Cake for gay couple and ESPN blocking religious commercials

[Daverino]

It seems your argument is a little stupid given your previous quote:


Clearly it is okay to discriminate against certain types of people right?

Your political party of choice is not a protected class. Now you're being out-and-out stupid.

 

[bshole]

Electing not to bake a cake for someone because you don't like their lifestyle is rightly at the discretion of the baker.

The hell it is. I might actually be for something like this. It would be so fun locking Christian fundamentalists out of the most popular restraunts and events.

Then again, I am not so hateful and loathsome as them so I could never support discriminating against them even if it appeals to my darker self. And there is the difference between them and me, they want government sanction to act on their evil while I do not ask for not want such government sanction.

 

[umbrella39]

I'm not surprised progressives suppress opposing viewpoints through fear and social isolation...what religion do you belong to, again?

This is not a "progressive" problem. The is a "regressive" problem. Providing equal protection to all human beings regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation is not some new progressive movement nor is it suppressing opposing viewpoints. It's following the letter of the law and what society collectively decided was the right and just thing to do. We aren't going backwards on this issue so I guess we'll just have to label those who want to revert the country backwards as Regressives.

 

[Atreus21]

Then which types of people do you approve of and disapprove of being discriminated against?

Apparently you're ok on discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. How about discrimination by race? Or gender? Are those all fair game as well?

Protected classes should only comprise things that are static. Race, gender, or other condition of birth. People should not be allowed to discriminate on criteria utterly out of the target's control. Anti-discrimination laws have as their basis the claim that it's wrong to prejudge people.

I shouldn't be able to pick and choose which civil rights I want simply by changing religions, or by changing my sexual orientation.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is not a "progressive" problem. The is a "regressive" problem. Providing equal protection to all human beings regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation is not some new progressive movement nor is it suppressing opposing viewpoints. It's following the letter of the law and what society collectively decided was the right and just thing to do. We aren't going backwards on this issue so I guess we'll just have to label those who want to revert the country backwards as Regressives.

If I am told that I am a "bigot" for simply having an opinion on the matter that isn't mainstream, it is a progressive problem...as if folks aren't allowed to disagree with this issue out loud.

IMO, people who share my rejection of homosexual behavior, are often conflated with those who hate homosexual people -- and this is where the umbrella "bigot" comes from, and is wrongly and dishonestly applied.

 

[nehalem256]

Your political party of choice is not a protected class. Now you're being out-and-out stupid.

No shit. I was responding to

Then which types of people do you approve of and disapprove of being discriminated against?

Apparently you're ok on discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. How about discrimination by race? Or gender? Are those all fair game as well?

So clearly you agree that certain types of people (those not part of special protected classes) can be discriminated against.

 

[nehalem256]

This is not a "progressive" problem. The is a "regressive" problem. Providing equal protection to all human beings regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation is not some new progressive movement nor is it suppressing opposing viewpoints. It's following the letter of the law and what society collectively decided was the right and just thing to do. We aren't going backwards on this issue so I guess we'll just have to label those who want to revert the country backwards as Regressives.

And who decided that those are the only things worthy of equal protection?

 

[Daverino]

I see your point. But I think we too often lump personal views together with active discrimination.

It's one thing to have personal objections to gay marriage (i.e, rejecting homosexual behavior and marriage), and its a completely different thing to refuse to serve them, while serving he rest of the general public.

Protected classes are not the result of hypotheticals.

Anti-discrimination laws in America did no arise prospectively to protect classes of people that may]/b] be discriminated against at some future time. They arose reactively to protect classes that had been discriminated against in the past.

Catholics, Jews, Mormons and Muslims have all been discriminated against in American history.

Blacks were held in chattel slavery for the first 300 years of American history, followed by another 100 years of Federally endorsed segregation and discrimination.

Women have had the right to vote in America for less than 100 years. They are still paid less on average than their male counterparts.

