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

[jillian]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.

what are you talking about?

Marty asked what right there is to a cake and I answered. What part didn't you understand?

it seemed like you were taking the opposite side. hence my question.

thank you for clarifying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

 

[jillian]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.

what are you talking about?

Marty asked what right there is to a cake and I answered. What part didn't you understand?

it seemed like you were taking the opposite side. hence my question.

thank you for clarifying.

No problem.

 

[martybegan]

Constitutionally yes, but not if you see Free exercise of religion trumping the ability of a State to regulate commerce within its borders (or the feds regulating it between States)

That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?

Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.

So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?

A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.

One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.

No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.

The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.

and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

Only if you think commerce overrides free exercise, and not the other way around.

And one baker not wanting to bake a cake is not "disruptive" to the market. You had a disruptive market during Jim Crow, not now.

PA laws force people to abandon free exercise AND the right to association.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."

So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.

 

[jillian]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

Only if you think commerce overrides free exercise, and not the other way around.

And one baker not wanting to bake a cake is not "disruptive" to the market. You had a disruptive market during Jim Crow, not now.

PA laws force people to abandon free exercise AND the right to association.

i think signs saying 'no blacks no jews no gays" are abhorrent. and yes, they've gone the way of the dodo. this is just a means by which the same people who wanted those signs before try to find another excuse to resurrect them. if you think it is anything else, you're deluding yourself.

 

[jillian]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."

So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.

no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.

sorry, marty.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

Only if you think commerce overrides free exercise, and not the other way around.

And one baker not wanting to bake a cake is not "disruptive" to the market. You had a disruptive market during Jim Crow, not now.

PA laws force people to abandon free exercise AND the right to association.

i think signs saying 'no blacks no jews no gays" are abhorrent. and yes, they've gone the way of the dodo. this is just a means by which the same people who wanted those signs before try to find another excuse to resurrect them. if you think it is anything else, you're deluding yourself.

It would actually be refreshing, and since it wouldn't be government backed and pervasive, would be market regulated. Except for small enclaves do you really think it would be widespread?

Right now we all hide our biases behind pretty smiles, and anonymous message board posts, Things like this force them into the open.

 

[martybegan]

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."

So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.

no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.

sorry, marty.

Nope. The whole freedom of religion thing does mean people have the right to express their religion in the public square, not squirreled away in some Church so you don't have to see it. When Atheists complain about having to see a manger, or a cross, its basically the same butt hurt we are seeing over having to go to another baker, i.e., "these people don't like me and don't think like me, therefore I must use government to destroy them, or at minimum send them back into their hole. "

If you need further proof just look at the whole "micro-aggression" and "trigger" crap going on today in colleges. We have a whole generation of people growing up thinking that anyone that thinks differently than them is evil and dangerous.

 

[PratchettFan]

That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?

Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.

So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?

A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.

One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.

No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.

The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.

and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.

Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.

As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.

 

[PratchettFan]

Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?

How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?

Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."

So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.

no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.

sorry, marty.

It doesn't equal that.

 

[bodecea]

That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?

Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.

So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?

A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.

One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.

No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.

The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.

and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.

Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.

 

[jillian]

it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.

i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?

the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."

So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.

no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.

sorry, marty.

It doesn't equal that.

Yes it does. I'll just refer you to the caselaw in the subject

 

[BlueGin]

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?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

Why do you single out gay people when it comes to complaining about PA laws that have been around for half a century? What's up with that?

because gay people are the only ones who seem to want to sue over trivial crap like wedding cakes.

And issue death threats to pizza shop owners. How soon they forget.

 

[PratchettFan]

Correct.

And it's about the authority afforded government by the Commerce Clause to regulate the markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets – where allowing businesses to discriminate with regard to public accommodations based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

Public accommodations laws comport with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence and in no way 'violate' religious liberty, nor are religious beliefs or objections 'justification' to ignore or violate just and proper measures such as public accommodations laws.

and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot

That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."

So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.

no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.

sorry, marty.

It doesn't equal that.

Yes it does. I'll just refer you to the caselaw in the subject

By all means. Go ahead.

 

[martybegan]

Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.

So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?

A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.

One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.

No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.

The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.

and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.

Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.

As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.

We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.

I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.

 

[martybegan]

Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.

So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?

A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.

One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.

No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.

The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.

and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.

Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.

the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.

 

[PratchettFan]

So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?

A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.

One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.

No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.

The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.

and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.

Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.

As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.

We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.

I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.

You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.

This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.