Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[emilynghiem]

Can the government force you to choose US federal, state, and local law over Sharia Law,

or does the 1st Amendment protect Muslims from having to support laws they might in some cases prefer to replace with their own?

NYcarbineer
Yes and No.

Surprise! Shariah actually means ALL activities including giving to charity and praying 5 times a day
as Muslims commit to as part of the PRACTICE.

so NO, federal govt cannot enforce any law that would FORCE you to compromise
your religious freedom to pray and give alms to the poor as part of SHARIAH.

(Trick answer because you asked a Trick question!)

NO if you mean "Shariah" to mean forcing religious beliefs into the govt to make beliefs mandatory for the public. The regimes such as taking over govts in Nigeria and not just in Arab countries,
put their religious doctrine above DUE PROCESS OF LAWS and do not separate religious authority from govt, nor separate judicial from executive authority, so that would be unconstitutional in America to do so.

NOTE: In the case of LGBT advocacy BOTH sides complain the OTHER is pushing THEIR beliefs or creeds into GOVT! So BOTH sides are complaining of violations and discrimination, since both sides involve creeds.

I don't think anyone in America disputes this is causing conflicts to mix creeds/beliefs/shariah with govt;
the PROBLEM is they BLAME EACH OTHER'S CREEDS as being wrong to impose. The wrongs are mutual.
We need to find the solutions that are mutual.

 

[rightwinger]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

Meanwhile you defend mentally ill cross dressers using the wrong bathroom, despite the scientific fact that no matter what sorts of surgeries a person gets, or what drugs they take, they will NEVER EVER change their gender?

LOL hypocrite.

I don't really care where people pee. Women have much bigger problems, yet Trannys in Ladies rooms is all Republicans care about

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

I'll open it to the board

Can anyone explain to me what Emily's point is?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

Meanwhile you defend mentally ill cross dressers using the wrong bathroom, despite the scientific fact that no matter what sorts of surgeries a person gets, or what drugs they take, they will NEVER EVER change their gender?

LOL hypocrite.

I don't really care where people pee. Women have much bigger problems, yet Trannys in Ladies rooms is all Republicans care about

Just because YOU don't care, doesn't mean it doesn't matter..

However, that wasn't my point. The point is that you just claimed that polygamy is not a sexual orientation at the same time that you believe people can change their gender.

 

[emilynghiem]

If your religion prohibits you from adhering to public accommodation laws then you shouldn't have a business.

It's no different than a Muslim applying for a job in a bacon store and then saying he can't touch bacon because of his stupid religion

Or a Muslim refusing to be drafted and fight in the Vietnam war.

Ali's being buried today

What a coincidence

Good point Pop23
Conscientious objectors have a process they follow to declare their beliefs and status.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have long been recognized as not believing in war and also not voting
because of beliefs they must remain uninvolved in govt they see as secular and against their theology/God.
They do obey courts and any laws that are enforced, so if laws require them to give blood transfusions to children, these are minors protected by laws so they are compelled to obey, but not for adults who can refuse blood transfusion or other blood related procedures even if it means dying sooner, for consenting adults.

If this was going to be attempted for all groups opposed to LGBT, prochoice/abortion, and other "liberal beliefs" that violate the beliefs of Christians and Constitutionalists, I suggest separation designation by PARTY.
Covering ALL issues from health care policies, abortion/birth control, issues of teaching creation/evolution and sex education in public schools, and now same sex marriage, benefits, and bathroom policies in schools,
And just separate all institutions, policies and funding that cross over into personal and private beliefs.

Since people have already pretty much segregated THEMSELVES by their beliefs by party,
why not use that grouping to organize people under the policies and programs of their choice?
Then if there are conflicts within the party, they can address that internally, but the majority of
conflicts would be already weeded out by branching off into whole groups that already agree in beliefs.

For example, the majority of Democratic party registrees would be prochoice and agree to fund hospitals health care and birth control through Planned Parenthood, with options for prolife Democrats to refrain and fund prolife programs instead. The Republican party would agree to fund prolife programs where no taxes go to any institution offering or endorsing abortion unless the members specifically choose and agree to fund that.