Homosexual behavior (along with a lot of fun hetero stuff as well) has been straight up illegal for most of American history and laws prohibiting it were struck down only in 2003 (Lawrence V Texas)

And so on and so on. As I said earlier, philosophically, it would be nice if we didn't have anti-discrimination laws. No minority should need special protection under the law. However a basic understanding of American history shows we've got a terrible track record at protecting the rights of minorities through a civil society alone. This was, coincidentally, the gist of Martin Luther King's 'Dream.' I do not think we'll see us there in my lifetime and until then, unfortunately, we need the 14th and 1st amendments.

 

[bshole]

And who decided that those are the only things worthy of equal protection?

You have a reading problem, bro? The answer was right in the quote that YOU quoted!

It's following the letter of the law and what society collectively decided was the right and just thing to do.

 

[nehalem256]

Protected classes are not the result of hypotheticals.

Anti-discrimination laws in America did no arise prospectively to protect classes of people that may]/b] be discriminated against at some future time. They arose reactively to protect classes that had been discriminated against in the past.

Catholics, Jews, Mormons and Muslims have all been discriminated against in American history.

Blacks were held in chattel slavery for the first 300 years of American history, followed by another 100 years of Federally endorsed segregation and discrimination.

Women have had the right to vote in America for less than 100 years. They are still paid less on average than their male counterparts.

Homosexual behavior (along with a lot of fun hetero stuff as well) has been straight up illegal for most of American history and laws prohibiting it were struck down only in 2003 (Lawrence V Texas)

And so on and so on. As I said earlier, philosophically, it would be nice if we didn't have anti-discrimination laws. No minority should need special protection under the law. However a basic understanding of American history shows we've got a terrible track record at protecting the rights of minorities through a civil society alone. This was, coincidentally, the gist of Martin Luther King's 'Dream.' I do not think we'll see us there in my lifetime and until then, unfortunately, we need the 14th and 1st amendments.

So wouldn't it just be simpler to say you cannot discriminate against anyone? And drop the need for protected classes?

Also the bolded is a lie.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Protected classes should only comprise things that are static. Race, gender, or other condition of birth. People should not be allowed to discriminate on criteria utterly out of the target's control. Anti-discrimination laws have as their basis the claim that it's wrong to prejudge people.

I shouldn't be able to pick and choose which civil rights I want simply by changing religions, or by changing my sexual orientation.

You can't "change your sexual orientation" though. Sexual orientation is as much a part of someone as skin color or gender. Saying "I won't discriminate against you as long as you stop pursuing relationships with people you're attracted to and live according to my view of how life should be" is the height of discrimination, and it's the reason we need laws like this in place.

 

[Daverino]

I shouldn't be able to pick and choose which civil rights I want simply by changing religions, or by changing my sexual orientation.

Changing your religion does not change your civil rights. You had the same protection of your religion when you were religion A as you did when you're religion B.

As for choosing your sexual orientation, does any person in this forum, straight or gay, remember the day they chose to be that way? I sure as hell don't.

 

[nehalem256]

You can't "change your sexual orientation" though. Sexual orientation is as much a part of someone as skin color or gender. Saying "I won't discriminate against you as long as you stop pursuing relationships with people you're attracted to and live according to my view of how life should be" is the height of discrimination, and it's the reason we need laws like this in place.

When were homosexuals denied the right to vote?

When were homosexuals forced to ride in the back of the bus?

Comparing discrimination based on sexual orientation to that of race of sex, based on history, is absurd.

 

[bshole]

When were homosexuals denied the right to vote?

When were homosexuals forced to ride in the back of the bus?

Comparing discrimination based on sexual orientation to that of race of sex, based on history, is absurd.

Um,,, they were both denied eligibility to serve in the military. Check your history books.

ROFLMAO!

