LGBT -- seeking respct and acceptance form the mainstream...?

[martybegan]

Good gravy.

Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.

Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.

The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?

I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.

Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?

Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?

It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.

I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.

Also known as "cut off your nose to spite your face".

It's about getting rid of government mandated spite.

 

[jillian]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.

you're welcome.

Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.

no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.

as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.

and tolerance is never a bad thing.

 

[mdk]

Good gravy.
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.

Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?

Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?

It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.

I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.

I think we know those laws would be slapped with an injunction and thrown out by the courts. I am not seeing any major push, in any statehouse, to get churches to follow PA laws. It isn't happening.

Again, just wait. no one expected bakers to be sued for not wanting to work gay weddings. It's in the nature of miserable people to continue to be miserable, and need another target.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't share this grim prediction of what you believe the future holds.

 

[Skylar]

Good gravy.
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.

Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?

This is an interesting new tactic. With conservatives trying to increase the impact of PA laws beyond their scope to include churches.......apparently to increase opposition to them.

Nope. Churches aren't commerce.

Why does commerce trump free exercise?

Because business isn't an inherent act of faith. And these are generally applicable laws that don't target religion.

It the responsibility of the religious to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. A Buddhist doesn't get hired at a slaughterhouse only to demand they stop killing animals because it violates his religion. Steve Young didn't demand the Superbowl be played on a Saturday because working on a Sunday violated his religion.

Its the responsibility of each religious individual to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. Not society's responsibility to bend itself around whatever religious belief they happen to have.

A Buddhist doesn't WANT to work at a Slaughterhouse or start one. These bakers want to bake cakes, with one exception that does no real harm. I'm sorry, going to another baker isn't harm.

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.

Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else. They aren't asking the bakers to do anything but their jobs. And still, you blame the victims of intolerance, you blame those denied goods and services because of someone *else's* intolerance.

That's ridiculous.

For decades having to bake a cake for a gay wedding never came up. YOU are asking people to change, not the other way around. It would be like changing a flower shop to a butcher and THEN asking the Buddhist to keep working there.

The gays aren't the cause of the conflict. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is a completely reasonable act. The religiously intolerant baker is the source of the conflict. As denying someone a cake because of their sexual orientation is completely unreasonable. And in many states, against the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think that the LBGT community should treat those with opposing views with respect?
Do you think that by not doing so, they work against their goal to have the mainstream accept them and treat them with respect?

In answer to your other two questions: Yes. No.

Really?
You don't think that treating others with disrespect does not undermine their own demands for being treated with respect?
Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.

Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.

Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.

Were they changed by legislation or court action? In what proportion?

The discrimination laws? That's legislation.

You sure about that?
Every state that allows gay marriage allows it because the state legislature passed a law to that effect?
Every application of anti-discrimination laws to LGBT came from specific inclusion by the legislation and not the application of existing laws by a court?

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you think that the LBGT community should treat those with opposing views with respect?
Do you think that by not doing so, they work against their goal to have the mainstream accept them and treat them with respect?

In answer to your other two questions: Yes. No.

Really?
You don't think that treating others with disrespect does not undermine their own demands for being treated with respect?
Why?

No, I don't. That is based upon human nature. People only get upset when their positions are disrespected. If the mainstream feels that discrimination is wrong, and the government voted in by them makes it illegal, it is unlikely the mainstream is going to get upset when behavior it has deemed unacceptable is disrespected.

Are you actually expecting people to be rational and fair?

 

[PratchettFan]

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.

Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.

Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.

Were they changed by legislation or court action? In what proportion?

The discrimination laws? That's legislation.

You sure about that?
Every state that allows gay marriage allows it because the state legislature passed a law to that effect?
Every application of anti-discrimination laws to LGBT came from specific inclusion by the legislation and not the application of existing laws by a court?

Gay marriage is a separate issue. We are talking about anti-discrimination laws and yes, they are all from legislation. That's how you get laws.

 

[Skylar]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

They want the same goods and services as anyone else. Ordering a cake from a cake baker is completely reasonable. Denying a cake because of your customer's sexual orientation isn't.

