Indiana & LGBT

digitalbeachbum's picture

 Does a business have the right to refuse you service if they know you are gay? Can they refuse your business if they know your are a murderer? Adulterer? What if you are Muslim? Long hair? Six toes? Haven't taken a bath in six weeks? What if you are from a different church or if you are from a rival college?

Why are you in business for anyway?

I heard on the radio this morning about a baseball announcer who had previously been against Jackie Robinson playing baseball. He was very vocal about it, however he changed his mind when he realized that he was there to call the games. He couldn't be bothered with the fact that Jackie Robinson was black.

Besides where in the bible does it say you don't need to provide services to others? Doesn't the bible preach kindness and love? Forgiveness? And a host of other wanna-be empathy towards others including your enemies? The ten commandments are pretty specific aren't they?

I find this stance on refusing service to others ignorant and hypocritical.

Beyond Saving's picture

Vastet wrote:I found this

Vastet wrote:
I found this while surfing the news. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/most-americans-side-with-gays-in-religious-freedom-disputes-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAaCKTi A clear majority believe there should not be such a law, which basically suggests that a clear majority would boycott any business that actually refused service to a customer based on bigotry. Meaning that such a law could not hurt anyone but the bigots.

Especially since some portion of those who oppose the laws aren't bigots, they are people who don't believe in using government force to impose their morality. Personally, I find the majority who readily accept using government force over fucking pizzas and cakes far scarier than the handful of bigots who might own bakeries or pizza joints.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Especially since some portion of those who oppose the laws aren't bigots, they are people who don't believe in using government force to impose their morality. Personally, I find the majority who readily accept using government force over fucking pizzas and cakes far scarier than the handful of bigots who might own bakeries or pizza joints.

To impose who's morality? The government doesn't have a morality does it? And where do you draw the lines for the government getting involved in the pizza and cake business?

iwbiek's picture

to me, the line is quite

to me, the line is quite simple. private businesses, regardless of their niche, should be able to choose who they will serve. if people don't like their policies, let them organize a boycott, badmouth them on the internet, or let other businesses capitalize on their competition's bad publicity. "hey, those assholes won't serve you? come on over, we will. we'll do a better job anyway." i just see no benefit in getting the government involved, further eroding our freedoms.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Especially since some portion of those who oppose the laws aren't bigots, they are people who don't believe in using government force to impose their morality. Personally, I find the majority who readily accept using government force over fucking pizzas and cakes far scarier than the handful of bigots who might own bakeries or pizza joints.

To impose who's morality? The government doesn't have a morality does it? And where do you draw the lines for the government getting involved in the pizza and cake business?

An opposition to bigotry, is purely a moral position, supporting a law outlawing or restricting it is using government to enforce your morality, which is just a different side of the same coin as when government enacted Jim Crow laws to force businesses to be bigoted. The only difference is that a different morality is now the majority. 

Outside of enforcing laws against theft, fraud and violence, I don't think government should have jack shit to do with a pizza company and I'm not even entirely confident that government is the best solution for those problems either. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Vastet's picture

I agree. Federal governments

I agree. Federal governments are way too powerful these days as it is. All this invasion of privacy bs shouldn't even be possible, and I don't care what they say to justify it. As things are right now, all the necessary tools are already in place to make 1984 a reality. All that is necessary is a prick with the intent to use it that way. I shudder to think what would have happened if McCarthy had access to today's technology.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:I agree.

Vastet wrote:
I agree. Federal governments are way too powerful these days as it is. All this invasion of privacy bs shouldn't even be possible, and I don't care what they say to justify it. As things are right now, all the necessary tools are already in place to make 1984 a reality. All that is necessary is a prick with the intent to use it that way. I shudder to think what would have happened if McCarthy had access to today's technology.

I was shocked that no one planted evidence on McCarthy back then to make him seem like a Red.

Vastet's picture

I'd bet big bucks he thought

I'd bet big bucks he thought of that possibility and took steps to ensure any such attempt would fail.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Antipatris's picture

  

 

Yup, the law got "fixed" because of the backlash, which seems okay with all of you. (I'm assuming. It's so damn hard to tell sometimes)

And there's still freedom to discriminate, no worries. After all, how are the gays going to afford all those cakes and pizzas (lol ! how silly!), when they're fired for existing ?

Everybody got something. Yay.

