Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DennisTheMenace

Religious liberty falling to LGBT tyranny thanks to courts and GOP

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Do you embrace them?

 

FYI, some synonyms of embrace are: hug, cuddle, clutch, welcome, accept, adopt, support, and espouse

 

Hate requires effort and energy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

there are exceptions to any rule. there was an 8'6" tall person... one and therefore its not impossible to be 8'6". Yes, there probably is one or two gay people in small, isolated towns such as Salmon, ID. However, policy and public opinion is not based on the outliers. Where this is most likely (99.99%) to happen is in places like Denver, Minneapolis, etc. In those places, the consumer has options and therefore can give negative word of mouth and use social media as a platform to expose them. 

Gay people live everywhere.  They should not face discrimination.  You cannot say it's okay for this business here to deny service to homosexuals because they can just go next door.  That's a precedent, and it says that discrimination is okay as long as you can make the case that they could conceivably go someplace else.  That's a losing argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, splunch said:

Gay people live everywhere.  They should not face discrimination.  You cannot say it's okay for this business here to deny service to homosexuals because they can just go next door.  That's a precedent, and it says that discrimination is okay as long as you can make the case that they could conceivably go someplace else.  That's a losing argument.

Except that the impetus behind most anti-discrimination laws is that the consumer/person did not have readily accessible options. In 1960, if I was black in Vicksburg, MS my options were pretty slim and there was little to no recourse (social media, the Internet). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Except that the impetus behind most anti-discrimination laws is that the consumer/person did not have readily accessible options. In 1960, if I was black in Vicksburg, MS my options were pretty slim and there was little to no recourse (social media, the Internet). 

While it is true that the effectiveness of the discrimination and persecution of black people was a motivator, I do not think in the post-civil-rights era that anyone would argue that that is the legal justification for why you may not discriminate against homosexuals or black people.  You are suggesting that it be legal for businesses to deny service to a gay man, because he is gay, and that he would have no recourse unless he proved that every similar establishment in his area was similarly denying him service.  That's an absurd standard, don't you think?  Plenty of places would seize upon that and use it to persecute and drive out gay people, who would find the situation intolerable and the legal burden impossible to manage to assert their right to be treated decently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, splunch said:

Gay people live everywhere.  They should not face discrimination.  You cannot say it's okay for this business here to deny service to homosexuals because they can just go next door.  That's a precedent, and it says that discrimination is okay as long as you can make the case that they could conceivably go someplace else.  That's a losing argument.

 

a bakery is not the same as a hospital where if someone does not get treated they will die. going to a place of business where one knows they are not appreciated and using the law to  demand services is a form of bullying. if gays cannot accept the way some people might feel, then why should we care how they feel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, splunch said:

While it is true that the effectiveness of the discrimination and persecution of black people was a motivator, I do not think in the post-civil-rights era that anyone would argue that that is the legal justification for why you may not discriminate against homosexuals or black people.  You are suggesting that it be legal for businesses to deny service to a gay man, because he is gay, and that he would have no recourse unless he proved that every similar establishment in his area was similarly denying him service.  That's an absurd standard, don't you think?  Plenty of places would seize upon that and use it to persecute and drive out gay people, who would find the situation intolerable and the legal burden impossible to manage to assert their right to be treated decently.

You assume that if the right to refuse service to anyone was upheld that opposition to gays would be unanimous. That's a bit of a stretch. If a business was found to be discriminating against gays in my neck of the woods, word would spread, and other businesses would make it known that they have no issue with gays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

You assume that if the right to refuse service to anyone was upheld that opposition to gays would be unanimous. That's a bit of a stretch. If a business was found to be discriminating against gays in my neck of the woods, word would spread, and other businesses would make it known that they have no issue with gays. 