Proscriptive laws designed to suppress all forms of nonprocreative and non-marital sexual conduct existed through much of the last millennium. Widespread discrimination against a class of people on the basis of their homosexual status developed only in the twentieth century, however, and peaked from the 1930s to the 1960s. Gay men and women were labeled “deviants,” “degenerates,” and “sex criminals” by the medical profession, government officials, and the mass media. The federal government banned the employment of homosexuals and insisted that its private contractors ferret out and dismiss their gay employees, many state governments prohibited gay people from being served in bars and restaurants, Hollywood prohibited the discussion of gay issues or the appearance of gay or lesbian characters in its films, and many municipalities launched police campaigns to suppress gay life. The authorities worked together to create or reinforce the belief that gay people were an inferior class to be shunned by other Americans. Sodomy laws that exclusively targeted same-sex couples, such as the statute enacted in 1973 in Texas (1973 TEX. GEN. LAWS ch. 399, §§ 1, 3), were a development of the last third of the twentieth century and reflect this historically unprecedented concern to classify and penalize homosexuals as a subordinate class of citizens. - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1539#sthash.H3D6ILcO.dpuf

 

[Retro Rob]

You can't "change your sexual orientation" though. Sexual orientation is as much a part of someone as skin color or gender. Saying "I won't discriminate against you as long as you stop pursuing relationships with people you're attracted to and live according to my view of how life should be" is the height of discrimination, and it's the reason we need laws like this in place.

The bold reminds me of what I heard on a radio program I was listening to some months back, (disclaimer: the view expressed in the following quote do not necessarily reflect my views) where a preacher had a very...uhh...interesting view of this sort of statement after addressing a similar question:

"...the difference is, I've never seen an ex-black man before"...indicating that sexual behavior isn't static as race is, drawing a fundamental distinction between race and sexual behavior.

I just thought I'd post that.

 

[fskimospy]

The bold reminds me of what I heard on a radio program I was listening to some months back, (disclaimer: the view expressed in the following quote do not necessarily reflect my views) where a preacher had a very...uhh...interesting view of this sort of statement after addressing a similar question:

"...the difference is, I've never seen an ex-black man before"...indicating that sexual behavior isn't static as race is, drawing a fundamental distinction between race and sexual behavior.

I just thought I'd post that.

Funny thing is that's not really true. There are a number of different ethnicities that used to be considered their own distinct race of sorts, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc. They have subsequently been folded into 'white'. There are more ex-races than you might think.

 

[Daverino]

When were homosexuals denied the right to vote?

When were homosexuals forced to ride in the back of the bus?

Comparing discrimination based on sexual orientation to that of race of sex, based on history, is absurd.

You've just gone full retard.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The bold reminds me of what I heard on a radio program I was listening to some months back, (disclaimer: the view expressed in the following quote do not necessarily reflect my views) where a preacher had a very...uhh...interesting view of this sort of statement after addressing a similar question:

"...the difference is, I've never seen an ex-black man before"...indicating that sexual behavior isn't static as race is, drawing a fundamental distinction between race and sexual behavior.

I just thought I'd post that.

Sexuality is not a binary opposition where you're either straight or gay and that's an end of it. Sexuality exists on a continuum. There are plenty of people who exhibit various levels of attraction to both genders. So even if they are predominantly straight, they may meet someone of the same sex that they have a strong attraction to and get involved with. Have they changed their sexuality? Most scholars argue "no." Most people who don't bother to do any research say, "A-HA, they have changed their sexual orientation, it must not be static!" It's a silly argument to make, borne out of ignorance and designed to fit a narrow-minded view of sexuality. Human sexuality is a lot more complex than that.

 

[nehalem256]

Funny thing is that's not really true. There are a number of different ethnicities that used to be considered their own distinct race of sorts, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc. They have subsequently been folded into 'white'. There are more ex-races than you might think.