 

Vastet's picture

Being fired is quite

Being fired is quite different than being refused service, and people are protected from it by law. You're reaching big time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Beyond Saving's picture

 Why would anyone,

 Why would anyone, especially a gay person, want to work for a bigot? 

Antipatris's picture

Vastet wrote:Being fired is

Vastet wrote:
Being fired is quite different than being refused service, and people are protected from it by law. You're reaching big time.

Yeah, it's different, but the "reasoning" behind it is the same, and protected by law kinda depends on where you live.

www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp

Would be interested in seeing an updated version.

 

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving wrote: Why

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Why would anyone, especially a gay person, want to work for a bigot? 

 

And why would the bigot even hire them in the first place ?

I dunno, man. Maybe gay people need money for cake and pizza. Maybe the economy sucks and they don't get to choose who to work for.

Maybe they only find out their boss is a bigot after they put a picture of their spouse on their desk.

 

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote: Why

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Why would anyone, especially a gay person, want to work for a bigot? 

gobs of money?

another step up the ladder in their field?

Vastet's picture

Antipatris wrote:Vastet

Antipatris wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Being fired is quite different than being refused service, and people are protected from it by law. You're reaching big time.

Yeah, it's different, but the "reasoning" behind it is the same, and protected by law kinda depends on where you live.

www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp

Would be interested in seeing an updated version.

 

Americans...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

iwbiek's picture

Antipatris wrote:Beyond

Antipatris wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Why would anyone, especially a gay person, want to work for a bigot? 

 

And why would the bigot even hire them in the first place ?

I dunno, man. Maybe gay people need money for cake and pizza. Maybe the economy sucks and they don't get to choose who to work for.

Maybe they only find out their boss is a bigot after they put a picture of their spouse on their desk.

 




everybody gets to choose who they fucking work for, ever since the 13th amendment passed.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

Antipatris wrote:And why

Antipatris wrote:

And why would the bigot even hire them in the first place ?

Either they wouldn't or they overlook their bigotry voluntarily for financial gain, in which case, why do you need a law?

 

Quote:

I dunno, man. Maybe gay people need money for cake and pizza. Maybe the economy sucks and they don't get to choose who to work for.

If you are willing to compromise your principles for a few bucks you're a greedy shit. I don't see why the government should support greedy shits, especially ones that support bigotry.

 

Quote:

Maybe they only find out their boss is a bigot after they put a picture of their spouse on their desk.

 

Perhaps, but that just brings you back to the hiring question. An employer can come up with hundreds of legitimate reasons to fire anyone or make their work life miserable enough they quit. Either they do, so why work for them, or they don't so why do we need a law guaranteed to cause may lawsuits when gay employees are fired for legitimate non bigoted reasons (some gays are actually terrible workers), determining the difference fairly in a court is impossible to do consistently. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Antipatris's picture

Vastet wrote: Americans...I

Vastet wrote:
Americans...

I know, right ? 

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Either

Beyond Saving wrote:
Either they wouldn't or they overlook their bigotry voluntarily for financial gain, in which case, why do you need a law?

Yeah, I know that. I thought we were doing painfully obvious rhetorical questions. Such as, why do you need a law that protects you from being fired for no other reason than someone's chosen interpretation of an ancient religious text ?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you are willing to compromise your principles for a few bucks you're a greedy shit. I don't see why the government should support greedy shits, especially ones that support bigotry.

Wait, what ? People are "greedy shits" because they'd like to be able to pay their bills and support their families ? And who's supporting bigotry here ??

You know, I'll freely admit my sarcasm can sometimes make it easy to misunderstand where I'm coming from, but can we at least agree that this whole "religious freedom" crap is bullshit ?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Perhaps, but that just brings you back to the hiring question. An employer can come up with hundreds of legitimate reasons to fire anyone or make their work life miserable enough they quit. Either they do, so why work for them, or they don't so why do we need a law guaranteed to cause may lawsuits when gay employees are fired for legitimate non bigoted reasons (some gays are actually terrible workers), determining the difference fairly in a court is impossible to do consistently. 

Actually, I was kinda hoping it would finally bring us to the fact that picking on gays is huge waste of time and energy for everyone involved. The reason why they do it anyway is probably the only thing we'd agree on, but for some reason, that always gets ignored.