For schools, both major parties (and also the other third parties) would be rewarded with tax breaks for investing in, managing and developing their own schools and especially medical programs for their own members so they become as independent as possible in setting up sustainable education and services.
So if parties are managing their own institutions, they can set the policies any way their members vote on
regarding curricula and "bathroom policies" and how to teach history, science, and sex ed including orientation and gender (that are currently disputed because of conflicting beliefs that govt should not dictate anyway)

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers and why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that much,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly:
"Can you prove life does not begin at conception? If not I have the right to my beliefs."
Never mind that bans would affect women more than men and violate due process.
The problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections, not just "yes or no can you prove life doesn't begin at conception"

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Resolve the conflicts first, then people who CAN accommodate others can write fair laws.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else" if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

 

[Fair&Balanced]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers and why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that much,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly:
"Can you prove life does not begin at conception? If not I have the right to my beliefs."
Never mind that bans would affect women more than men and violate due process.
The problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections, not just "yes or no can you prove life doesn't begin at conception"

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Resolve the conflicts first, then people who CAN accommodate others can write fair laws.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else" if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Dear rightwinger I'm sorry you don't take my solutions seriously
or even bother to read them.

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the points I make and the process
I offer for mediation can solve these issues by treating both sides equally
as beliefs and creeds that should be included in forming a consensus.

10 million. Do you want to make the bet.
I raise 5 for people who care to resolve these conflicts IN DEPTH
and you raise 5 online for people who agree to laugh and refuse to take any of this seriously.

And if the people who support mediation and consensus on managing diverse beliefs
solve the problem that team wins. Or if the people like you who won't listen and
think you know better can solve this problem, they you win.

The winner gets all 10 million to donate to whatever causes they want.

Do you want to make a bet that treating all people equally
as having creeds and beliefs protected from discrimination
allows for mediation to solve the conflicts I spelled out in A and B.
rightwinger

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

Fair&Balanced
A. No if you demand that nobody else have that right against you
B. Yes if you accept that other people can discriminate against you
C. Yes and No, if you have limits or conditions on this and recognize so do other people

Whatever rule you enforce, that's what you should get (by the natural laws or Golden Rule)

Our Constitutional laws don't specify this directly but only hold govt and public institutions to standards of law. Not even Corporations are held to the laws, which is causing imbalance of collective influence and individual rights. Common sense tells us that if we want to enforce no discrimination against us, then we should practice no discrimination against others; that is the correct and consistent way to ensure First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but it isn't explained or required in the law. That's just natural laws on how this is going to be achieved, this thing called Equal Justice.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

Fair&Balanced
A. No if you demand that nobody else have that right against you
B. Yes if you accept that other people can discriminate against you

Emily, I don't know exactly what your boggle is, but I've been MORE than clear about this. I believe EVERYONE has the right to discriminate and choose whom they want to do business with.

PERIOD

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers and why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that much,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly:
"Can you prove life does not begin at conception? If not I have the right to my beliefs."
Never mind that bans would affect women more than men and violate due process.
The problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections, not just "yes or no can you prove life doesn't begin at conception"

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Resolve the conflicts first, then people who CAN accommodate others can write fair laws.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else" if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Dear rightwinger I'm sorry you don't take my solutions seriously
or even bother to read them.

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the points I make and the process
I offer for mediation can solve these issues by treating both sides equally
as beliefs and creeds that should be included in forming a consensus.

10 million. Do you want to make the bet.
I raise 5 for people who care to resolve these conflicts IN DEPTH
and you raise 5 online for people who agree to laugh and refuse to take any of this seriously.

And if the people who support mediation and consensus on managing diverse beliefs
solve the problem that team wins. Or if the people like you who won't listen and
think you know better can solve this problem, they you win.

The winner gets all 10 million to donate to whatever causes they want.

Do you want to make a bet that treating all people equally
as having creeds and beliefs protected from discrimination
allows for mediation to solve the conflicts I spelled out in A and B.
rightwinger

I have a better solution......follow the law

You can't "mediate" every possible conflict

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, I see C Clayton Dumb fuck chimed in with a funny. Thanks bro, but can you name one other right I have to give up when I open a business? Do I no longer have free speech? What about the right to own a gun? How about the right to vote?

