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.
Not at all. It's a false analogy. It would only hold if she were suspended solely because she was a Muslim.
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.
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.
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.)
Honestly, you sound like an anti-religious bigot.
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.
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.
Brace yourself, vitriolic dadudemon whining is incoming:
I was very glad to see legislation like this passed. I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooo ****ing tired of seeing so much bullshit social justice warriorship.
Cry me a river because a business is allowed to discriminate. Boohoo. You're just soooo destroyed and distraught, now, because a business can refuse to do business with you.
Why do you people care so much? I mean, really, why? Why does everyone think they are a social justice warrior, these days? Get off your high horses. Stop trying to control everyone around you. Crawl out of everyone's asses. Are those people that are potentially going to get discriminated against, getting physically harmed or getting their possessions/livelihood taken from them? No? Then STFU about it.
Yes, vote with your money. Don't support businesses that do not have your ideals if you want to feel good about who you buy goods and services and bonds (edit - I have no idea why I said bonds, here...I think that was a Freudian slip. I'm leaving that shit for posterity...but I think it should have said "from", not "and bonds"😉. Granted, doing that is a bit self-righteous in my opinion (and eye-rolling).
Obviously, don't support businesses that are physically harming people or stealing stuff. Another way to word that is do not financially support terrorism by buying terrorist products (this is an example). Other than that? Who the F*CK cares.
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.
"But, dadudemon, what if they started discriminating against straight white males?" Then I'll take my business elsewhere. "But, dadudemon, what if most businesses start discriminating against straight white males?" Not only is that an apples to oranges comparison, I think businesses that DO discriminate against people that shouldn't be, will lose business. Like, literally, that will happen.
Also, Digi, your Chick-Fil-A comparison/commentary is not applicable to this situation. Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against homosexual people. The comment was an offhand comment by the COO in an interview. It was his opinion. He was asked his opinion. He gave it.
Here are the exact words and the context of that statement:
"...on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged."[27][28] Cathy continued:
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.
"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Dan_Cathy_statements
http://www.brnow.org/News/July-2012/Guilty-as-charged-Dan-Cathy-says-of-Chick-fil-A-s
When Chick-fil-A (the entity that is run by many people, not some random store manager or employee) starts discriminating against homosexual people, then we can use that company as a comparison.
Also, Chick-fil-A's sales went up because people like me are getting tired of the political correct bullshit. I went to Chick-fil-A on their "support Chick-fil-A" day. Not because I knew that was going on (I gave zero f*cks), but because I was hungry. But it was busy as f*ck. I asked several people (because I was very familiar with the situation but not the event) why they were there and they all were well-informed and fed-up with the political correct bullshit.
One gentleman there was an atheist and a strong LGBT supporter. He didn't like the social justice warriors approach to the situation and he wanted to show support to the business for having the balls to speak up about their values that he didn't share. By the end of my VERY long wait in line there was a large circle of us all talking about the situation.
So where were we? Oh, yes, stop b*tching about a non-issue. People just want a reason to whine about social injustices. It makes them feel righteous. Weeeee!
Now, let's get some more freedom in America. Less morality laws and silly regulations that just cost money. Let businesses be assholes. Let people decide who they want to buy stuff from.
Edit - I support things like gay-marriage, gay-parent adoption, etc. Go figure! I can have my cake and eat it, too. WEEEEE!
"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.) 😄
Originally posted by ares834so dodging? Her reasoning is based on religion, the schools are based on their beliefs.
Not at all. It's a false analogy. It would only hold if she were suspended solely because she was a Muslim.
Originally posted by Sacred 1171.) lol, back track then or explain why your insults = flaming
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.
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|this 👆
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ares834its dodging because you won't answer the question; the definition of dodging.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Lestov16Im honestly fairly positive you don't know the words that your saying.
Bullshit. Sounds equivalent of racial segregation.Good thing I answered no then.
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.
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 ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Henry_PymYou're, not your.
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've been doing this throughout the entire thread. Stop it.
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.
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 [b]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. [/B]