"Impossible to determine the difference fairly and consistently" ? That's the real problem here ? I don't fucking think so.

Seriously, why not focus on what causes this mess in the first place ?

Antipatris's picture

iwbiek wrote: everybody gets

iwbiek wrote:

everybody gets to choose who they fucking work for, ever since the 13th amendment passed.

Yup, life is simple like that.

iwbiek's picture

Antipatris wrote:iwbiek

Antipatris wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

everybody gets to choose who they fucking work for, ever since the 13th amendment passed.

Yup, life is simple like that.

and that, children, is known as a gap in logic. in this case done for emotional effect.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

Antipatris wrote:Yeah, I

Antipatris wrote:

Yeah, I know that. I thought we were doing painfully obvious rhetorical questions. Such as, why do you need a law that protects you from being fired for no other reason than someone's chosen interpretation of an ancient religious text ?

We don't. Anyone ought to be allowed to fire anyone for any reason they damn well please. (And anyone ought to be allowed to quit any job for any reason they damn well please). It isn't your business, my business or society's business to determine if the reason was a good one or bad one. 

 

Quote:

Wait, what ? People are "greedy shits" because they'd like to be able to pay their bills and support their families ? And who's supporting bigotry here ??

Yes, if you are willing to work for an immoral company just to make money, you are a greedy shit. And if you work for a bigot, you are supporting their bigotry by rewarding it with profit. I wouldn't go into business with a bigot, even if it gave me the prospect of making a lot of money, I don't even like being a customer to bigots- hence why I would prefer them to let their bigotry be public. Maybe you are cool working for a bigot if it is easier and more profitable, that is your business, but yeah, that makes you greedy in the sense that you put making a few bucks ahead of your personal morality.  

 

Quote:

You know, I'll freely admit my sarcasm can sometimes make it easy to misunderstand where I'm coming from, but can we at least agree that this whole "religious freedom" crap is bullshit ?

 

Sure, everyone should be free to discriminate, not just the religious.

 

Quote:

Actually, I was kinda hoping it would finally bring us to the fact that picking on gays is huge waste of time and energy for everyone involved. The reason why they do it anyway is probably the only thing we'd agree on, but for some reason, that always gets ignored.

And those people aren't going anywhere. Using government force isn't going to change that. There is no law you can ever pass to eliminate or even reduce bigotry. If anything, I suggest that anti-bigotry laws actually increase bigotry because it creates an "us vs them" attitude. It actually gives bigots a sympathetic leg to stand on and allows them to feel righteous in their attitudes. The speed with which anti-gay attitudes have gone from the norm in the 70s to a large and aging minority today despite very few gay friendly laws (and a few anti-gay ones DOMA for example) is a testament that we don't need to use government police power to force it. Like virtually every minority before them, the hardest hurdles to overcome for gay rights has been laws, laws that never should have existed in the first place. 

 

Quote:

"Impossible to determine the difference fairly and consistently" ? That's the real problem here ? I don't fucking think so.

Seriously, why not focus on what causes this mess in the first place ?

Yes, that is a serious problem. Inevitably, when you pass an anti-discrimination law there are going to be complaints and some of them are going to be bullshit. That is how you end up with a Cabbie getting fined $10,000 after getting stiffed on his fare because he offended a couple of women. We can deal with bigotry without getting government and the inevitable unintended consequences involved. All one has to do is take a look at protected minority unemployment rates to see that at best, anti-discrimination laws have done nothing to improve the employment levels of protected minorities.

Many studies have actually asserted that laws such as the ADA caused increases in unemployment rates and some studies of anti-discrimination laws on black unemployment rates have suggested the same thing. It is disputable though, because unemployment is pretty difficult to accurately track (especially when dealing with older numbers) and there are too many noise variables involved to confidently say that it has a negative effect. Anecdotally, as a person who has been in positions of hiring and firing employees, anyone who hires regularly at least has the passing thought of the potential difficulty of firing someone in a protected class before hiring them. If they don't, they sure as hell do the first time they have a complaint filed against their company. It follows basic economic theory that if you make it financially riskier to hire a class of people, that fewer people in that class will be hired, on top of whatever personal discrimination exists.

