When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[ChrisL]

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

Yes, those are the laws I'm arguing against and am saying should be eliminated. It's unjust to place a business owner into such servitude, punishable by force.

As long as a person acts in a peaceful manner, he ought to be able to use his body and property any way he wishes. To forcibly restrict him from doing so is clearly a violation of his liberty and is therefore unjust.

Nope, not when it comes to conducting business. The states have a vested interest in your business. When it comes to your personal life, sure, like I said, you can be a bigot. When it comes to conducting business, NOPE.

 

[dblack]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

Heh.. Obey!

Yes, you have to obey laws. Mr. Whiny Pants.

Ok, Captain Obvious. It's just a silly thing to say. We're discussing whether these laws are worthwhile. We all know that they are laws, and that following them is required. But thanks for the tip!

 

[ChrisL]

For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.

More generally, this case is one of many recent instances in which organizations and businesses have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT customers in a variety of goods and services. In Vermont, the meeting and events director at the Wildflower Inn told a same-sex couple that they could not have “gay receptions” at the resort. In New Jersey, the owner of a wedding dress shop refused to sell a woman a wedding dress when she learned that she was marrying another woman. In Illinois, a bed and breakfast turned away a couple who asked to have a civil union reception at the facility, and then urged the couple to repent for their sins. In Hawaii, the owners of a hotel refused even to rent a room to a same-sex couple.

In all of these states, businesses are barred by state law from discriminating against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or religion, among other protected categories. But the owners of these businesses have claimed that they do not have to follow those laws because of their personal religious beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

Gay people pay taxes and they are American citizens. No, you do not have any right to discriminate against them when it comes to business matters. Like I said earlier, if you want to be a bigoted ass in your personal life, that is still your right.

What does paying taxes have to do with it? Government has to be neutral, and government can impose neutrality when there is a compelling government interest due to some economic harm, but hurt feelings are not harm.

The whole concept of PA laws wasn't to protect the feelings of blacks, it was to end economic and political discrimination that is the end goal of all those lunch counter, water fountain, movie theater, and bus laws.

A baker not wanting to bake a cake does not even come close to that standard.

Perhaps this might help you to understand the laws and why they exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

No, you are always wrong. Must get tiresome.

I take being called wrong by someone like you as a badge of honor. I notice you can't refute the point, and have to refute me in general.

 

[ChrisL]

^^^

IOW, when you open your "public accommodation" business, you have already agreed to follow the laws in your respective states. You don't just get to open up a business and then break the law. If you find that you cannot abide by the law and NOT discriminate when it comes to your business dealings, then you have no business offering "services" to the public at large. GAY people are part of the "public."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

Yes, those are the laws I'm arguing against and am saying should be eliminated. It's unjust to place a business owner into such servitude, punishable by force.

As long as a person acts in a peaceful manner, he ought to be able to use his body and property any way he wishes. To forcibly restrict him from doing so is clearly a violation of his liberty and is therefore unjust.

Nope, not when it comes to conducting business. The states have a vested interest in your business. When it comes to your personal life, sure, like I said, you can be a bigot. When it comes to conducting business, NOPE.

Really? Where does the 1st Amendment specify it ends at the doors of a business? The federal public accommodation laws are entirely extra-constitutional.

 

[dblack]

Nope, not when it comes to conducting business. The states have a vested interest in your business.

That really gets to the heart of the issue. Many people today seem to think that we should give up our rights whenever we exchange money or property, because the state has a 'vested interest'.

Can you explain more how the state has a vested interest in my financial activities? (but not my religious activities, or sexual activities, or any other association with others?)

 

[martybegan]

For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.

More generally, this case is one of many recent instances in which organizations and businesses have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT customers in a variety of goods and services. In Vermont, the meeting and events director at the Wildflower Inn told a same-sex couple that they could not have “gay receptions” at the resort. In New Jersey, the owner of a wedding dress shop refused to sell a woman a wedding dress when she learned that she was marrying another woman. In Illinois, a bed and breakfast turned away a couple who asked to have a civil union reception at the facility, and then urged the couple to repent for their sins. In Hawaii, the owners of a hotel refused even to rent a room to a same-sex couple.

