Double standard on gay tolerance / intolerance

[Sheik Yerbouti]

it seems the gay community has become exactly what they have claimed to have fought all these years....bigoted bullies.they do not want equal rights,they want special rights.remember that in this country you are no one unless you are a victim.and they have scores to settle.

hmmmm this smells of an alt account or maybe a previously banned poster. I mean, to trot this old chestnut again seems kinda desperate.

 

[HeXen]

So to make sure I got this right. IF we boycott products/services from Indiana, we should from Saudi Arabia as well due to similarity in gay discrimination?

If so then I agree but if I'm not mistaken, aren't there 38 other states that have a similar right to decline service to gays as well...just different wording in the law?

 

[fskimospy]

So to make sure I got this right. IF we boycott products/services from Indiana, we should from Saudi Arabia as well due to similarity in gay discrimination?

If so then I agree but if I'm not mistaken, aren't there 38 other states that have a similar right to decline service to gays as well...just different wording in the law?

No, not the same at all.

 

[dank69]

hmmmm this smells of an alt account or maybe a previously banned poster. I mean, to trot this old chestnut again seems kinda desperate.

It's really odd because he posted in support of gay people in another thread.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

All I know is, it is going to suck to be on the wrong side of history on this one. Don't allow anyone to discriminate, it's not rocket science, wait, it's not science either... hmm...

 

[glenn1]

All I know is, it is going to suck to be on the wrong side of history on this one. Don't allow anyone to discriminate, it's not rocket science, wait, it's not science either... hmm...

Unless it's discrimination for a correct purpose, like refusing to write a political slogan you don't like ("gay marriage is wrong"). Or groups you think have improper viewpoints (like Westboro Baptist church).

 

[ivwshane]

Unless it's discrimination for a correct purpose, like refusing to write a political slogan you don't like ("gay marriage is wrong"). Or groups you think have improper viewpoints (like Westboro Baptist church).

Actually businesses can create their own decency rules, so long as they don't descriminate against a particular group.

Therefore, the business could say, "we don't allow any political messages on our cakes". They could also say, "we won't write any hate messages or sexual messages either".


Do you see the difference between what you are saying and reality? If you don't then you probably don't understand how descrimination works in regards to US law

 

[zinfamous]

Checks for Fern reply.

Returns to waiting, reading Samuel Beckett.

Greatest novel ever !

 

[umbrella39]

it seems the gay community has become exactly what they have claimed to have fought all these years....bigoted bullies.they do not want equal rights,they want special rights.remember that in this country you are no one unless you are a victim.and they have scores to settle.

WBFYB

Now run along you already been rebanned...

 

[bradly1101]

You should only buy gas from Murphy. Murphy Oil buys from gay-friendly places like North Dakota, Arkansas . . . wait . . .

Gay folks should all major in physics, chemistry and engineering so they can work on alternative energy, since apparently oil makes people hate gays.


Whoa, deja vu.

Wait, did I already say that?

EDIT: I actually agree with the OP that there is a double standard on gay tolerance/intolerance, although apparently I do not find it to be a fuck-worthy cause. Wherever one finds humans, one finds double standards.

 

[werepossum]

So to make sure I got this right. IF we boycott products/services from Indiana, we should from Saudi Arabia as well due to similarity in gay discrimination?

If so then I agree but if I'm not mistaken, aren't there 38 other states that have a similar right to decline service to gays as well...just different wording in the law?

I think it's twenty. But the others are modeled more along the lines of the federal law, restricting government for a minority's benefit. The Indiana law seems to be intended to go further, to allow discrimination by government employees, individuals and private corporations. So that different wording is pretty darned significant.

Here in the South I know buildings that were the colored schools, other buildings with little separate Negro entrances, theaters with white-only sections and colored-only sections. This should be a source of shame, not something we look to leverage onto other minorities. This is kindergarten stuff - just be nice and play fair.

As far as offending G-d, Jesus never preached against homosexuality. I'd wager that there are damned few of us so innocent of things He DID preach against that we need to concentrate on preventing guilt by association. If you sincerely feel that homosexuality is a sin, at least pray that G-d will fix your heart so that you can love the sinner as we are commanded.

 

[werepossum]

WBFYB

Now run along you already been rebanned...

Dang, that must be a record.

 

[Fern]

It's very simple. All of the other states and the federal law is limited to individuals only. The Indiana law explicitly extended protections to for profit businesses, corporations etc...



Then, unlike other states, they stated that the RFRA could be used in civil defenses where the government was not a party.

This is why the Indiana law is fundamentally different, contrary to the repeated claims by the right that it's the same. You think its a coincidence that the Indiana legislature added in the ability to use it in civil defenses immediately after the photographer in New Mexico lost his case for refusing services to gays? The trial judge ruled that the RFRA was not a vałid defense since the government was not a party to the suit.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby has changed everything by making businesses "persons" with religions. So pointing to 1993 federal law is no longer an excuse for bigot states after Hobby Lobby. This is now not just about people's individual freedom to practice their religion, it's about businesses using religion as a cover for discrimination. Americans won't stand for it.

