The Beginning of the End (of discrimination)

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You'd have to explain that one to me. The Civil Rights Act removes the option for owners to refuse service to just about any group... except those based on their sexuality that I know of.

 

I think California overturned a case where discrimination occurred because of sexuality, but again.. that's one state out of them all.. Not sure if others have come to the same conclusion.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Because we determined that it wasn't ok to do to black people in the 50s. Enough people could support it that it ruins them.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That's too easy of an answer.

Repeal that, too.

[blotsfan 2,112]

There are enough bigots that they could stick together so the only losers would be gay people.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Again, do gays really want to go to an establishment where an owner is anti-gay?

[blotsfan 2,112]

Black people did

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You are very boring, Blots. lol

Where does the federal government gain the authority to violate the rights of private property owners? Does forcing integration really solve the issue or merely perpetuate it? What has helped more in regards to civil rights -- forced integration or a changing and evolving mindset of the public?

 

Doesn't forced integration actually promote intolerance in a way? Could you argue that employers, or schools, or what have you accept more people of color or sexuality simply base on that fact regardless of credentials? Having a figurative quota of blacks or gays working or attending your establishment isn't the path to equality... Is it?

When you consciously make that decision to enroll a black student or a gay student or employ a black person or a gay person over a non-black or non-gay person simply based on that fact so as to not appear to be breaking laws... Are you not participating in the exact discrimination the law is supposed to be abolishing?

 

The argument could be made that forced integration hurts society and progress towards equality more than it helps.

[RazorStar 4,025]

You need to kick people into place to get them to change their stances on these things. The public opinion would not change drastically enough if there wasn't a catalyst to get them started. While I'm with you on the evolving public mindset being the most important part of accepting change, I feel like these sorts of things are necessary, at least to start. It's why I could now understand repealing the Rooney Rule in the NFL now, because these pale white ghosts have seen that black coaches are capable of the same level of success white coaches are.

[southgadawg 52]

Now I am curious and I will readily admit that I haven't read every link provided here, nor have I read every word written in this thread...but I am seem to recall a few months ago there was a gay couple who purposely (with the stated intent of causing an issue) went to a local business where the owners claimed to be Christian. To me if other businesses are available that sort of behavior could be considered harassment. From what I remembered (and I am tired and haven't looked up any links) it ended up with that business even having to close or severely hit with some fines. I have no issue with lgbt couples enjoying the benefits of a civil union but honestly I (for my own religious reasons) only believe a marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman. I also realize that lgbt couples should be able to speak out for their own views. What I have issue with is anyone purposely going into another's place of privately owned business and telling them what they should and shouldn't do in that business (and yes from almost 30 years in some form of management I realize there are more than a few legal laws put in place to protect discrimination). The vast number of lgbt people I know are normal type human beings trying to get by in this world. They want the best they can get but overall they don't like to be messed with nor do they mess with other people. I know a few idiots however ON BOTH SIDES of the topic that like to try to make a scene and make noise. For the most part I think that type of action just alienates both sides of the argument and drives people even further apart. ANY new law needs to be carefully crafted to avoid showing preference to one side over the other. That is a difficult thing to do because unfortunately it seems there is always someone trying to take advantage of any loophole they can. Just my two cents for what little it is worth.

[oochymp 2,393]

And while we weren't looking, look what just happened/

 

http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/breaking_az_senate_passes_right_to_discriminate_bi.php

okay, I don't have much for a response to that one (FTR, here's the bill: Format Document) I will say that the bill never uses the terms "gay" "same-sex" or anything of the like, but it sounds like comments from the senators get that point across, I would like to point out that once again this bill doesn't seem to actually add rights that aren't already at least arguably there from the First Amendment

 

I also think it's worth looking at what's motivating these laws, one of the biggest is a New Mexico Supreme Court ruling from last fall that forced a wedding photographer to extend his services to a same sex wedding (The New Mexico Supreme Court Applies Anti-Discrimination Law to Wedding Photographer Refusing to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia) there was also the Colorado baker who was ordered in December to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding (Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News) these are decisions I actually do take issue with. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the decision to refuse service for gay weddings (you're running a business and I'm pretty sure their money is the same) but I don't think anyone should be forced to take part in a ceremony like this that truly offends their religious beliefs.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Here's the thing, Favre and oochymp. While I sympathize with where you are coming from, I feel that the reason people are doing this is NOT because their religious freedom is threatened. It's because homosexuality in particular is "icky" to them, to paraphrase someone else.