In all of these states, businesses are barred by state law from discriminating against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or religion, among other protected categories. But the owners of these businesses have claimed that they do not have to follow those laws because of their personal religious beliefs.

Please show me a 150 year old PA law, and also show me the actual harm caused in all of the cases you listed.

 

[ChrisL]

Gay people pay taxes and they are American citizens. No, you do not have any right to discriminate against them when it comes to business matters. Like I said earlier, if you want to be a bigoted ass in your personal life, that is still your right.

What does paying taxes have to do with it? Government has to be neutral, and government can impose neutrality when there is a compelling government interest due to some economic harm, but hurt feelings are not harm.

The whole concept of PA laws wasn't to protect the feelings of blacks, it was to end economic and political discrimination that is the end goal of all those lunch counter, water fountain, movie theater, and bus laws.

A baker not wanting to bake a cake does not even come close to that standard.

Perhaps this might help you to understand the laws and why they exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

No, you are always wrong. Must get tiresome.

I take being called wrong by someone like you as a badge of honor. I notice you can't refute the point, and have to refute me in general.

Sorry, but you aren't doing a very good job at presenting your case. You all are basically stomping your feet like children because you cannot "choose" your customer base. That is just a crying shame. When you sign your business permits, you have already AGREED to follow the laws in your respective states regarding how you conduct your business. I suggest you educate yourself and understand the laws in your locality.

 

[martybegan]

^^^

IOW, when you open your "public accommodation" business, you have already agreed to follow the laws in your respective states. You don't just get to open up a business and then break the law. If you find that you cannot abide by the law and NOT discriminate when it comes to your business dealings, then you have no business offering "services" to the public at large. GAY people are part of the "public."

So 1% of the population gets to dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do if they are a "protected class", even if no actual harm can be shown?

A contract to provide services for an event is not a public accommodation.

Now I see where all these idiot college students with their micro-aggressions are coming from, people like you were the start, and they are the flood.

 

[ChrisL]

So 1% of the population gets to dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do if they are a "protected class", even if no actual harm can be shown?

A contract to provide services for an event is not a public accommodation.

Now I see where all these idiot college students with their micro-aggressions are coming from, people like you were the start, and they are the flood.

Apparently, you are just a very ignorant person.

 

[martybegan]

What does paying taxes have to do with it? Government has to be neutral, and government can impose neutrality when there is a compelling government interest due to some economic harm, but hurt feelings are not harm.

The whole concept of PA laws wasn't to protect the feelings of blacks, it was to end economic and political discrimination that is the end goal of all those lunch counter, water fountain, movie theater, and bus laws.

A baker not wanting to bake a cake does not even come close to that standard.

Perhaps this might help you to understand the laws and why they exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

No, you are always wrong. Must get tiresome.

I take being called wrong by someone like you as a badge of honor. I notice you can't refute the point, and have to refute me in general.

Sorry, but you aren't doing a very good job at presenting your case. You all are basically stomping your feet like children because you cannot "choose" your customer base. That is just a crying shame. When you sign your business permits, you have already AGREED to follow the laws in your respective states regarding how you conduct your business. I suggest you educate yourself and understand the laws in your locality.

You have not proven any harm caused by single vendors not wanting to participate in a certain ceremony or provide a service for that ceremony. We have proven the harm caused to them by government either 1) be fined and put out of business or 2) go against their moral code.

You keep arguing "the law is the law is the law" without arguing the real issue, that is if these laws are being applied properly and justly, assuming government isn't there just to make people play nice. There has to be some actual harm, and you keep not wanting to provide it.