You mean the whole Norwegians used to be "swarthy" thing

 

[nehalem256]

Sexuality is not a binary opposition where you're either straight or gay and that's an end of it. Sexuality exists on a continuum. There are plenty of people who exhibit various levels of attraction to both genders. So even if they are predominantly straight, they may meet someone of the same sex that they have a strong attraction to and get involved with. Have they changed their sexuality? Most scholars argue "no." Most people who don't bother to do any research say, "A-HA, they have changed their sexual orientation, it must not be static!" It's a silly argument to make, borne out of ignorance and designed to fit a narrow-minded view of sexuality. Human sexuality is a lot more complex than that.

So then 2 "straight" guys could get same-sex married

 

[Retro Rob]

Funny thing is that's not really true. There are a number of different ethnicities that used to be considered their own distinct race of sorts, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc. They have subsequently been folded into 'white'. There are more ex-races than you might think.

This isn't what I am saying though, as regards that quote. In other words, you can't "act" black (as if behavior is an identifying racial characteristic), like homosexual and heterosexual people are identified, in part, by their sexual behavior.

For instance, if I saw a man standing at a bus stop by himself, I can assume he's straight, but then his boyfriend walks up to him and kisses him erotically, then he's been identified as being at least bi-sexual.

If I see a black American male, then regardless of what he doesn't or doesn't do, he's still a black American male.

I hope that makes sense.

I guess that what he meant by not seeing an "ex-black man".

 

[bshole]

This isn't what I am saying though, as regards that quote. In other words, you can't "act" black (as if behavior is an identifying racial characteristic), like homosexual and heterosexual people are identified, in part, by their sexual behavior.

For instance, if I saw a man standing at a bus stop by himself, I can assume he's straight, but then his boyfriend walks up to him and kisses him erotically, then he's been identified as being at least bi-sexual.

If I see a black American male, then regardless of what he doesn't or doesn't do, he's still a black American male.

I hope that makes sense.

I guess that what he meant by not seeing an "ex-black man".

Well I have "gaydar", so I instantly recognize any homosexual on sight.

 

[Daverino]

This isn't what I am saying though, as regards that quote. In other words, you can't "act" black (as if behavior is an identifying racial characteristic), like homosexual and heterosexual people are identified, in part, by their sexual behavior.

The same thing could be said about religion. A Jewish or Mormon or Catholic person does not immediately identify themselves as such by their actions, any more so than a homosexual does. However, the country has a history of discrimination based on religion, which is why religious affiliation is a protected class.

 

[Retro Rob]

The same thing could be said about religion. A Jewish or Mormon or Catholic person does not immediately identify themselves as such by their actions, any more so than a homosexual does. However, the country has a history of discrimination based on religion, which is why religious affiliation is a protected class.

Perhaps you're reading something into what I said...my comment had nothing to do with discrimination laws (I for one am for protecting homosexuals from discrimination, though I don't agree with gay marriage) however, I was speaking about how I believe that being gay and being born black isn't the same.

I am not saying one can choose to be gay or straight, but that since actions partly identify one sexual preference, they cannot identify one's race.

I believe people can stop being "gay" (meaning having opposite sex, sex) and that a person can stop being "straight" (by having sex with persons of the same sex).

This cannot apply to race, in my opinion. I don't have any gay friends, but I often share the experience of a gay person I knew who started serving God but quit having homosexual partners. Since he was AIDS positive, he remained unmarried and eventually died.

The point I want to make is that he no longer regarded himself as gay because, according to him, he wasn't in anymore same-sex relationships.

I don't think anyone can say I'm no longer [insert race here] no matter what they stop/start doing.

 

[Exophase]

Protected classes should only comprise things that are static. Race, gender, or other condition of birth. People should not be allowed to discriminate on criteria utterly out of the target's control. Anti-discrimination laws have as their basis the claim that it's wrong to prejudge people.

I shouldn't be able to pick and choose which civil rights I want simply by changing religions, or by changing my sexual orientation.

So you're saying that you'd be okay with being discriminated against for being attracted to the opposite sex because that's your choice?