 

If they truly felt that their religious beliefs were threatened by homosexuals asking for a wedding picture, then they should also feel that a person who has divorced, (for any reason other than abuse or sexual immorality from their partner), and is now getting re-married and wants a wedding cake/picture is also completely against their religious beliefs and they should refuse them service as well. But this seems to be just an anti-gay thing.

 

The other problem is the precedent that it sets. While I do agree with Favre about forced integration, (affirmative action being a major thing that needs to go), what if someone says their religious beliefs mean they can't serve blacks? Are we still okay with that? (We might be, just tossing it out there.)

 

And while, yes, in large cities and other metropolitan areas, the couple in question will simply go to another store they are a) forced to spend more time than they otherwise counted on, and b) perhaps not able to find another store if they aren't in an area with a lot of people. In a small town, especially in the South, there may only be one barber shop/wedding photographer/cake bakery, etc. This would force them to drive out of town for who knows how long before they found another business willing to service them. It would also encourage gay people to hide who they are. After all, the business is fine with giving what the Bible considers adulterers their business- they just don't inquire into the circumstances surrounding their marriage. This is almost a "don't ask, and certainly don't tell, because if you do I might turn you away."

 

It just rubs me the wrong way.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

You are very boring, Blots. lol

 

Where does the federal government gain the authority to violate the rights of private property owners? Does forcing integration really solve the issue or merely perpetuate it? What has helped more in regards to civil rights -- forced integration or a changing and evolving mindset of the public?

 

To the extent that we could assume a right to property exists, it is subject to due process. So in the context you are using it, there is no right being violated by legislation barring private business from discriminating against its customer base. To my knowledge, the only right to property is the 5th Amendment, which merely prevents the government from confiscating private property for public use without proper compensation. It says nothing about regulation of private property, which seems to be the source of the SCOTUS's two unanimous opinions ruling against challenges to the Civil Rights Act.

 

Edit; And as far as the rights OF property owners go, if that's the argument being made, I'm not sure I understand what right of theirs is being violated.

 

The Civil Rights Act and subsequent civil rights legislation forced integration. Has this perpetuated racism or sexism? Doesn't seem to be much evidence in favor of this argument.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[Thanatos 2,847]

Phail, I think what Favre's point is, is that its *no longer* necessary. It may have been at one point, but not anymore.

[oochymp 2,393]

Here's the thing, Favre and oochymp. While I sympathize with where you are coming from, I feel that the reason people are doing this is NOT because their religious freedom is threatened. It's because homosexuality in particular is "icky" to them, to paraphrase someone else.

well I'm glad you can read minds and understand the true motivations of people you've never met

 

I do think I need to make one point clear: I don't agree with the views of people who are refusing service related to same-sex weddings, but I don't think they should be forced to participate in something that truly offends them

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

Here's the thing, Favre and oochymp. While I sympathize with where you are coming from, I feel that the reason people are doing this is NOT because their religious freedom is threatened. It's because homosexuality in particular is "icky" to them, to paraphrase someone else.

well I'm glad you can read minds and understand the true motivations of people you've never met

 

I do think I need to make one point clear: I don't agree with the views of people who are refusing service related to same-sex weddings, but I don't think they should be forced to participate in something that truly offends them

 

 

Christians used to find the abolitionist movement and interracial marriage offensive, too.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

 

Here's the thing, Favre and oochymp. While I sympathize with where you are coming from, I feel that the reason people are doing this is NOT because their religious freedom is threatened. It's because homosexuality in particular is "icky" to them, to paraphrase someone else.

well I'm glad you can read minds and understand the true motivations of people you've never met

 

I do think I need to make one point clear: I don't agree with the views of people who are refusing service related to same-sex weddings, but I don't think they should be forced to participate in something that truly offends them

 

 

Christians used to find the abolitionist movement and interracial marriage offensive, too.

 

why is this always the go-to in discussions about same sex marriage? and why does everyone who brings it up always seem to forget (or choose not to acknowledge) that there were Christians on both sides of those debates just as there are Christians on both sides of the same sex marriage debate now?

