Straight People and the LGBT Community getting along.

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by The Rhetoric of Life, Mar 24, 2018.

  1. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    bakeries florists and wedding chapels being harassed fined or even put out of business because they don't want to serve a gay wedding. That's not ridiculous to you? Do you think people should be forced to serve people?

    Do you think a Jewish bakery should be forced to make a cake with a swastika on it? Do you think of black florist should be forced to provide floral decorations for a ku Klux Klan event?

    I don't I think people should be able to choose who they want to do business with.
     
  2. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,409
    Likes Received:
    4,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it's not ridiculous. Why do you want the LGBT community to have rights but no one else?

    A gay bakery should have the right to decline the sale of baking a cake with an anti-gay slogan. Would you agree?

    If you think people can't choose, that means you don't want them to have rights.
     
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not ridiculous for a bakery to be put out of business for refusing to serve someone?

    You do.



    I think a business should have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason.

    I think they should be able to choose.
    I think they should have the right to choose who they do business with.
     
    Nonnie likes this.
  4. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    13,014
    Likes Received:
    5,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Change the someone to black or Christian and it suddenly becomes illegal. Why is it ok for some groups to have protections but not others?

    That isn’t the system we have, we have various laws that mandate public accommodation for some privileged groups but then people get upset when it’s applied to gay couples.

    I have no problem with a small business discriminating as long as they advertise as such. They should have to list out hat groups they have decided not to sell their goods to. If you don’t want to sell to me I should be made aware of that before I even attempt to do so.

    I know many of the vocal supporters of open discrimination say this is limited to only bakeries and florists but that’s a lie, we have red states across the nation trying to codify this discrimination into medical, therapy, education, housing and adoption. It’s not stopping at one service — and the only group that will lose those services are gay people. That is unequal and thus unconstitutional.
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think it is.

    in a society where there are privileged groups there can be no equality. Think animal farm.

    I have no problem with a small business discriminating as long as they advertise as such. They should have to list out hat groups they have decided not to sell their goods to.[/QUOTE]I don't think any of these incidents involved somebody that discriminated against any group. They would serve gays and lesbians no problem they just wouldn't perform wedding services for them. That doesn't mean they discriminate against any groups. that means they discriminate against one particular scenario.

    I think you're making a bit of a false dichotomy here. Just because a bakery won't provide you with a wedding cake, doesn't mean they won't sell you a birthday cake or cookies for some event. It wasn't the person that was being discriminated against.

    You'll have to show me legislative measures, and any attempt to discriminate would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. so even if it did get passed in the state would be struck down by the federal courts instantly upon review.
     
  6. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    13,014
    Likes Received:
    5,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats because it isn’t — but it is exactly what many advocates for such measures are calling for. No one wants to be discriminated against, they just want to be able to discriminate against others.

    The ones you are referencing are the “events”, others are because they are gay.

    No, not a false dichotomy. If someone would not sell me goods because I was celebrating a legal union I would not want them to have any of my business.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...bortions-deny-lgbt-rights-trans-a8166356.html
    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...erapists-refuse-patients-on-religious-grounds
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
  7. LazyPeanurd

    LazyPeanurd Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    A) Maybe you can't see it, but EVERYBODY'S identity seems to be "wrapped" around who they sleep with. Contrary to your assertion here, most reasonable people...LGBTQ or other...are trying to navigate this social phenomenon.

    B) That... :roflol:...is an abysmal exaggeration.
     
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think there should be a such thing as protected class that is anti-equality and there is no reason for it.

    can you present examples?

    I'm sure they would sell you goods they just wouldn't make anything specific for you.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...bortions-deny-lgbt-rights-trans-a8166356.html[/QUOTE] as far as abortion goes, 3 / life person that is murder You can disagree but you can't make them agree with you. That would be discrimination. Nobody should be forced to commit murder.

    As far as the transgender discrimination the article didn't linked to any legislation or specific verbage so what I'm getting is their interpretation of it. I'm sorry the independent's opinion on what a law means is not an example.


    I think this is probably a pretty good thing for LGBT people in Tennessee. If it's therapist was to disclose that they couldn't be impartial to you because of their religious beliefs that's a good thing then you can seek therapy elsewhere. It's almost like the bakery thing. There will be people who provide therapy to anybody who wants it.
     
  9. LazyPeanurd

    LazyPeanurd Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a tough issue. I try to be as objective as I can about it, but it is particularly difficult because I myself am gay. So of course, I think that anybody who refuses service to another person because of their sexuality is a bigoted arrogant dirtwad. I would feel the same way about a gay person refusing service to somebody because they are straight--which I should point out, for the purpose of highlighting a pivotal issue here, is not NEARLY as likely to ever happen.