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

 

[Militants]

"I'm a doctor who's Christian, and I don't believe I should have to render healing services to anyone who calls themself a witch. It is against my religion."

Derps, render unto Caesar. I'm pretty sure Jesus himself said that. And I know, kristians in America don't actually read, listen to or follow Jesus, but you at least have to make some fake gesture that you do.

Hi IsaacNewton now HERE's a case that CAN likely be proven scientifically with the right technology.
It is argued that witchcraft/occult and DARK energy CLASHES with the positive spiritual healing energy.
And that this causes hazards to the people involved, similar to mixing AC with DC power that short circuits.

YES if people who are atheist and wicca can refuse to mix with Christians,
to avoid personal conflicts, they have that right due to irreconcileable beliefs that otherwise disrupt the peace.

Just like you have the right to divorce if you and your Scientology spouse can't agree how to raise the kids.

Beliefs are protected for individuals and cannot be mandated or penalized by govt.
If you are somehow abusing your beliefs to violate the rights of others, it is the violation not the belief that is illegal.

And likewise, neither can a correction or law be enforced that goes too far the other way,
and violates the beliefs of the other side either.

You can't impose punishment or correction that is so biased it violates rights and the same law being enforced.

In this case, the laws against discrimination also include CREED.
So by treating both sides equally as CREEDS, the laws and enforcement
must accommodate both sides in proposing a correction or solution.

A solution isn't one if it creates the equal and opposite problem, as with these cases going too far!

I'm a Christian paramedic and when I came on scene the person identified themself as Wiccan. Well it's against my religion so I provided no aid and they died.

And by the way, I'm pro-life.


DERRRRRPPPPPS.

Being a paramedic you obligate yourself to serve the public at large. An artist provides personal services and no I will not provide services for just any ole' one who comes along.

I know, you can parse anything and have a deflect for anything. This is what kristians do.

My second name you spell Christian.

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers and why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that much,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly:
"Can you prove life does not begin at conception? If not I have the right to my beliefs."
Never mind that bans would affect women more than men and violate due process.
The problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections, not just "yes or no can you prove life doesn't begin at conception"

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Resolve the conflicts first, then people who CAN accommodate others can write fair laws.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else" if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Dear rightwinger I'm sorry you don't take my solutions seriously
or even bother to read them.

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the points I make and the process
I offer for mediation can solve these issues by treating both sides equally
as beliefs and creeds that should be included in forming a consensus.

10 million. Do you want to make the bet.
I raise 5 for people who care to resolve these conflicts IN DEPTH
and you raise 5 online for people who agree to laugh and refuse to take any of this seriously.

And if the people who support mediation and consensus on managing diverse beliefs
solve the problem that team wins. Or if the people like you who won't listen and
think you know better can solve this problem, they you win.

The winner gets all 10 million to donate to whatever causes they want.

Do you want to make a bet that treating all people equally
as having creeds and beliefs protected from discrimination
allows for mediation to solve the conflicts I spelled out in A and B.
rightwinger

I have a better solution......follow the law

You can't "mediate" every possible conflict

10 millions says we need to offer assistance and access
to mediation in order to FOLLOW THE LAW rightwinger

The law states as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People are guaranteed DUE PROCESS, which depends on
freedom of speech, and of the press, the right to petition to redress grievances,
and free exercise of religion (all proclaimed in the First Amendment but based on natural laws).

 

[emilynghiem]

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

No one says you don’t have the right to discriminate – you can discriminate to your heart’s content.

But as a business owner in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a provision for sexual orientation, you may not deny services to a gay patron, having nothing to do with ‘discrimination’ – just as you cannot pay your employees less than the minimum wage or endanger your employees’ safety in the workplace.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory policy, where jurisdictions have determined that to refuse services based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market, and local governments are at liberty to regulate local markets as they so desire consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

When not running your business you may discriminate all you want, revel in your ignorance and hate.

But while running your business you’ll obey the law, including accommodating gay patrons, as such laws neither ‘violate’ your religious liberty, nor ‘force’ you to ‘give up’ any rights.