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
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.
Originally posted by Omega Visioneconomic 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 VisionI 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.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Visionso 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.
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.
On the earlier point, yes the courts are swamped with dumb sh*t cases.
Originally posted by Sacred 117... You realize that political stance =/= monetary income right?
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.
I'd discuss the point your making but it just seemed to be a baseless partisan mud fling.
Originally posted by Henry_PymYes Gay's rights supersede your rights to be intolerant. Honestly they can refuse to whoever they want but I honestly think it is okay for those who have been turned away to sue them.
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.
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.
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. 😠
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?
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.