One step closer: Marriage Equality


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
2) People are forced to act against their conscience in the course of their jobs all the time, particularly when their conscience compels them to discriminate against others. We have public accommodation laws for precisely this reason.

While I am taking entirely too much enjoyment in watching fox news turn purple and can understand the need for government intrusion so that people can get food, shelter, and housing I don't see the compelling government interest to force twits to do business with people they don't want to for luxury items like flowers.

There's a difference between stating a law and enforcing it. I don't think most people are suggesting that resources should be allocated to chasing every florist with a bad attitude, but having an official law changes the norm.

Or, in other words - you would rather live in a country where it is illegal to deny service to a person because of race, sex, sexual orientation etc. Right?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

GreyWolfLord, how is asking for equal rights the equivalent of attacking or pushing around the religious? Because anti-discrimination laws may force your business to serve the LGBT community?

You know who else they force you to serve already? Black people. Is that tyranny? If not why?

A lot of what you've said sounds like victim blaming GreyWolfLord, people won't be discriminatory towards LGBT folks if their rights aren't perceived as being threatened?

B$*#%&@%, what about the last innumerable years where there was no perceived threat and they where discriminatory as hell?

To me much of what you've said leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it strikes me as very similar to the "If blacks would just stop being so uppity (for asking for equal rights) they wouldn't face so much discrimination and fear, what happens to them is mostly their fault really, if they would just sit down and shut up everything would be fine for them."

No. No, it really wouldn't.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is there is an AWFUL LOT OF FEAR out there right now. If you look at the speeches and sermons from the SBC (and others) it is almost entirely based upon the fear people have of an aggressive LGBT movement. They may say something about the Bible...but most of it...it's due to the fear that they have of the LGBT movement moving to destroy the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.

I feel that fear is what is motivating a LARGE number of people in the past few years...and I think that's the biggest obstacle currently.

I am under no illusion it will completely disappate opposition, but I think it will do a great amount of help in disappating it.

Unlike interracial marriage, for many, it is blatantly and obviously written out in the Bible in regards to homosexuality. You and I are not going to change this. Furthermore, history has shown, (and in this our Founding Fathers were extremely wise..this is also one of the reasons they gave for a separation...

nope that's in there too. Can't tell you how many people were happy with me so long as I wasn't one of those evil sinful negros who wanted to go against the bible and date their daughter/sister/niece.

They weren't bigoted, they had no problem with me going to the same school as their kids or anything. I just better keep the FREEhold locked up around their women folk. /s


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

GreyWolfLord, how is asking for equal rights the equivalent of attacking or pushing around the religious? Because anti-discrimination laws may force your business to serve the LGBT community?

You know who else they force you to serve already? Black people. Is that tyranny? If not why?

A lot of what you've said sounds like victim blaming GreyWolfLord, people won't be discriminatory towards LGBT folks if their rights aren't perceived as being threatened?

B!~@~*~%, what about the last innumerable years where there was no perceived threat and they where discriminatory as hell?

To me much of what you've said leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it strikes me as very similar to the "If blacks would just stop being so uppity (for asking for equal rights) they wouldn't face so much discrimination and fear, what happens to them is mostly their fault really, if they would just sit down and shut up everything would be fine for them."

No. No, it really wouldn't.

Of course not!

adjusts tarp covering mobile black tyranny device

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Freehold, we told you you can't call parts of your body that anymore.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

It ties directly to Justice Kennedy's opinion in the SC decision:
Quote:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

It's that same dignity that is lost when any bigoted idiot can refuse you service protected by the law. It's the same dignity that was lost when black people had to go the back door, if they were served at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't know the guy personally, but from everything I read, I can't for the life of me imagine Jesus refusing to bake a cake or arrange some flowers for anyone... Maybe some money changers or a fruitless fig tree, but, given his stance on lepers, thieves, prostitutes, etc... I just don't see him discriminating against jews, blacks, LGBT, or any other groups that are looked down upon by the ruling class.

I also suspect that he would not want people to judge or discriminate against others in his name.


Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.
+qqIt is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

with respect to race, I'm not sure how either. Maybe it's how the definitive definition of prejudice and bigotry is taught to others. With respect to the people I referred to above, they honestly had no idea how refusing others to date outside of their race could be bigoted in the slightest. To them, it began and ended with the n word and segregation. As long as noone said that word or was refused service anywhere, everything was okay. Literally everything. It was/can be very hard to deal with people who define racism so tightly/narrowly, maybe it's the same thing with sexuality and gender issues?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

I think you explained it quite well.