I am focussing on what causes the mess in the first place. Statists who think that government is an acceptable vehicle to enforce their particular morality. If government wasn't used as a tool to enforce anti-gay morality with laws that banned sodomy, decency laws used to prosecute cross dressers, laws that define marriage etc. the gay rights movement would have had a much easier time. While my personal morality falls in line with the gay rights crowd, I don't think it is any more right for them to pass laws forcing their morality than for Christnuts to pass laws forcing theirs. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

iwbiek's picture

hear, hear.

hear, hear.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am focussing on what causes the mess in the first place. Statists who think that government is an acceptable vehicle to enforce their particular morality. If government wasn't used as a tool to enforce anti-gay morality with laws that banned sodomy, decency laws used to prosecute cross dressers, laws that define marriage etc. the gay rights movement would have had a much easier time. While my personal morality falls in line with the gay rights crowd, I don't think it is any more right for them to pass laws forcing their morality than for Christnuts to pass laws forcing theirs. 

 

                                                    For mosts statists to be let off the  leash is a frightening prospect.  

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Vastet's picture

Much like with most

Much like with most anarchists, the average statist doesn't think things through. They don't appreciate the danger that can result from giving federal governments carte blanche authority.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Antipatris's picture

iwbiek wrote:Antipatris

iwbiek wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

everybody gets to choose who they fucking work for, ever since the 13th amendment passed.

Yup, life is simple like that.

and that, children, is known as a gap in logic. in this case done for emotional effect.

Actually, it's known as reality, something I should really stop bringing up on the internet.

iwbiek wrote:
hear,hear

Aww shucks...

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:We

Beyond Saving wrote:
We don't. Anyone ought to be allowed to fire anyone for any reason they damn well please. (And anyone ought to be allowed to quit any job for any reason they damn well please). It isn't your business, my business or society's business to determine if the reason was a good one or bad one. 

No such thing as wrongful termination. Okay.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yes, if you are willing to work for an immoral company just to make money, you are a greedy shit. And if you work for a bigot, you are supporting their bigotry by rewarding it with profit. I wouldn't go into business with a bigot, even if it gave me the prospect of making a lot of money, I don't even like being a customer to bigots- hence why I would prefer them to let their bigotry be public. Maybe you are cool working for a bigot if it is easier and more profitable, that is your business, but yeah, that makes you greedy in the sense that you put making a few bucks ahead of your personal morality.  

I didn't say "just to make money", but that doesn't seem to get through.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Sure, everyone should be free to discriminate, not just the religious.

And pretty much everyone seems to have given up explaining to people just exactly why this is a damn stupid thing to do. Too much hard work, I'm guessing.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
And those people aren't going anywhere. Using government force isn't going to change that. There is no law you can ever pass to eliminate or even reduce bigotry. If anything, I suggest that anti-bigotry laws actually increase bigotry because it creates an "us vs them" attitude. It actually gives bigots a sympathetic leg to stand on and allows them to feel righteous in their attitudes. The speed with which anti-gay attitudes have gone from the norm in the 70s to a large and aging minority today despite very few gay friendly laws (and a few anti-gay ones DOMA for example) is a testament that we don't need to use government police power to force it. Like virtually every minority before them, the hardest hurdles to overcome for gay rights has been laws, laws that never should have existed in the first place.

The "us vs them" was already there before people started pushing back. And I'm pretty sure the government was still needed to decriminalize homosexuality in the first place.

But I agree this kind of crap is a win-win for the bigots. We just disagree about why that happens.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yes, that is a serious problem. Inevitably, when you pass an anti-discrimination law there are going to be complaints and some of them are going to be bullshit. That is how you end up with a Cabbie getting fined $10,000 after getting stiffed on his fare because he offended a couple of women. We can deal with bigotry without getting government and the inevitable unintended consequences involved. All one has to do is take a look at protected minority unemployment rates to see that at best, anti-discrimination laws have done nothing to improve the employment levels of protected minorities.

Sure, we can deal with it without government involvement. But it would appear that we can't be bothered.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Many studies have actually asserted that laws such as the ADA caused increases in unemployment rates and some studies of anti-discrimination laws on black unemployment rates have suggested the same thing. It is disputable though, because unemployment is pretty difficult to accurately track (especially when dealing with older numbers) and there are too many noise variables involved to confidently say that it has a negative effect. Anecdotally, as a person who has been in positions of hiring and firing employees, anyone who hires regularly at least has the passing thought of the potential difficulty of firing someone in a protected class before hiring them. If they don't, they sure as hell do the first time they have a complaint filed against their company. It follows basic economic theory that if you make it financially riskier to hire a class of people, that fewer people in that class will be hired, on top of whatever personal discrimination exists.