I assume nothing.  You assume it will NOT be unanimous, or even ubiquitous enough to cause hardship, and thus seek to excuse discrimination unless somebody comes along and proves in court that discrimination is widespread enough to be denying equal access to people...  I don't even have a clue how you could argue such a point, considering that it wasn't that long ago that much of the South WAS so engulfed in systemic, widespread racism that no such proof would even have been possible, because the courts themselves were part of the deeply racist society.  Discrimination could easily be widespread and very oppressive, while flying under the radar of your impossibly high standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, splunch said:

I assume nothing.  You assume it will NOT be unanimous, or even ubiquitous enough to cause hardship, and thus seek to excuse discrimination unless somebody comes along and proves in court that discrimination is widespread enough to be denying equal access to people...  I don't even have a clue how you could argue such a point, considering that it wasn't that long ago that much of the South WAS so engulfed in systemic, widespread racism that no such proof would even have been possible, because the courts themselves were part of the deeply racist society.  Discrimination could easily be widespread and very oppressive, while flying under the radar of your impossibly high standard.

Well, since both are hypothetical there really is no way of knowing. I do know that social media and word of mouth is a bit__. If word gets out that a store/outlet openly opposes gays or is racist, there will be consequences. Consequences that may end in the business going bankrupt. Those consequences resonate more than someone simply not liking you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Well, since both are hypothetical there really is no way of knowing. I do know that social media and word of mouth is a bit__. If word gets out that a store/outlet openly opposes gays or is racist, there will be consequences. Consequences that may end in the business going bankrupt. Those consequences resonate more than someone simply not liking you. 

That's great right up until people really do broadly discriminate against a certain group of people.  Then that public opinion works the other direction, coercing people who may not even necessarily be that prejudiced to toe the line or face repercussions.  We saw that in the South.

 

The question is not which might be happening in a particular case.  It's what the standard is.  Is it okay for a business to discriminate against people based on race or not?  You appear to be saying, yes, it's okay, as long as it's only one or two businesses in the area, because they'll probably face other consequences of their actions anyway, so the law doesn't matter.  I'm saying, no, it's not okay, and that if you can show that a business IS denying service to black people that they should face legal consequences.  Not require them to ALSO show that these other businesses are also discriminating...

 

I'm not sure what your end game is with this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, splunch said:

That's great right up until people really do broadly discriminate against a certain group of people.  Then that public opinion works the other direction, coercing people who may not even necessarily be that prejudiced to toe the line or face repercussions.  We saw that in the South.

 

The question is not which might be happening in a particular case.  It's what the standard is.  Is it okay for a business to discriminate against people based on race or not?  You appear to be saying, yes, it's okay, as long as it's only one or two businesses in the area, because they'll probably face other consequences of their actions anyway, so the law doesn't matter.  I'm saying, no, it's not okay, and that if you can show that a business IS denying service to black people that they should face legal consequences.  Not require them to ALSO show that these other businesses are also discriminating...

 

I'm not sure what your end game is with this point.

Mountains of data show that Americans are more tolerant of gays than ever before. The younger demographics even more strongly support this more tolerant view. Oh... and they are the primary users of social media. This paranoia about the nation aligning itself against gays does not hold water at least when compared against statistics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Mountains of data show that Americans are more tolerant of gays than ever before. The younger demographics even more strongly support this more tolerant view. Oh... and they are the primary users of social media. This paranoia about the nation aligning itself against gays does not hold water at least when compared against statistics. 

You're repeatedly missing my point, which is about civil rights law, not gay people.  Civil rights law does not burden individuals with proving that there is systemic, widespread discrimination in order to make a case.  Nor should it.  If discrimination is illegal, then discrimination is illegal, not "it's illegal only once you reach a certain critical mass". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Mountains of data show that Americans are more tolerant of gays than ever before. The younger demographics even more strongly support this more tolerant view. Oh... and they are the primary users of social media. This paranoia about the nation aligning itself against gays does not hold water at least when compared against statistics. 

This seems to be entirely correct. Jerra- seems to be a hater. He does not seem to be winning any converts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, splunch said:

You're repeatedly missing my point, which is about civil rights law, not gay people.  Civil rights law does not burden individuals with proving that there is systemic, widespread discrimination in order to make a case.  Nor should it.  If discrimination is illegal, then discrimination is illegal, not "it's illegal only once you reach a certain critical mass". 

 

Ok, well then I am going to move on. My point is about society not legal minutia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

This seems to be entirely correct. Jerra- seems to be a hater. He does not seem to be winning any converts.

 

I am not looking for 'converts'. the ones looking for converts are the gays and they have gotten plenty of help in the past 30 years, including help from disney.

 

 

https://www.out.com/television/2019/2/09/first-disney-character-ever-say-im-gay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×