See ... this gives me pause.

I would never have considered that refusing someone service because of your religious convictions might actually frighten the subject of your refusal. Perhaps that's lack of empathy on my part.

I myself would never wish to frighten anyone who's just trying to go about their business.

I must reconsider my position, in light of all that's been said here. Thank you for explaining how such makes you feel, Yuugasa. I'd rather hear that than all the veiled and unveiled accusations.


Freehold DM wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.
+qqIt is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

with respect to race, I'm not sure how either. Maybe it's how the definitive definition of prejudice and bigotry is taught to others. With respect to the people I referred to above, they honestly had no idea how refusing others to date outside of their race could be bigoted in the slightest. To them, it began and ended with the n word and segregation. As long as noone said that word or was refused service anywhere, everything was okay. Literally everything. It was/can be very hard to deal with people who define racism so tightly/narrowly, maybe it's the same thing with sexuality and gender issues?

That's a really good point. While I am very close to white passing and these days completely female passing I've had enough experience with bigotry from both ends personally to feel and see the similarity and I think you may be right. Education and perspective is a big deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

I think you explained it quite well.

See ... this gives me pause.

I would never have considered that refusing someone service because of your religious convictions might actually frighten the subject of your refusal. Perhaps that's lack of empathy on my part.

I myself would never wish to frighten anyone who's just trying to go about their business.

I must reconsider my position, in light of all that's been said here. Thank you for explaining how such makes you feel, Yuugasa. I'd rather hear that than all the veiled and unveiled accusations.

It's all good.

Another way of explaining it has occurred to me. Most of the talk about selling cakes has been along the lines of; "Who cares if they discriminate, it's just a stupid cake."

But turn that around for a minute and put yourself in the shoes of the one that is being denied a cake. "Why is this person so invested in me and my life that they are refusing me a stupid cake?"

If your existence is so offensive to someone they won't sell you a cake what else is potentially going on here? You don't know them, they might be a nice Christian person who is just following their morality sure, but maybe they have nazi tattoos hidden under their shirt and you are about to die, lol.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm bewildered at the thought that losing the right to discriminate against a group of people is somehow "oppression."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have worked a little bit of retail and have some friends who worked in restaurants and hotels and such. (I also read the Behind Closed Ovens posts over at http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/)

In almost every business I know of, you can be rude and sometimes even abusive to the staff, and you still get served. You can be loud, abrasive, and insulting, you still get served. You can leave no tip, or even fail to pay the full amount, you still get served. You can cause the business to lose money interacting with you, and you still get served.

If you deny someone service it is because you know you can't get away with physically assaulting them. It is a big deal to tell someone they are not allowed to spend their money in your store or restaurant!

EDIT: Just think about the Seinfeld character "The Soup Nazi". Denying people service in our culture puts you in the same category as a freaking NAZI!


Yuugasa wrote:


It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

Your assumptions would be incorrect in some cases.

If you want me to boycott the store I'll shop elsewhere
If you want me to protest the store, I'll get a sign.
If the protest gets rough I'll play meatshield right in front of the doggies.
If you want to spraypaint something on the roof I'll give you a boost (I'm a little large and old to get up there myself these days)

But the power of government ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun. I'm not entirely ok with it being used for feelings.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

BNW,
You mean like they already do for racial, sexual and religious discrimination in providing services? That horse has long bolted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:

BNW,

You mean like they already do for racial, sexual and religious discrimination in providing services? That horse has long bolted.

Yeah. If I, as a deeply religious baker, opt not to bake a cake for a Pastafarian wedding, because it violates my particular flavor of IPUism -- or more realistically refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding because it violates my version of Protestantism -- it is, literally, a Federal case. The First Amendment would not protect me in that instance.

If I, as an officer of a deeply religious university, opt not to enroll black students because it violates my particular flavor of Protestantism, it is, literally, a Federal case. The First Amendment would not protect me (or the university) in that instance. [Why, yes, that case has come up, and the results were as I described.]

If I, as a deeply religious florist, opt not to provide flowers for an LGBT wedding,....

.... well, let me just say that I don't see enough of a difference to see the First Amendment protecting me from any legal consequences of my refusal.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

BNW,

You mean like they already do for racial, sexual and religious discrimination in providing services? That horse has long bolted.

Yeah. If I, as a deeply religious baker, opt not to bake a cake for a Pastafarian wedding, because it violates my particular flavor of IPUism -- or more realistically refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding because it violates my version of Protestantism -- it is, literally, a Federal case. The First Amendment would not protect me in that instance.