That explains your stance on wrongful termination, but again, the problem sure as hell wasn't solving itself.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am focussing on what causes the mess in the first place.

That would be the people who keep pushing this discrimination shit for supernatural or other bullshit reasons.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Statists who think that government is an acceptable vehicle to enforce their particular morality. If government wasn't used as a tool to enforce anti-gay morality with laws that banned sodomy, decency laws used to prosecute cross dressers, laws that define marriage etc. the gay rights movement would have had a much easier time. While my personal morality falls in line with the gay rights crowd, I don't think it is any more right for them to pass laws forcing their morality than for Christnuts to pass laws forcing theirs. 

Right. Passing "morality" laws= bad, abolishing those laws=no problem.

 

 

 

Vastet's picture

Laws involving

Laws involving discrimination are one thing, laws against wrongful dismissal are quite another. There is too much potential for abuse. It's the same reason statutory rape is illegal. One person (employer/adult) has all the power, and the other (employee/child) has none.
The argument that you shouldn't want to work for someone who would abuse their position is failing to account for the unemployment rate and the fact that low skilled service sector jobs are the vast majority of jobs on this continent.
Without protection against wrongful dismissal, a person who has held a job for decades and earned wages and benefits above par can be let go just because some new manager doesn't like their hair colour.
The employer loses nothing, there's thousands of applicants just waiting for the opportunity to work. There's no risk.
The employee loses everything, and without the law has no recourse. The disparity in power necessitates laws protecting the employee.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Antipatris's picture

Seem to have used up my

Seem to have used up my comment edits correcting typos, so I'm just doing this here :

Beyond Saving wrote:
Statists who think that government is an acceptable vehicle to enforce their particular morality. If government wasn't used as a tool to enforce anti-gay morality with laws that banned sodomy, decency laws used to prosecute cross dressers, laws that define marriage etc. the gay rights movement would have had a much easier time. While my personal morality falls in line with the gay rights crowd, I don't think it is any more right for them to pass laws forcing their morality than for Christnuts to pass laws forcing theirs. 

Right. Passing morality laws= bad, abolishing those laws guided by our own morality=no problem.

Bitching about government not being the way to solve this, is to ignore that fact that it got to this point, because we failed to do something about it ourselves.

 

 

Beyond Saving's picture

Antipatris wrote:I didn't

Antipatris wrote:

I didn't say "just to make money", but that doesn't seem to get through.

You said they work for bigots to be able to "pay their bills and support their families", what are they getting from employment to do that other than money? 

 

Quote:

And pretty much everyone seems to have given up explaining to people just exactly why this is a damn stupid thing to do. Too much hard work, I'm guessing.

 

Really? Seems to me that people have been screaming about it quite a bit. People flipped out because a reporter asked a hypothetical question to a pizza joint if they would cater a gay wedding; who the hell asks ANY pizza joint to cater their wedding? What the hell kind of pizza joint caters? Who the hell even bothers telling a pizza joint what event you are ordering the pizza for? You order from the damn pick up window and carry the pizzas to whatever event you want, if that is a huge gay orgy (a much more likely venue for pizza than a wedding), there is no reason the pizza place even needs to know about it. If you get delivery, do you seriously believe that the delivery guy is going to refuse to hand over the pizzas because he/she notices they are at a gay wedding reception? The whole question is absurd, it was asked to make a political point, and it drew out an answer that was intended to make a political point (instead of the obvious answer that a pizza joint would probably give a real customer "we don't cater dumb ass, do you want delivery or pick up?&quotEye-wink

Yet despite the fact that no actual discrimination occurred, the whole country got their panties in a twist over some bigoted comments, to the point that the restaurant actually shut down until every nut in the country that Limbaugh and Beck could rally donated money. Suppose that people simply tweeted every time an actual place refused to cater a gay wedding, do you think that the nuts are going to donate from around the country to keep each one afloat? I'm guessing that they will probably get sick of paying pizza joints and not getting any pizza, but if they want to pay them for nothing, who cares?

Now people want laws to make it illegal to refuse customers on the basis of sexual orientation, and those laws have a large majority of support in every poll done. Unless you watch Fox News 24/7, I don't know where you are seeing this "everyone".

