Originally posted by ares834No 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is essentially meant to say. 👆
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.
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. 👆
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆
Originally posted by Sacred 117no, your post was flaming. And incorrect in its insult.
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 ares834...? 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.
so Black rights supersede your rights?It's virtually the same thing.
>>not you, possibly<<
People are over hyping a first amendment protection as a discrimination tactic.
Originally posted by Sacred 117Serious question: Do you believe you have the right to refuse service? And why would you want service from those people?
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. 😠
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.
Originally posted by Omega Visionlol, no.
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.
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.
Spoiler:
If you assumed the first line was from a religious nut job, your the reason we need this law!
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.
[spoiler]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?
[spoiler]if you answer yes, and you are against this law, you are a hypocrite]
Good thing I answered no then.