If I, as an officer of a deeply religious university, opt not to enroll black students because it violates my particular flavor of Protestantism, it is, literally, a Federal case. The First Amendment would not protect me (or the university) in that instance. [Why, yes, that case has come up, and the results were as I described.]

If I, as a deeply religious florist, opt not to provide flowers for an LGBT wedding,....

.... well, let me just say that I don't see enough of a difference to see the First Amendment protecting me from any legal consequences of my refusal.

Exactly. We've done this dance already. All the exact same legal, practical and moral issues have been hashed out and dealt with by the courts.

The only new thing is whether we choose to include LGBTQ people as a protected class. There are no new religious freedom questions. There are no new government powers. It's just a matter of whether we apply existing protections to a new group.

Mind you, currently we do not. If you, as a deeply religious florist, opt not to provide flowers for an LGBT wedding, it's not a Federal case. It may or more not be a state or local case, depending on the local laws.


The part of the argument that irritates me is the fall back to religion rather than law. You are welcome to believe whatever religion you would like in this country. That said, your religion is yours, not mine, and I should not be held to its tennets.

Nor should people be treated as less of a person because of who they love or the color of their skin. The anger over this ruling that I've seen in the media has mostly been one centering on religion and less about whether the law was somehow unjust. Looking at many of remarks from presidential candidates, you see God or Christian rights being brought up again and again (except for Trump, who took a shot at Bush instead. Because Trump.)

If, as Dr. Carson remarked that "marriage is a religious service not a government form", then the government needs to separate all the legal and tax related perks from it. Because this isn't just about having a ceremony and flowers and a cake, but about all the other things that make up a marriage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the government chose to distinguish between unions and marriages, with one a legal distinction and the other a religious one, I'd have no objection.

Then, again, if the government decided to strip all religions of their tax-free status, I'd have no objection to that, either.

My religion is a personal thing. I don't expect anyone to subscribe to its tenets. Nor do I think it deserves some special distinction in the secular world.

Thinking about it in that way, thus, I guess I'd have to concede that refusing to provide a service to a particular citizen or citizens that I would provide to any other citizen or citizens if I had no context means that I would be expecting my religion to afford me certain privileges that, in a nation that ideally provides separation of church and state, would be unacceptable.

Hadn't really thought about it that way before ... but it seems valid—assuming that the laws underpinning the requirements are just.


Paul Watson wrote:

BNW,

You mean like they already do for racial, sexual and religious discrimination in providing services? That horse has long bolted.

I agree that IF we're going to do that for groups of people that need protection LGBT should be on the list. I would just like it seen as an emergency stop gap measure that we have to do because the situation is serious not as another every day exercise of government power.

I don't think I want the horse back in the barn (yet.. and probably never in my lifetime) but I don't want everyone galloping their horse down the road either.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I agree that IF we're going to do that for groups of people that need protection LGBT should be on the list. I would just like it seen as an emergency stop gap measure that we have to do because the situation is serious not as another every day exercise of government power.

I don't think I want the horse back in the barn (yet.. and probably never in my lifetime) but I don't want everyone galloping their horse down the road either.

So what (groups of) people do you think should be deprived of the civil rights enjoyed by everyone else?

Jaelithe phrased it well:

Quote:


[R]efusing to provide a service to a particular citizen or citizens that I would provide to any other citizen or citizens if I had no context

I would hate to think that you feel that, unless some law specifically names a person or group as protected from invidious discrimination, it should be acceptable to discriminate against them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


So what (groups of) people do you think should be deprived of the civil rights enjoyed by everyone else?

Its not a matter of the groups themselves. I'm not entirely convinced that getting a non necessity from another private individual is a civil right. I very much do not believe that just because its a business it automatically scoots into the public sphere.

Thejeffs comments about the inability to separate out a necessity from a non necessity is making me feel a little bit better about the laws.

Quote:
I would hate to think that you feel that, unless some law specifically names a person or group as protected from invidious discrimination, it should be acceptable to discriminate against them.

It shouldn't be acceptable but that doesn't necessarily follow that it should be illegal. LOTS of things i find unacceptable are legal. Handing someone power to bridge that divide sounds great.. as long as that someone is you or they believe the same thing that you do. I mean do you really want to see me seize ultimate power and put whales in congress? The cost of the tanks alone...

101 to 150 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / One step closer: Marriage Equality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.