 

Quote:

The "us vs them" was already there before people started pushing back. And I'm pretty sure the government was still needed to decriminalize homosexuality in the first place.

Government is needed to decriminalize? Something is only criminal if a government criminalizes it in the first place. That is like saying a murderer is needed to stop murder. Criminalizing bigotry isn't a solution and doesn't eliminate bigotry any more than criminalizing homosexuality eliminated homosexuality. 

 

 

Quote:

Sure, we can deal with it without government involvement. But it would appear that we can't be bothered.

 

Do you remember the 00's? 90's? The 80's? The 70's? The LGBT movement has been extremely active and remarkably successful at shifting cultural views. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Beyond Saving's picture

 It is also pertinent to

 It is also pertinent to note that the law as it was before it was modified didn't necessarily give free reign for anyone to discriminate. What it did was instruct courts to use the Sherbert test (also known as "strict scrutiny&quotEye-wink when faced with a conflict between the law and a person's religion. Laws from the federal government already must pass the Sherbert test, it wasn't until the 1990 in Oregon vs. Smith that the Court ruled laws passed by the state did not have to pass the test.

The Sherbert test has three prongs- first the court must determine if a person's free exercise of religion has been burdened. However, it doesn't ban all infringements. The court then needs to determine if the government has a compelling interest that justifies the infringement. If there is, whether the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest- IOW is there a way the government could achieve their compelling interest without infringing on religious rights.

So if the government can demonstrate a compelling interest, and show that its law doesn't infringe on religious freedoms any more than needed to achieve that interest, it can enforce those laws. In the hypothetical scenario of a company refusing to serve a gay customer and a local government that has an anti-discrimination ordinance/law, the law wouldn't necessarily shield the company. The Supreme Court has made it VERY clear that preventing discrimination IS a compelling state interest in numerous court cases involving racial, religious, age, gender, veteran status and other forms of discrimination. In the most recent application of the Sherbert test the Supreme Court went out of its way to reiterate that discrimination is not protected. (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby)

Alito (emphasis mine) wrote:

(2) The Government has failed to satisfy RFRA’s least-restrictive-means standard. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests. Pp. 40–45.

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252 , which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate.

It is highly unlikely that they would treat discrimination based on sexual orientation any differently.

So all the government would have to do is show that the law is narrowly tailored to prevent discrimination and there is no less restrictive means to do so. Pretty easy to do when the other side is arguing that the nature of the infringement is that it doesn't allow them to discriminate. In cases of employment, the courts would almost certainly rule the same way they have in racial discrimination cases, no matter how much the Xnut bigots might pray otherwise.

In cases of serving something to customers, there is far less case law to rely on, so that might be up in the air. So far, every case that has occurred at lower levels has ruled in favor of enforcing discrimination laws, but I don't believe that any of the judges applied the Sherbert test. I don't think it is even certain that courts will see doing something like baking a cake or selling flowers to a gay couple getting married as an infringement on religion. That is a pretty large stretch if you ask me. Maybe if the couple actually wanted the person to be physically present during the ceremony, that might realistically constitute an infringment, but just asking for a cake that has two grooms or two brides, I have a hard time seeing that as an infringement on religious exercise and I tend to be far more biased towards seeing infringements on rights than courts. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:You said

Beyond Saving wrote:
You said they work for bigots to be able to "pay their bills and support their families", what are they getting from employment to do that other than money?

Still not getting how that's "greedy".

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Really? Seems to me that people have been screaming about it quite a bit. People flipped out because a reporter asked a hypothetical question to a pizza joint if they would cater a gay wedding; who the hell asks ANY pizza joint to cater their wedding? What the hell kind of pizza joint caters? Who the hell even bothers telling a pizza joint what event you are ordering the pizza for? You order from the damn pick up window and carry the pizzas to whatever event you want, if that is a huge gay orgy (a much more likely venue for pizza than a wedding), there is no reason the pizza place even needs to know about it. If you get delivery, do you seriously believe that the delivery guy is going to refuse to hand over the pizzas because he/she notices they are at a gay wedding reception? The whole question is absurd, it was asked to make a political point, and it drew out an answer that was intended to make a political point (instead of the obvious answer that a pizza joint would probably give a real customer "we don't cater dumb ass, do you want delivery or pick up?&quotEye-wink

Yet despite the fact that no actual discrimination occurred, the whole country got their panties in a twist over some bigoted comments, to the point that the restaurant actually shut down until every nut in the country that Limbaugh and Beck could rally donated money. Suppose that people simply tweeted every time an actual place refused to cater a gay wedding, do you think that the nuts are going to donate from around the country to keep each one afloat? I'm guessing that they will probably get sick of paying pizza joints and not getting any pizza, but if they want to pay them for nothing, who cares?