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

Here's the thing, Favre and oochymp. While I sympathize with where you are coming from, I feel that the reason people are doing this is NOT because their religious freedom is threatened. It's because homosexuality in particular is "icky" to them, to paraphrase someone else.

well I'm glad you can read minds and understand the true motivations of people you've never met

 

I do think I need to make one point clear: I don't agree with the views of people who are refusing service related to same-sex weddings, but I don't think they should be forced to participate in something that truly offends them

 

 

Its not about reading minds, its a simple logical deduction. If they were truly worried about their religious beliefs being threatened by this, (which, btw, nowhere in the entire bible does it say "Thou shalt refuse to serve sinners,") they would also take action against other people who are "living in sin," and refuse them service, such as adulterers- which according to the Bible, includes those who divorce and remarry for any reason other than abuse and/or immorality.

 

Since they don't do this, they're being hypocritical, (most likely because they haven't given it much thought, admittedly), and there is something specific to homosexuality that they found repellent enough to bring this idea into play.

 

The entire idea that serving homosexuals is something Christians should avoid is so completely against the entire idea of Christianity. It simply floors me that people think Christianity is about not serving a group of people. What did Christ do when he was on the earth? He interacted and served all sorts of people who the mainstream establishment considered sinners.

 

This is just so against the love that was preached by Christ that even though I don't consider myself a Christian anymore, I am still flabbergasted that a Christian would use this argument.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Thanatos19

[southgadawg 52]

 

 

Here's the thing, Favre and oochymp. While I sympathize with where you are coming from, I feel that the reason people are doing this is NOT because their religious freedom is threatened. It's because homosexuality in particular is "icky" to them, to paraphrase someone else.

well I'm glad you can read minds and understand the true motivations of people you've never met

 

I do think I need to make one point clear: I don't agree with the views of people who are refusing service related to same-sex weddings, but I don't think they should be forced to participate in something that truly offends them

 

 

Its not about reading minds, its a simple logical deduction. If they were truly worried about their religious beliefs being threatened by this, (which, btw, nowhere in the entire bible does it say "Thou shalt refuse to serve sinners,") they would also take action against other people who are "living in sin," and refuse them service, such as adulterers- which according to the Bible, includes those who divorce and remarry for any reason other than abuse and/or immorality.

 

Since they don't do this, they're being hypocritical, (most likely because they haven't given it much thought, admittedly), and there is something specific to homosexuality that they found repellent enough to bring this idea into play.

 

The entire idea that serving homosexuals is something Christians should avoid is so completely against the entire idea of Christianity. It simply floors me that people think Christianity is about not serving a group of people. What did Christ do when he was on the earth? He interacted and served all sorts of people who the mainstream establishment considered sinners.

 

This is just so against the love that was preached by Christ that even though I don't consider myself a Christian anymore, I am still flabbergasted that a Christian would use this argument.

 

As I have said before from my understanding of the Bible Jesus repeatedly interacted with the sinners and He only really got angry with the so called religious authorities of His day. I can't speak for other Christians (and I am certainly NOT comparing myself to Christ). I know personally I have worked and known several homosexuals in my life including one of my best friends from highschool. I don't agree with the lifestyle and as I said before I don't think homosexuals should be able to officially be married (although I have absolutely no issue with a civil union). As I have said before in this thread I can see that some possibly might have different beliefs than myself and be offended by being forced into providing a service for that type of ceremony (which again I think is where this legislative action was initiated from). I will say that although I have eaten with members of the LGBT community on several occasions in the last year I personally don't wish to attend either a 'marriage' or civil union ceremony because simply I don't support it. I feel that if I attended then I am encouraging what my heart feels is sin and hence I feel it is wrong. However I am not saying that these people are any worse than a multitude of heterosexuals that are living in sin either. In my belief any of these sins can be forgiven. I don't understand those who hate a person because of what he/she has done...perhaps hate the action not the person would be a better course. I will say that so many times this culture (especially the media) tends to dramatize the exceptions to the norms than the majority of people who are kind and loving to their neighbors. Example: Westboro Baptist Church is NOT an example of typical Christians NOR is it even affiliated with either the Baptist World Alliance or the Southern Baptist Convention from my understanding. To me it is sad that so many people get their 'ideals' of Christianity from such an extreme example. I guess that is because there are so many others that are not as outspoken nor are they controversial so they do not get the news time.