1) This law includes businesses and corporations.

2) It appears to be an offensive move to counter the SCOTUS's likely ruling of making state laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional.

3) Its intent. The laws intent is clear to all but the most bigoted of hacks, that this laws intention was to allow businesses to descriminate against LGBT people (all one needs to do is look at Pence's past comments and positions as well as simply look at who was present at the signing of the law).

I think it's been explained about zillion times that the intent of this law was to avoid the type thing seen in the cases of the wedding photographer and the wedding cake lady.

To protect those businesses you must:

1. Extend the protection to corporations because virtually every small business including those with one owner, no employees and that files a sch C is incorporated as an LLC. Hence, without including corporations nothing would be accomplished. Whatever govt agency that wanted to fine such people (baker/photographer) would fine the business, not the individual.

2. For the same reason civil suits between private parties needed to be included. Otherwise the ACLU or whomever would bankroll private suits running the small business out-of-business with legal fees.

Furthermore, that language doesn't even affect how 'discrimination' is defined under law. It's merely a change in who is protected.

Again, I think it's been explained about a zillion times that the law wouldn't allow the type of discrimination the Left has been claiming. The distortion from your side is endless. E.g., you can't refuse service in a restaurant. You can't refuse service in a bakery. You can refuse to participate in a ceremony you aren't comfortable with.

Fern

 

[Fern]

It's odd, up until a few years ago Fern was thoughtful, interesting, and reasonable. At some point he started going more and more to the right. It first seemed to show up when he latched on to the birther stuff.

Now he's gone into Fox News/right wing talk radio territory. Not only is that unrelated ranting, but it's not even remotely accurate unrelated ranting.

Yeah, I like our legislation from Congress, not the Exec branch.

I like our treaties through Congress, not the UN.

According to Lefties that makes me unreasonable.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Burwell v Hobby Lobby has changed everything by making businesses "persons" with religions. So pointing to 1993 federal law is no longer an excuse for bigot states after Hobby Lobby. This is now not just about people's individual freedom to practice their religion, it's about businesses using religion as a cover for discrimination. Americans won't stand for it.

No.

Hobby Lobby only covers closely held businesses. It did not "change everything".

Fern

 

[Fern]

Either it's an economic activity covered by public accommodation laws or it's not, either way this ruling should have no new impact on discrimination. Whether it's a business or individual makes no difference.
-snip-

Exactly.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I think it's been explained about zillion times that the intent of this law was to avoid the type thing seen in the cases of the wedding photographer and the wedding cake lady.

To protect those businesses you must:

1. Extend the protection to corporations because virtually every small business including those with one owner, no employees and that files a sch C is incorporated as an LLC. Hence, without including corporations nothing would be accomplished. Whatever govt agency that wanted to fine such people (baker/photographer) would fine the business, not the individual.

2. For the same reason civil suits between private parties needed to be included. Otherwise the ACLU or whomever would bankroll private suits running the small business out-of-business with legal fees.

Furthermore, that language doesn't even affect how 'discrimination' is defined under law. It's merely a change in who is protected.

Again, I think it's been explained about a zillion times that the law wouldn't allow the type of discrimination the Left has been claiming. The distortion from your side is endless. E.g., you can't refuse service in a restaurant. You can't refuse service in a bakery. You can refuse to participate in a ceremony you aren't comfortable with.

Fern

You are full of shit! A lot of it. Your reasoning, and I quote, boils down to, "it's been explained about a zillion times". That's some third grade bullshit right there. Can you explain why the original signing was done in private and included anti gay propagandists? If the law didn't give businesses the right to descriminate against gay people then why couldn't pence say that when asked directly about it? If the law didn't allow for discrimanation then why did the law need fixing?

 

[ivwshane]

No.

Hobby Lobby only covers closely held businesses. It did not "change everything".

Fern

Except that over 90% of businesses are closely held you stupid twat!

http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html

 

[glenn1]

Actually businesses can create their own decency rules, so long as they don't descriminate against a particular group.

Therefore, the business could say, "we don't allow any political messages on our cakes". They could also say, "we won't write any hate messages or sexual messages either".


Do you see the difference between what you are saying and reality? If you don't then you probably don't understand how descrimination works in regards to US law

So is asking someone to write "oppose gay marriage" on a cake hate speech then? Also I certainly don't remember the left defending the gay baker's refusal on the grounds of turning away all political speech on cakes either, they defended his right to refuse this particular political speech. How about speech that's just in questionable taste, like "Hitler did nothing wrong"? Or calling Mohammed a pedophile, or any other number of things a business would find objectionable?

