with caution or just forgo it almost entirely. To simplify, I wasn't using it in my arguement.

Yes, I do have hope for religions. I hope this Islamic bullshit becomes a thing of the past. The hate that spews forth from the Christian Evangelicals needs to die, as well. And the militant atheism needs to die, as well.

Basically, hateful religious stuff needs to die. But, again, I'm just a hopeful dirty hippie that wants everyone to love each other. I prefer the classic 140 A.D. Christian approach: care for people, no matter what, even if it means death.