Edited February 23, 2014 by southgadawg

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

You are very boring, Blots. lol

 

Where does the federal government gain the authority to violate the rights of private property owners? Does forcing integration really solve the issue or merely perpetuate it? What has helped more in regards to civil rights -- forced integration or a changing and evolving mindset of the public?

 

To the extent that we could assume a right to property exists, it is subject to due process. So in the context you are using it, there is no right being violated by legislation barring private business from discriminating against its customer base. To my knowledge, the only right to property is the 5th Amendment, which merely prevents the government from confiscating private property for public use without proper compensation. It says nothing about regulation of private property, which seems to be the source of the SCOTUS's two unanimous opinions ruling against challenges to the Civil Rights Act.

 

Edit; And as far as the rights OF property owners go, if that's the argument being made, I'm not sure I understand what right of theirs is being violated.

 

The Civil Rights Act and subsequent civil rights legislation forced integration. Has this perpetuated racism or sexism? Doesn't seem to be much evidence in favor of this argument.

 

 

I think you could VERY EASILY make the argument that forced integration only perpetuates racism / sexism / etc. Look no further than affirmative action. Supposed to fight discrimination while promoting discrimination -- it's fantastic.

 

Thanatos made my point as to it's not needed anymore today -- and it isn't. Integrate, and move on. If we were to repeal the Civil Rights act, I don't think we'd see segregation all of a sudden pop up again or have some weird Civil War II, lol. It's not necessary anymore and I think it does hurt us.

 

It's a VERY loose comparison.. but look at a lot of the programs and government agencies FDR created during the Depression. Everyone lauded him and those programs at the time for helping the country out of the rut and they were never intended to be permanent.... Alas, most of them did become permanent and they have only further increased federal power and spending -- a clear detriment to this country.

 

And back to one of my original points... I hate the idea of forcing business owners to extend their services to everyone. Forced labor is bullshit, just as much if not more than the bigotry of the owners we are trying to combat. Just using Oochy's examples... Forcing a photographer to take photos at a gay wedding? Forcing bakers to cook for gay weddings?

 

Don't get me wrong.... If I owned a business, I would NEVER turn away money.. Regardless of skin color, sexual orientation or preference, gender, etc. But I feel it should be my prerogative, not that of the federal government.

 

Anyone who has debated me knows about where I stand on the political spectrum. Pretty Libertarian... Human rights and liberties are #1 on my agenda. And this is one of those things, for me (like abortion)... Where you could argue you are violating somebodies rights either way. AGAIN... I would never support a business who would turn away people because of their sexual orientation. I would never run a business who turned people away because of their sexual orientation....

 

But I sure as hell don't like the federal government coming in and forcing me to extend my services to everyone.

 

And let's get real, anyway. A Civil Rights Bill amendment to include sexual orientation / preference won't solve the issue. It will just make people come up with excuses to refuse service to people. If you are that photographer Oochy mentioned earlier and a same-sex couple comes in and you don't want the job... "Oh, sorry, I am booked for the next 10 years... I won't be able to do anything for you, I apologize".

 

Is forcing that photographer to work for the gay couple going to change anything or is it just suppressing negative feelings and hatred? Does that really harbor an environment of acceptance and equality... I don't think so.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Its an interesting topic. Because even when Jesus did do miracles, and serve others, he did so while making it known that he was doing it with the intentions of changing whoever's life he was serving to become a better Christian... Or a Christian if he wasn't one to begin with.

 

So while there's nothing wrong with serving someone who's lifestyle is completely against your faith, there is something wrong with helping them further that lifestyle. It just comes back to the individual, and how he/she feels about the situation.

 

Really don't know what I would do in that position, but it probably wouldn't be any different then how I handle those kinda situations now.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

Its not about reading minds, its a simple logical deduction. If they were truly worried about their religious beliefs being threatened by this, (which, btw, nowhere in the entire bible does it say "Thou shalt refuse to serve sinners,") they would also take action against other people who are "living in sin," and refuse them service, such as adulterers- which according to the Bible, includes those who divorce and remarry for any reason other than abuse and/or immorality.

 

Since they don't do this, they're being hypocritical, (most likely because they haven't given it much thought, admittedly), and there is something specific to homosexuality that they found repellent enough to bring this idea into play.

 

The entire idea that serving homosexuals is something Christians should avoid is so completely against the entire idea of Christianity. It simply floors me that people think Christianity is about not serving a group of people. What did Christ do when he was on the earth? He interacted and served all sorts of people who the mainstream establishment considered sinners.