    That said, I don't believe that anybody should be forced to provide services to people whom they don't want to. I assert with equal conviction that just because one has the right to refuse service because of their "beliefs" doesn't mean they don't deserve the negative attention and "harassment" that comes with such stupid things.
     
    Maquiscat, cd8ed and Polydectes like this.
  10. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you on this 100%. Anyone who says they won't bake a cake for your wedding because you're marrying someone of the same sex is absolutely bigoted urgent dirt wad. Very eloquent.

    I agree, let's take it out a scenario that might be a little more likely. If I go into a Muslim bakery and ask for a dozen cookies that are frosted with the words Jesus is God, should the Muslim Baker be allowed to refuse? Writing those words out on a cookie is absolutely against this religion.

    well I don't think anyone deserves harassment. Been such behavior is actually unlawful. But negative attention you're absolutely right.

    In the scenario I presented of the Muslim Baker being asked to frost cookies with the words Jesus is God I would feel for the baker if you got negative press over it.

    I would think also that if such a scenario were to happen it would have been just to generate negativity towards the.
     
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    13,014
    Likes Received:
    5,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree, if there is public accommodation it should apply to all people.

    I already have, healthcare is the biggest one

    Should it not be my right as a customer to know which business would deny services to me under specific circumstances or are all the rights only applied to business owners?

    I may have posted the wrong king, it was supposed to be about religious adoption agencies refusing to place children with homosexual couples in spite of them taking taxpayer money.

    Do you know what it does to someone that is already struggling — to go to a therapist and be told “nope sorry, don’t deal with your kind”. The fear of that alone will prevent people from going to seek medically necessary treatment. And the trump administration is pushing it even further taking it to all medical services.
     
  12. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think the idea of public accommodation entitles any person to the right to service.

    I didn't see it. I saw the link to the independent and NPR. Neither showed legislation.

    No, that would enforce disclosure laws that violate free speech.

    Adoption agencies are tasked with finding the right home for children. They must be very discriminatory.

    Probably nothing worse than a biased therapist treating them improperly.
    Sorry, I don't believe that. You can find therapists that specialize in dealing with "your kind" specifically. If someone is seeking help and happens upon someone who doesn't think they can provide that help, they should offer a referral.
    I don't believe pretty much any claims regarding the Trump administration because people have made the wildest claims about it. You need to present evidence, by which I mean actual quotes from Trump or actual legislative moves. A hatchet job by some news blog isn't good enough.
     
  13. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    13,014
    Likes Received:
    5,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See Loving vs Virginia

    It is built into religious refusal legislation.

    So they should be able to discriminate against me but I don’t get to know into I walk into their (open to the public for profit business) to purchase said product. We will diverge here. That’s just wrong.

    Automatically elimination of same sex couples is not “finding the best home”.

    What do you believe medical religious refusals mean then?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...heres-nothing-illegal-about-it/?noredirect=on

    Such a wonderful nation some of you are envisioning.
    Again, we will just have to agree to disagree on our opinions and what direction the country should be moving.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
  14. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    6,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't establish the right to service.

    What legislation is that? Name the bill and/or the state.

    Why?

    So don't use that agency.

    I have no idea. I never even heard that phrase before you mentioned it.

    I'm not reading another vague agonizing article the last two you presented were pointless trash. If it says something you think is relevant, copy and paste. Otherwise same yourself the trouble.

    Why move away from the Constitution
     
  15. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you’ve read the Koran?
     
  16. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which part of the "no" didn't you understand?
     
  17. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please cite the portion of the law that allows for prison time.
     
  18. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    52,619
    Likes Received:
    33,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  20. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    52,619
    Likes Received:
    33,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The thread was actually started by a Brit, but sure.

    https://www.sandiegocriminallawyers...-allows-jail-time-using-wrong-gender-pronoun/

    Clearly the law carries a penalty of up to a year in jail, despite everyone saying "but we'd never actually use it" as an excuse.
     
  21. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Getting closer. However, the article says reportedly, and does not quote nor cite a specific part of the law that addresses jail time. You still have not proven that the law allows for such, only that it's being reported to allow for such.
     
  22. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    52,619
    Likes Received:
    33,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, it does. It quotes the actual SB179 and even includes a link to it.

    Read harder.
     
  23. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The article did not quote any part of SB179 that actually notes jail time.

    Here is the only part of the article that quotes SB179:
    Which part of that denotes imprisonment?

    This is probably the part you are thinking of:
    Reported, not quoted. Show us the actual part of the actual law that includes your point of imprisonment.
     
  24. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    52,619
    Likes Received:
    33,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah it does.

    There's this thing called a hyperlink you can click (it's the reason SB179 is highlighted in blue).

    You'll find that if you click that, it takes you to the official CA government website regarding that law.
     
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    85,983
    Likes Received:
    24,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sharing a positive story - people can change

     

Share This Page