Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.

They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU

It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

What question have I not answered?

 

[Syriusly]

Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.

Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?

Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable.

You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it.

Not rationally, and not under the law.

You can't answer a direct question......

I did: because they shouldn't have to. They have no responsibility to remedy someone else's religiously motivated bigotry.

So they would rather risk sub standard service?

Suppose you wanted to buy a house and the owner of your first choice refused to sell it to you. Would you look for another house of cry that you were discriminated against because an owner refused to put his house on the market at your preferred price?

Look! I'm not arguing that a baker refusing to bake a cake is right or wrong, just that it should be his choice to exercise his right to refuse to provide service and thus participate in something that goes against his religious beliefs.

Let the market judge him. They did that with Chic-fil-A.

How'd that work out for you?

Not well- still no Chic fil-A within a reasonable distance of where I live.

Every business person has to deal with business regulations- and among the regulations are those dealing with discrimination- you may or may not agree with them, but the regulations are on the books- and Christian business people do not get special exemptions because they really, really don't think that they should serve someone because they are gay or Jewish or black or Muslim or Mormons or whatever.

 

[Staidhup]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

 

[Syriusly]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

I don't know of anyone who thinks Churches should be forced to marry anyone.

Business's however are obligated to follow the law, and don't get special exemptions from the law because they really, really don't like it.

 

[dblack]

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.

 

[Seawytch]

Look! I'm not arguing that a baker refusing to bake a cake is right or wrong, just that it should be his choice to exercise his right to refuse to provide service and thus participate in something that goes against his religious beliefs.

And naturally you've called your legislators and demanded a repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that REQUIRES the gay person to serve the Christian but not vice versa?

No...you bitch on a message board about LOCAL (state's rights) laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.

 

[Seawytch]

The Chick Fil A boycott worked fine. From wiki;

In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights." According to the TCRA, Chick-fil-A officials stated in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation", although there had never been any accusations of discrimination against the company, only against the company and its foundations' contributions.[68]

In a letter from Chick-fil-A's Senior Director of Real Estate, the company stated: "The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas."[69]

 

[dblack]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.

Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.

 

[Syriusly]

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.

C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.

And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.

The law works just fine.

 

[Syriusly]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.

Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.

The goal of anti-discrimination laws in business is to ensure that minority groups will be served by business's.

They have nothing to do with eradicating bigotry.

 

[dblack]

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.

C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.

And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.

The law works just fine.

You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.

 

[Syriusly]

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.

C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.

And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.

The law works just fine.

You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.

I think it is clear that you are missing the point.

 

[Seawytch]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.

Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.

No, it's long established precedent.

 

[dblack]

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.

C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.

And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.

The law works just fine.

You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.

I think it is clear that you are missing the point.

Which is what? That government should decide which biases are valid and which aren't?

 

[dblack]

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.

Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.

Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.

No, it's long established precedent.

I get that. Doesn't make it right.

 

[dblack]

Best not to think about it.

 

[Syriusly]

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.

C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.

And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.

The law works just fine.

You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.

I think it is clear that you are missing the point.

Which is what? That government should decide which biases are valid and which aren't?

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

 

[dblack]

Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.

 

[Syriusly]

Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. .

Real minorities have never ridden any gravy train- they just want to be served like anyone.