And given that the overwhleming majority of opposition to gays is irrationally based in religion, what can they do when their mere *existence* is an offense.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

 

[Skylar]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs. Both sides are insisting their choice trumps the other's. Frankly, I think the seller is in the right on this issue because of the nature of the purchase. I would oppose discrimination for essentials, like food, clothing and shelter, but a wedding cake is not an essential and I don't see the over riding need that trump's a religious belief.

 

[Skylar]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.

And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.

That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.

If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.

Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.

Plus.....we're already seeing this expanding. Now there are auto mechanics that are claiming they shouldn't have to serve gay customers at all. And using your 'deeply held belief' standard, they'd be perfectly justified.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.

And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.

That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.

If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.

Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.

The laws are what they are. The states have the right to create such laws. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

 

[Skylar]

They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.

And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.

That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.

If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.

Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.

The laws are what they are. The states have the right to create such laws. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

The laws are reasonable. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is reasonable. A minority seeking the same goods and services as everyone else is reasonable.

Insisting that you're above the law because you believe you are? That's not reasonable. Denying services and goods because you don't like the minority group the customer belongs to? That's not reasonable.

And of course, these issues are already expanding. Now we have auto-mechanics that are denying services to gays at all. And per your 'deeply held belief' standard, they'd be perfectly justified. This isn't a 'slippery slope'. This is already happening.

 

[whitehall]

A hairy man in a dress in the ladies room is "not like me". You can't legislate acceptance and respect. I reserve my rights under the 1st Amendment to refuse to associate with sodomites, refuse to donate to sodomite causes and refuse to cave into demands that organizations like the BSA be forced to hire potential pedophiles to supervise boys.

 

[PratchettFan]

That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.

And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.

That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.

If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.

Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.

The laws are what they are. The states have the right to create such laws. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

The laws are reasonable. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is reasonable. A minority seeking the same goods and services as everyone else is reasonable.

Insisting that you're above the law because you believe you are? That's not reasonable. Denying services and goods because you don't like the minority group the customer belongs to? That's not reasonable.

And of course, these issues are already expanding. Now we have auto-mechanics that are denying services to gays at all. And per your 'deeply held belief' standard, they'd be perfectly justified. This isn't a 'slippery slope'. This is already happening.

Insisting someone violate their religious beliefs over a cake is not reasonable.

 

[Skylar]

The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.

Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.

Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.

No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.

And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.

That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.

If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.

Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.

The laws are what they are. The states have the right to create such laws. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

The laws are reasonable. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is reasonable. A minority seeking the same goods and services as everyone else is reasonable.

Insisting that you're above the law because you believe you are? That's not reasonable. Denying services and goods because you don't like the minority group the customer belongs to? That's not reasonable.

And of course, these issues are already expanding. Now we have auto-mechanics that are denying services to gays at all. And per your 'deeply held belief' standard, they'd be perfectly justified. This isn't a 'slippery slope'. This is already happening.

Insisting someone violate their religious beliefs over a cake is not reasonable.

Again, gays aren't the source of this conflict. They're doing what everyone else is doing; order cake. Its the religious intolerance of the baker that is causing the conflict. Gays are the victims of this intolerance. And done nothing to earn it, nor are to blame for it.

That lies exclusively with the baker.

And of course, the issue already expanding. We've already seen folks take your 'deeply held belief standard' and deny gays non-wedding related services. Now there are auto-mechanics that won't serve gays at all. Per your standard they're completely justified.

Using your 'deeply held belief' standard......what couldn't you deny minorities you don't like? What laws couldn't you ignore?

 

[Skylar]

A hairy man in a dress in the ladies room is "not like me". You can't legislate acceptance and respect. I reserve my rights under the 1st Amendment to refuse to associate with sodomites, refuse to donate to sodomite causes and refuse to cave into demands that organizations like the BSA be forced to hire potential pedophiles to supervise boys.

So by 'refuse to associate', that means you won't do business with them at all, wouldn't hire them, or would fire them if they came out?