 

[jillian]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic and quite frankly stupid bill that targeted LGBT people in the name of ”religious liberty” He caved to pressure from local businesses while never acknowledging the true intent of the bill.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/


However, the anti-equality forces are still hard at work in the south and elsewhere. They are spending countless hours and millions of dollars that could be spent on addressing the real- instead of imagined problems facing the nation. Cases in point:

North Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/voices-of-north-carolina-the-transgender-community-speaks-out

This week, HRC is lifting up the voices of North Carolinians whose lives are affected by the dangerous and discriminatory bill (HB 2) that North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law last week.

The first of those stories is from Madeline Goss, an openly transgender woman from Raleigh and former HRC Board of Governors member. Last week, she testified about the harmful impact HB 2 would have on her life and the transgender community.

“I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there," Goss said.

On March 23, Governor McCrory signed into law an outrageous and unprecedented anti-LGBT bill that eliminates existing municipal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people; prevents such provisions from being passed by cities in the future; and forces transgender students in public schools to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity, putting 4.5 billion dollars in federal funding under Title IX at risk. Read more about how this bill puts federal funding at risk here.

And South Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/south-carolina-senate-committee-advances-anti-marriage-equality-bill

Last week, a handful of conservative state Senators in South Carolina voted to advance S.31, a bill calling on the US Congress to amend the United States Constitution to allow states to roll back marriage equality on a state by state basis, but ultimately the bill has little chance of passing this session.

S.31 was introduced last year by conservative Senator Larry Grooms, but the bill has been stuck in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee since last April. Finally, after months of skipping over the bill - a clear sign that committee members have no appetite for it - S.31 was amended and advanced with a vote of 17 to 3. HRC thanks the three Democrats on the committee, Senators Sabb, Bright-Matthews, and Hutto, for voting against this bill.

Seeking to undermine the historic marriage equality ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, S.31 calls on Congress to host a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow all states to determine their own definitions of marriage. If the Constitution were to be amended in this way, it would give states the ability to roll back marriage equality if they oppose it,, effectively stripping away years of progress and placing millions of same-sex marriages in jeopardy.

Where will it end? When can we get over it and move on to other things? To come together as a nation and, yes, make America Great by being a nation that is all inclusive and accepting of all people? When can we get past this religious and fear based bigotry and start treating our neighbors with the dignity that they deserve? When!!??

rightwngnuts never get over anything.

 

[martybegan]

So 1% of the population gets to dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do if they are a "protected class", even if no actual harm can be shown?

A contract to provide services for an event is not a public accommodation.

Now I see where all these idiot college students with their micro-aggressions are coming from, people like you were the start, and they are the flood.

Apparently, you are just a very ignorant person.

I am well informed, and well read. You just can't deal with opinions that don't jive with your own, and you are too closed minded to even consider things that go against your own moral code.

 

[ChrisL]

Perhaps this might help you to understand the laws and why they exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

No, you are always wrong. Must get tiresome.

I take being called wrong by someone like you as a badge of honor. I notice you can't refute the point, and have to refute me in general.

Sorry, but you aren't doing a very good job at presenting your case. You all are basically stomping your feet like children because you cannot "choose" your customer base. That is just a crying shame. When you sign your business permits, you have already AGREED to follow the laws in your respective states regarding how you conduct your business. I suggest you educate yourself and understand the laws in your locality.

You have not proven any harm caused by single vendors not wanting to participate in a certain ceremony or provide a service for that ceremony. We have proven the harm caused to them by government either 1) be fined and put out of business or 2) go against their moral code.

You keep arguing "the law is the law is the law" without arguing the real issue, that is if these laws are being applied properly and justly, assuming government isn't there just to make people play nice. There has to be some actual harm, and you keep not wanting to provide it.

Sorry, that's the law. Abide by it, or don't open up a public accommodation business, because once you DO open up a "public accommodation" business, that means you have agreed to serve the public, and like them or not, gays are part of the public, as are disabled people, people of color, etc., etc. Nobody is crying for you. Sorry. You sound like an insolent child and not at all professional. You should probably not think about opening up a business at all. You don't have what it takes.