 

This is just so against the love that was preached by Christ that even though I don't consider myself a Christian anymore, I am still flabbergasted that a Christian would use this argument.

 

or it's just a matter of not asking their customers if either of them have ever been married before and the reason for the divorce while in the case of a same sex marriage there's no need to ask

 

again, I have never said I agree with them, just that I understand where they're coming from and don't think the government should be forcing them to support something they feel is against their religious beliefs, however misguided those religious beliefs may appear to you and me

[Thanatos 2,847]

But the precedent, oochymp. You are giving business owners carte blanche to refuse service to anyone "if it furthers their lifestyle," as Dmac puts it, (and said "lifestyle" is against their religious beliefs- and btw using lifestyle to describe homosexuality is bogus. Might as well say I live a "brown-haired lifestyle."

 

So if a business owner is racist, sexist, homo"phobic", ageist, w/e-ist, they can refuse service on the grounds that it goes against their beliefs.

 

Its an interesting topic. Because even when Jesus did do miracles, and serve others, he did so while making it known that he was doing it with the intentions of changing whoever's life he was serving to become a better Christian... Or a Christian if he wasn't one to begin with.

 

He doesn't "make it known" during many of the miracles he does. Serving the five thousand? Turning water into wine?

 

Jesus isn't doing miracles solely with the intention of "changing someone's life" though their life would be changed merely by the fact that they had witnessed a miracle. To stretch that and say that somehow means you should be worried about what people are going to do with the services you provide them if such service is part of a ceremony to promote sin... well. To call that stretching is an understatement.

 

Its not your business, as a Christian, to worry about that. That is between the person you are serving and God.

 

The ONLY way I could see it being justified biblically is if the person you are serving is another Christian. Then there could be an argument made that you are supposed to help your brother/sister out and lovingly point out their sin.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Thanatos19

[oochymp 2,393]

alright, apparently I haven't been clear, the only point I support is allowing people who provide services directly related to weddings to opt not to cater to same sex weddings, this isn't telling gay people they can't get married it's saying "I don't support your choice so I'm not going to help you celebrate it" this would apply to positions like photographers, caterers, food prep, and other services directly associated with the wedding, in the New Mexico photographer case I posted earlier the photographer stated that if the woman had been looking to get portraits done he would have been happy to do that, he just didn't want to photograph their wedding, I'm not saying give people carte blanche to refuse service, I'm just saying we should allow people to choose not to participate in the celebration of a lifestyle that offends them

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

But the precedent, oochymp. You are giving business owners carte blanche to refuse service to anyone "if it furthers their lifestyle," as Dmac puts it, (and said "lifestyle" is against their religious beliefs- and btw using lifestyle to describe homosexuality is bogus. Might as well say I live a "brown-haired lifestyle."

 

So if a business owner is racist, sexist, homo"phobic", ageist, w/e-ist, they can refuse service on the grounds that it goes against their beliefs.

 

Its an interesting topic. Because even when Jesus did do miracles, and serve others, he did so while making it known that he was doing it with the intentions of changing whoever's life he was serving to become a better Christian... Or a Christian if he wasn't one to begin with.

 

He doesn't "make it known" during many of the miracles he does. Serving the five thousand? Turning water into wine?

 

Jesus isn't doing miracles solely with the intention of "changing someone's life" though their life would be changed merely by the fact that they had witnessed a miracle. To stretch that and say that somehow means you should be worried about what people are going to do with the services you provide them if such service is part of a ceremony to promote sin... well. To call that stretching is an understatement.

 

Its not your business, as a Christian, to worry about that. That is between the person you are serving and God.

 

The ONLY way I could see it being justified biblically is if the person you are serving is another Christian. Then there could be an argument made that you are supposed to help your brother/sister out and lovingly point out their sin.

 

The feeding of the 5000 is the perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. Everything he did was done for a reason. It'd be silly to think otherwise, because his disciples were usually always with him, and before he rose up he told his disciples to go out and do exactly what he was doing, for the intentions of spreading the gospel.

 

Jesus spent so much time around people who were regarded the worst by others (alcoholics, tax collectors, etc) because he wanted to convert them.

Edited February 23, 2014 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[oochymp 2,393]

I think we need a little levity in here: