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

[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?

No, I don't. That is based upon human nature. People only get upset when their positions are disrespected.

I see.
So, you believe that people need to respect the LGBT community; the LGBT community need not respect anyone.
Interesting.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I see.
So, you believe that people need to respect the LGBT community; the LGBT community need not respect anyone.
Interesting.

So...you define "the LGBT community need not respect anyone" as the LGBT expecting PA laws to apply to them too. HOW DARE WE???????

 

[bodecea]

With PA laws....what would happen to a business that refuses to do business with black people due to religious reasons?

What would happen to a business that refuses to do business with Jews due to religious reasons?

What would happen to a business that refuses to do business with women due to religious reasons?

What would happen to a business that refuses to do business with a handicapped person due to religious reasons?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You;re sure?

Quick search...

Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.

Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.

I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I see.
So, you believe that people need to respect the LGBT community; the LGBT community need not respect anyone.
Interesting.

I think both sides should be treated like everyone else. Gays should be able to get cakes they order, just like anyone else. And bakers should be subject to PA laws, just like anyone else.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You;re sure?

Quick search...

Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.

Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.

I'm sure there are other examples.

THe cases in question aren't from Ohio or Michigan. The PA laws are state laws.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You;re sure?

Quick search...

Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.

Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Yes...there are some states with no protection for gay customers...and in those states, gays cannot expect any protection from the law when it comes to "ordering a cake".

 

[Skylar]

With PA laws....what would happen to a business that refuses to do business with black people due to religious reasons?

What would happen to a business that refuses to do business with Jews due to religious reasons?

What would happen to a business that refuses to do business with women due to religious reasons?

What would happen to a business that refuses to do business with a handicapped person due to religious reasons?

You're thinking small. If 'belief' alone exempts you from laws......what limits this standard to PA laws?

 

[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...?

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.

"Reasonable"? Rather subjective statement there.
It's "reasonable" to find another baker once you discover the one you wanted to hire disapproves of your lifestyle.
Remember -- the issue here is respect -- to gain the respect of others, you need to show some yourself.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You;re sure?

Quick search...

Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.

Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Yes...there are some states with no protection for gay customers...and in those states, gays cannot expect any protection from the law when it comes to "ordering a cake".

Or housing, or employment, or any good or service.

Which gays just have to 'take' else they aren't 'respecting' the beliefs of anyone else. There's apparently no degree of abuse that doesn't get countered with 'belief'.

 

[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...?

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

Two wrongs make a right. Nice.

 

[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?

No, I don't. That is based upon human nature. People only get upset when their positions are disrespected.

I see.
So, you believe that people need to respect the LGBT community; the LGBT community need not respect anyone.
Interesting.

I think both sides should be treated like everyone else. Gays should be able to get cakes they order, just like anyone else. And bakers should be subject to PA laws, just like anyone else.

So... do you take exception to the LGBT side when they refuse to respect people who believe differently than they do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You;re sure?

Quick search...

Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.

Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.

I'm sure there are other examples.

THe cases in question aren't from Ohio or Michigan. The PA laws are state laws.

Irrelevant to the point made.

 

[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.

"Reasonable"? Rather subjective statement there.

Its what the bakers advertises. Its what ever one else does who goes to that baker. Order cake from a cake baker would pass the 'reasonable person' standard in any court of law.

Which is objective enough for this discussion.

It's "reasonable" to find another baker once you discover the one you wanted to hire disapproves of your lifestyle.

Why? Is it 'reasonable' for a black person to sit in the back of the bus because they were told to? Or go to another lunch counter because they were denied service? Or look for another home because they were denied a loan or a rental because they belong to a minority group?

Of course not. The gay person is the victim of the discrimination. They haven't earned it. They don't deserve it. They aren't to blame for it. Nor are they the cause of it. The religious intolerance is.

Seeking the same goods and services as everyone else is not unreasonable.

Remember -- the issue here is respect -- to gain the respect of others, you need to show some yourself.

The intolerance is both irrational....and to a group. Making the actions of the individual effectively meaningless. An individual can be as kind as can be. But the intolerance is still toward their group. Nor can you penetrate an irrational intolerance with rational, reasonable behavior. They two have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You;re sure?

Quick search...

Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.

Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.

I'm sure there are other examples.

THe cases in question aren't from Ohio or Michigan. The PA laws are state laws.

Irrelevant to the point made.

Its immediately relevant. As the anti-discrimination laws protecting gays don't exist in those states. And without such laws, there are no such lawsuits. The lawsuits occur in states that do have anti-discrimination laws protecting gays.

All passed by legislatures.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I see.
So, you believe that people need to respect the LGBT community; the LGBT community need not respect anyone.
Interesting.

I think both sides should be treated like everyone else. Gays should be able to get cakes they order, just like anyone else. And bakers should be subject to PA laws, just like anyone else.

So... do you take exception to the LGBT side when they refuse to respect people who believe differently than they do?

I would take the same position if the person were Christian and denied services because they were Christian. If a mechanic told a Christian 'we don't serve your kind here' and refused services.....I'd take the side of the Christian.

Someone doesn't get a pass on the law just because they believe they do.

 

[bodecea]

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.

"Reasonable"? Rather subjective statement there.
It's "reasonable" to find another baker once you discover the one you wanted to hire disapproves of your lifestyle.
Remember -- the issue here is respect -- to gain the respect of others, you need to show some yourself.

So...if a black isn't served by a baker they should just go to another? Regardless of the law being on their side?
So...if a Jew isn't served by a baker they should just go to another? Regardless of the law being on their side?
So...if a woman isn't served by a baker they should just go to another? Regardless of the law being on their side?
So...if a handicapped isn't served by a baker they should just go to another? Regardless of the law being on their side?

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

I don't care where the source of the conflict is. What we have are two conflicting rights. One person's right to walk into a store and purchase something and the other person's right to follow their religious beliefs. There was a store I recall in Los Angeles that was run by Wiccans. They sold crystals and things of that nature. They had a sign on the door that said if you weren't a believer don't enter. Not the best business plan, but it was their store and I can't think of any reason you would absolutely need a piece of quartz.

If you are going to over ride someone's rights you need a good reason. Just because it conflicts with your rights isn't good enough. Why should your rights be more important than theirs? Having to go somewhere else for a cake is not a good enough reason.

And yes, using my standard would be used to deny minorities. Or even majorities. So long as that doesn't create a real hardship for them, I am fine with it.

 

[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.

I see.
So, you believe that people need to respect the LGBT community; the LGBT community need not respect anyone.
Interesting.

Once again, that is not what you asked. I may believe that people should be able to flap their arms and fly, but that won't grow a single feather.

 

[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.

Two wrongs make a right. Nice.

You think one wrong makes a right?