 

[martybegan]

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

No, you are always wrong. Must get tiresome.

I take being called wrong by someone like you as a badge of honor. I notice you can't refute the point, and have to refute me in general.

Sorry, but you aren't doing a very good job at presenting your case. You all are basically stomping your feet like children because you cannot "choose" your customer base. That is just a crying shame. When you sign your business permits, you have already AGREED to follow the laws in your respective states regarding how you conduct your business. I suggest you educate yourself and understand the laws in your locality.

You have not proven any harm caused by single vendors not wanting to participate in a certain ceremony or provide a service for that ceremony. We have proven the harm caused to them by government either 1) be fined and put out of business or 2) go against their moral code.

You keep arguing "the law is the law is the law" without arguing the real issue, that is if these laws are being applied properly and justly, assuming government isn't there just to make people play nice. There has to be some actual harm, and you keep not wanting to provide it.

Sorry, that's the law. Abide by it, or don't open up a public accommodation business, because once you DO open up a "public accommodation" business, that means you have agreed to serve the public, and like them or not, gays are part of the public, as are disabled people, people of color, etc., etc. Nobody is crying for you. Sorry. You sound like an insolent child and not at all professional. You should probably not think about opening up a business at all. You don't have what it takes.

How is a contracted service a "public accommodation"?

And I am not concerned about what I want to do, I would never deny service to basically anyone, even uptight little proto fascists like you. Unlike you, however, i don't feel the need to force my morality on others via government action.

 

[bodecea]

It's the government's job to secure our constitutional rights. ALL of us American citizens. It doesn't matter if you don't like what they do or what color they are. If they are American citizens they can shop at any store, just like anyone else.

Which is why it's so crucial to understand what rights are. There's no such thing as a right to a wedding cake. Or health care. Or anything else that demands someone else serve you. Rights are inalienable freedoms that don't depend on the service of others.

Our local and state governments DO have the right to set up the rules and regulations regarding business practices.

Governments don't have rights. People do. Governments are created by people to protect those rights.

If you feel that Public accomodation laws are wrong, what have you actively done to get them repealed?

 

[bodecea]

Our local and state governments DO have the right to set up the rules and regulations regarding business practices.

Governments don't have rights. People do. Governments are created by people to protect those rights.

They CAN set up rules and regulations regarding business practices.

Sure. They CAN set up death camps for non-compliance. But we're talking about what ought to be, about the kind of government we want. And the job of government is to protect our rights, not dictate behavior.

Ensuring that all people are treated equally when it comes to business dealings is nothing like setting up "death camps." Quit with the hyperbole and drama.

Ensuring that all people are treated equally is a fundamental violation of every person's right to choose who they associate with.

Then don't get a business license.

 

[bodecea]

They CAN set up rules and regulations regarding business practices.

Sure. They CAN set up death camps for non-compliance. But we're talking about what ought to be, about the kind of government we want. And the job of government is to protect our rights, not dictate behavior.

Ensuring that all people are treated equally when it comes to business dealings is nothing like setting up "death camps." Quit with the hyperbole and drama.

Ensuring that all people are treated equally is a fundamental violation of every person's right to choose who they associate with.

ONLY if it is applied to your personal dealings. Not when it comes to business dealings, and these laws have been established for years and years now. Sorry, you lose.

"Established" doesn't mean right. History has shown us this, over and over again. Business dealings are personal dealings.

So you don't have to follow laws on health and safety with your business dealings?

 

[ChrisL]

The law protects EVERYONE equally. Therefore, the law is not discriminatory. Some black store owner could not discriminate against me because I'm white or a female either.

Are you people really THIS fucking stupid? I find this hard to believe.

Look, you can whine, bitch and moan all day. It doesn't change the FACT that if we allowed "discriminatory business practices" it would create a HUGE cluster fuck.

It's easier to have the law apply to everyone on an equality basis, as they are recognized by law, and ignore you ignorant dummies.