Basically the left wants their cake and to eat it too. They're fine with limiting speech from people they dislike (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone opposed to gay marriage, any conservative trying to speak at a public college, etc) and use their heckler's veto to shout them down. But they'll try to crucify any misguided soul who expresses anything less than an enthusiastic embrace of their pet minority groups. I'm not advocating for the right for those people to be discriminatory towards gays or anyone else, I'd just like the left to be intellectually consistent and they aren't.

 

[ivwshane]

So is asking someone to write "oppose gay marriage" on a cake hate speech then? Also I certainly don't remember the left defending the gay baker's refusal on the grounds of turning away all political speech on cakes either, they defended his right to refuse this particular political speech. How about speech that's just in questionable taste, like "Hitler did nothing wrong"? Or calling Mohammed a pedophile, or any other number of things a business would find objectionable?

Basically the left wants their cake and to eat it too. They're fine with limiting speech from people they dislike (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone opposed to gay marriage, any conservative trying to speak at a public college, etc) and use their heckler's veto to shout them down. But they'll try to crucify any misguided soul who expresses anything less than an enthusiastic embrace of their pet minority groups. I'm not advocating for the right for those people to be discriminatory towards gays or anyone else, I'd just like the left to be intellectually consistent and they aren't.

I'm not familiar with any of the examples you sighted so I can't speak to them but someone voicing their opinion is different from businesses discriminating against a particular group of people.

Like I said though, businesses can put in place their own decency policies in terms of what they are willing to do for a customer so long as they serve all customers.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not familiar with any of the examples you sighted so I can't speak to them but someone voicing their opinion is different from businesses discriminating against a particular group of people.

Like I said though, businesses can put in place their own decency policies in terms of what they are willing to do for a customer so long as they serve all customers.

Public accommodation laws do the later, religious freedom laws allow the former when it's a matter of faith. Indiana simply doesn't have accommodation laws on the books, and once they do it will be a moot point. Well, unless someone invents a religion where one of the central tenets is "thou shall not cater a gay person's wedding" it will be a moot point. A general claim that your religion says that a particular activity is forbidden isn't enough to claim the religious freedom defense, so Christians can't legally make it a blanket policy not to service gays anymore than a Muslim business owner could turn away a Jewish customer.

 

[ivwshane]

Public accommodation laws do the later, religious freedom laws allow the former when it's a matter of faith. Indiana simply doesn't have accommodation laws on the books, and once they do it will be a moot point. Well, unless someone invents a religion where one of the central tenets is "thou shall not cater a gay person's wedding" it will be a moot point. A general claim that your religion says that a particular activity is forbidden isn't enough to claim the religious freedom defense, so Christians can't legally make it a blanket policy not to service gays anymore than a Muslim business owner could turn away a Jewish customer.

Oh man you are so close to understanding this issue! It's like watching a toddler put together their first puzzle, all the pieces are there, you just need to out them in the correct order!

You can do it Glenn!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So is asking someone to write "oppose gay marriage" on a cake hate speech then?

The issue is one of discrimination.

If they will bake a cake with no message for a straight couple's wedding, then they must be willing to bake the same cake for a gay couple's wedding.

If they categorically refuse to produce a cake with the work "fuck" on it -- no matter who orders it -- then they are not discriminating against anyone.

If they wouldn't write "Happy Anniversary Steve and Greg" on a cake -- no matter who orders it -- then they are not discriminating.

If Steve and Greg come to order a cake, the make and style of which the owner would happily produce for a straight couple, then that owner cannot and should not refuse to produce that cake.

Does that make it clear to your developmentally disabled little brain?

Also I certainly don't remember the left defending the gay baker's refusal on the grounds of turning away all political speech on cakes either, they defended his right to refuse this particular political speech. How about speech that's just in questionable taste, like "Hitler did nothing wrong"? Or calling Mohammed a pedophile, or any other number of things a business would find objectionable?

Your memory is clearly a poor one, by my post here should surely serve as a counterexample to this ridiculous caricature you've concocted. Do you take drugs?

Basically the left wants their cake and to eat it too. They're fine with limiting speech from people they dislike (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone opposed to gay marriage, any conservative trying to speak at a public college, etc) and use their heckler's veto to shout them down. But they'll try to crucify any misguided soul who expresses anything less than an enthusiastic embrace of their pet minority groups. I'm not advocating for the right for those people to be discriminatory towards gays or anyone else, I'd just like the left to be intellectually consistent and they aren't.

How about you open your eyes, you twat?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I like our legislation from Congress, not the Exec branch.

I like our treaties through Congress, not the UN.

According to Lefties that makes me unreasonable.

Fern

In case you're not actively trying to prove my point, I should let you know you're doing a pretty good job of it.

 

[zinfamous]

You know what I don't like? The expression: "Have your cake and eat it, too." So, why they fuck can't I eat the cake that I have? Is there something wrong about possessing a cake and eating it? Are they just for decoration, or are we supposed to wait for some fascist dickhole to show up and take all our cakes so that they can eat them?

This has never made any sense to me.