Now people want laws to make it illegal to refuse customers on the basis of sexual orientation, and those laws have a large majority of support in every poll done. Unless you watch Fox News 24/7, I don't know where you are seeing this "everyone".

Yes, really. Asking people stupid, "political" questions has jack shit to do with why this whole clusterfuck makes no sense in the first place.

And I'm getting "everyone" from how conversations like this always degenerate in irrelevant bickering, which is exactly where bigots want it to go and stay.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Government is needed to decriminalize? Something is only criminal if a government criminalizes it in the first place.

Reversing that process somehow doesn't involve the government ?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Criminalizing bigotry isn't a solution and doesn't eliminate bigotry any more than criminalizing homosexuality eliminated homosexuality.

For fucks sake, I know that. I'm saying that it only gets to this point when we already failed to solve this any other way, which makes bitching about the government a waste of time. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Do you remember the 00's? 90's? The 80's? The 70's? The LGBT movement has been extremely active and remarkably successful at shifting cultural views. 

It's going to take another couple of decades.

 

 

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving wrote: That is

Beyond Saving wrote:
That is a pretty large stretch if you ask me. 

Fair point, but think of how far they had to stretch to even dream up this law in the first place.

Beyond Saving's picture

Antipatris wrote:Beyond

Antipatris wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
You said they work for bigots to be able to "pay their bills and support their families", what are they getting from employment to do that other than money?

Still not getting how that's "greedy".

What could be more greedy than being willing to sacrifice your core principles for pay?

 

Quote:

Yes, really. Asking people stupid, "political" questions has jack shit to do with why this whole clusterfuck makes no sense in the first place.

And I'm getting "everyone" from how conversations like this always degenerate in irrelevant bickering, which is exactly where bigots want it to go and stay.

I think whether or not a business has the freedom to refuse service to customers is highly relevant. Economic interactions account for the vast majority of relationships we have in our society. When government makes a decision that affects or influences those relationships, it is kinda a big deal.   

 

Quote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Government is needed to decriminalize? Something is only criminal if a government criminalizes it in the first place.

Reversing that process somehow doesn't involve the government ?

 

Well no. If the government disappeared overnight, their laws would cease to exist. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Criminalizing bigotry isn't a solution and doesn't eliminate bigotry any more than criminalizing homosexuality eliminated homosexuality.

For fucks sake, I know that. I'm saying that it only gets to this point when we already failed to solve this any other way, which makes bitching about the government a waste of time. 

If peaceful methods have failed, exactly why are bigots in the minority now when they were a decisive majority a mere 40 years ago?

 

 

Quote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Do you remember the 00's? 90's? The 80's? The 70's? The LGBT movement has been extremely active and remarkably successful at shifting cultural views. 

It's going to take another couple of decades.

Quite possibly. Social change takes time. So what? Just because peaceful persuasion takes too long for your taste, we should resort to using government coercion? You want what you want, and you want it now. If you can't persuade people instantly with argument, you are willing to resort to exercising police power in an attempt to force people to do what you want. Despite the reality that forcing businesses to serve at gay weddings or giving them extra legal protection from being fired does absolutely nothing to achieve your goal of ending bigotry. And I would argue actually prolongs it, achieving the exact opposite of what you are trying to.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

iwbiek's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Quite

Beyond Saving wrote:
Quite possibly. Social change takes time. So what? Just because peaceful persuasion takes too long for your taste, we should resort to using government coercion? You want what you want, and you want it now. If you can't persuade people instantly with argument, you are willing to resort to exercising police power in an attempt to force people to do what you want. Despite the reality that forcing businesses to serve at gay weddings or giving them extra legal protection from being fired does absolutely nothing to achieve your goal of ending bigotry. And I would argue actually prolongs it, achieving the exact opposite of what you are trying to.



spot on.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson