Thoughts, prayers, and hate

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

No. The Christian (BTW, why always Christian? Would you be so quick to jump if it was a Muslim) is opposing the fact that they are gay. It is not the same. It is not close.

It is legally recognized as not the same. Going back more than 50 years when Christians claimed god opposed racial integration and that as Christians they had the right to refuse service to African-Americans. Or interracial couples. Or to hire Jews. The law is clear. Religion does not give one the right to ACT in a bigoted manner, although you can THINK like a bigot if you want.
I liked this but religion does give them the right to be bigots. They just can't break the law when it comes to public situations.

If a Jewish kid knocks on the door of a Christian's house he can say anti semitic things to him, he just can't do that at his business.

I was going to find a video of a young kid attacking a pastor holding one of those idiotic "god hates gays" signs to show how our rights aren't always right and wrong.

I googled it and found way more of them than I bargained for. Made me smile.
 
Yes, the right to be bigots, but not to run a business in a bigoted fashion. You can THINK all the racist or antigay thoughts you want; you can express them in public although in a work environment that is harassment. You can't refuse service based on certain characteristics. I think a number of people want to find some way of saying "I'm not really a bigot" so they cite Jesus, or gays are just like Hitler as a way around admitting facts.

What reasons are there for holding these hearings in Congress except to provide their homophobic bona fides?
 
Yes, the right to be bigots, but not to run a business in a bigoted fashion. You can THINK all the racist or antigay thoughts you want; you can express them in public although in a work environment that is harassment. You can't refuse service based on certain characteristics. I think a number of people want to find some way of saying "I'm not really a bigot" so they cite Jesus, or gays are just like Hitler as a way around admitting facts.

What reasons are there for holding these hearings in Congress except to provide their homophobic bona fides?
To keep your high paying do nothing job. Duh.
 
What reasons are there for holding these hearings in Congress except to provide their homophobic bona fides?

Exactly... As I read through your first post I wondered why we are still having to discuss and legislate giving a group the rights they are already due as American citizens.
 
Yes, the right to be bigots, but not to run a business in a bigoted fashion. You can THINK all the racist or antigay thoughts you want; you can express them in public although in a work environment that is harassment. You can't refuse service based on certain characteristics. I think a number of people want to find some way of saying "I'm not really a bigot" so they cite Jesus, or gays are just like Hitler as a way around admitting facts.

What reasons are there for holding these hearings in Congress except to provide their homophobic bona fides?
The religious folks feel the LGBT folks are forcing them to participate in the wedding. I can accept that.

The Jews have reason to be bigoted against the Nazis.

It's still denial of service based upon who the customer is.

I'm not a fan of anyone denying service, but there are two edges to the "get government to force everyone " sword.
 
Are Jewish bakers currently allowed to turn away Nazi customers just for being Nazis? I'm curious, since I can't recall this coming up.

That question aside, there's a significant difference between a defined hate group and other demographics (especially a demographic that's often targeted by hate groups). A more apt question is whether businesses should be allowed to turn away black people just because they're black. Hardcore libertarians (like Ron Paul) would say yes, but the vast majority of Western society would say no. For the same reasons (protections for a group that could be marginalized in society if such prejudices were allowed to be normalized), I'd say that gay people should also not be allowed to be turned away for goods and services, even by private sector businesses.
 
Are Jewish bakers currently allowed to turn away Nazi customers just for being Nazis? I'm curious, since I can't recall this coming up.

That question aside, there's a significant difference between a defined hate group and other demographics (especially a demographic that's often targeted by hate groups). A more apt question is whether businesses should be allowed to turn away black people just because they're black. Hardcore libertarians (like Ron Paul) would say yes, but the vast majority of Western society would say no. For the same reasons (protections for a group that could be marginalized in society if such prejudices were allowed to be normalized), I'd say that gay people should also not be allowed to be turned away for goods and services, even by private sector businesses.
The correllary is whether a black hotel owner should be forced to rent to the KKK.

As long as the hate groups aren't violating the law, you are depriving them of the same invented right as the baker/gays should enjoy.

Guilt by association is not guilt.
 
The correllary is whether a black hotel owner should be forced to rent to the KKK.

That isn't the corollary; it depends on the same assertion you've already made, that hate groups have exactly the same protections under the law as any other demographic.

The existing law is not that "everyone must be served no matter what" and the hate groups you mention are being excepted (an "imaginary right" that they're being deprived of). Businesses already have the right to refuse service to people based on all sorts of preferences (like dress codes, for example: i.e. "no shirt, no shoes, no service"). What's being discussed here is exemptions from preference-based denials for certain "protected minorities" for exactly the reason I mentioned above: without such protections, some minorities have historically been at serious risk of being unfairly marginalized in society if prejudice against them were normalized.

If you feel that there's a good case to be made that the Nazis or the KKK are the types of minorities that are at risk of being unfairly marginalized, I'd be perfectly interested to hear it.
 
The reasoning appears to be if the bakery sells to the public, they cannot refuse to sell to certain people due to their own personal convictions.

That isn't the reasoning. As I've said, businesses can already restrict service based on preference/convictions--just not certain types of preferences/convictions, exceptions which tend to include religion, race and, lately, sexuality.

Jews are a religion (and a race) so, based on this reasoning, you can't restrict service. Being a Nazi is none of the above, so I find it likely that you could restrict service based on that (though I still don't know this for certain--I've never seen an example of it one way or the other). Again, if you have a good reason why the Nazis or KKK need protections against being unfairly marginalized in society, feel free to share it.
 
Which people are bakeries allowed to deny service to?

Discrimination against Nazis is still discrimination.

If you are going to use government to deny property rights, there's an equal protection kind of requirement. We all agree that the bakers' homes have property rights you would deny to their places of business. Such as, you aren't going to require the bakers to allow gays in their homes, are you? So it is the "public" nature of the bakery that gives you some line of reasoning to deny them their 1st amendment and numerous other constitutional property rights.

As terrible as it is, the idiot bakers do have 1st amendment rights. Supporting gay person's lifestyle in any form is something they get from their religion (of peace and goodness). Baking a wedding cake is participating in the ceremony to them. Any imagry or figures illustrated on the cake are sacrilege.

The Jewish bakers are motivated by what, exactly? Certainly not 1st amendment freedom of religion.
 
Which people are bakeries allowed to deny service to?

Shoeless people, if they choose to. People who aren't annually paying members of their Cake Club, if they choose to. The default is that they can restrict services--there are exceptions to that default, and those are mostly based on religion, race, gender and sexuality.

Again, you need a good reason why Nazis should also be exceptions. The reason I laid out above for protected minorities is considered a good reason by many (but not everyone--as I said, Ron Paul would certainly disagree).
 
You choose to be a Nazi. You do not choose to be Black or gay. Last I heard Nazis were not a group facing historical and current discrimination.

Still trying to make excuses for bigotry .
 
N3S3JfW.jpg
 
You choose to be a Nazi. You do not choose to be Black or gay. Last I heard Nazis were not a group facing historical and current discrimination.

Still trying to make excuses for bigotry .

The choice or not has nothing to do with how you're going to deprive people of their property rights.

I was born without shoes and a shirt. But "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
 
Shoeless people, if they choose to. People who aren't annually paying members of their Cake Club, if they choose to. The default is that they can restrict services--there are exceptions to that default, and those are mostly based on religion, race, gender and sexuality.

Again, you need a good reason why Nazis should also be exceptions. The reason I laid out above for protected minorities is considered a good reason by many (but not everyone--as I said, Ron Paul would certainly disagree).

I gave you the ultimate reason. Equal treatment/protection under the law.

If X is given a right, so is Y. No getting around it.
 
I gave you the ultimate reason. Equal treatment/protection under the law.

If X is given a right, so is Y. No getting around it.

Doesn't work that way. The "protected minority" exceptions to certain rights are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future. They haven't been struck down as unconstitutional so there is, apparently, getting around it.
 
Doesn't work that way. The "protected minority" exceptions to certain rights are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future. They haven't been struck down as unconstitutional so there is, apparently, getting around it.

Gays have not been a "protected minority." Nor should they be.

Throwing stuff against the wall hoping something sticks?
 
Gays have not been a "protected minority." Nor should they be.

Why shouldn't they be?

They're not a protected class federally, but they are increasingly becoming one at the state level, as per actions to ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexuality and such.

In fact, hiring is a good comparison to this baker conundrum. Like bakers and denial of service, businesses have wide latitude over hiring. They can choose not to hire someone due to perceived lack of experience, prestige of the school they attended, not liking their attitude or personality in the interview, etc. But they can't choose not to hire based on various protected minority statuses. Increasingly, homosexuality is one of those. As far as I'm concerned, a bakery's denial of service does and should work the same way.
 
While you are bloviating over hypothetical Nazis being persecuted by hypothetical Jews, real people are suffering from persecution and discrimination and guess what, they are NOT Nazis.

Transpeople have used restrooms since forever but now it's the wedge issue in attacking gays generally. A survey showed in the past year, BEFORE passage of Hate Bill 2 in North Carolina, 59% of trans people have avoided using public restrooms because they feared confrontation.
12% reported that they had been attacked, harassed, or sexually assaulted in a bathroom in the past year.
31% reported having avoided eating or drinking during the previous year so that they would not need to use a restroom.
24% reported that in the previous year someone had told them they were in the wrong restroom or questioned their presence in a restroom.
9% reported being denied access to a restroom appropriate to their gender identity at some point during the previous year.
8% reported having developed a kidney or urinary tract infection during the previous year caused by avoiding restrooms.

I have yet to hear of your hypothetical persecuted Nazis getting kidney infections because they can't relieve themselves.

Jim Obergefell, of Obergefell v Hodges, testified before the Congressional committee hearing on the bigot bill. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/7/13/jim-obergefell-takes-religious-liberty-bill-congressional-hearing
His partner of 21 years, John Arthur, was dying and his dying wish was to be married, but Ohio, where they lived, did not allow it. They weren't sacred enough. John was too sick to travel commercial but generous donors equipped a medical plane so they could fly to Maryland and be married, on the plane since John was too sick to disembark. When he died shortly thereafter, Jim Obergefell was not listed as next of kin on death certificate even though they had been legally married. The state said he was an unrelated friend.

Nazis can and do get married in churches like Church of Jesus Christ Aryan (yes it exists) where they kneel, not before a regular crucifix, but before a swastika. The groom and male guests wear full Nazi replica uniforms. The marriages are legal and recognized in all states with full rights. They are sacred heterosexual marriages. The spouses are legally next of kin. Jim Obergefell and John Arthur were not so sacred.

This shit about hypothetical persecuted Nazis is like the garbage that straight men will pretend to be transgender women so they can rape little white girls in public restrooms. Hasn't happened, doesn't happen. It's shit. Flush it down the toilet. Does anyone really believe that gay people must be discriminated against in order to protect hypothetical Nazis from being persecuted by hypothetical Jews, or that transpeople need to be persecuted because straight men always run around pretending to be trans? It's shit. It's an excuse. You don't want to say flat out that gay, lesbian, bi and transgender people are lesser human beings, you want to be a bigot without being called a bigot and so you bring in Jesus, persecuted Nazis, and straight men raping girls in the ladies' room. Flush this shit down the toilet where it belongs.

Minstrel, you are a rare ray of light and you have the issues exactly right.
 
Are Jewish bakers currently allowed to turn away Nazi customers just for being Nazis? I'm curious, since I can't recall this coming up.

That question aside, there's a significant difference between a defined hate group and other demographics (especially a demographic that's often targeted by hate groups). A more apt question is whether businesses should be allowed to turn away black people just because they're black. Hardcore libertarians (like Ron Paul) would say yes, but the vast majority of Western society would say no. For the same reasons (protections for a group that could be marginalized in society if such prejudices were allowed to be normalized), I'd say that gay people should also not be allowed to be turned away for goods and services, even by private sector businesses.

I remember growing up seeing signs that said something about reserving the right not to serve anyone (or something like that). If you don't give a reason, can you just turn people away?
 
I ask that because, if a baker is going to use religious conviction to deny services to gay people wouldn't they also be able to extend that to denying services to weddings for other religions? I'm asking because I've never heard of a Christian bakery turning away a wedding cake for a Muslim ceremony. Would they have the right to do that?
 
Why shouldn't they be?

They're not a protected class federally, but they are increasingly becoming one at the state level, as per actions to ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexuality and such.

In fact, hiring is a good comparison to this baker conundrum. Like bakers and denial of service, businesses have wide latitude over hiring. They can choose not to hire someone due to perceived lack of experience, prestige of the school they attended, not liking their attitude or personality in the interview, etc. But they can't choose not to hire based on various protected minority statuses. Increasingly, homosexuality is one of those. As far as I'm concerned, a bakery's denial of service does and should work the same way.

Why shouldn't they be? Protected class is the former negro slaves. While I sympathize greatly with the struggle for civil rights for LGBT folks, they do not qualify as a protected class.

As far as I'm concerned, bakeries should deny service to liberals because they fuck up the country. See how that works? Seriously, you do have to draw the line if you're going to pick and choose who gets special invented rights. It's going to depend on who has the power to decide.

And no, I don't really want bakeries to deny service to anyone. You just haven't made a compelling case that the state should violate the constitutional right to religion of some to satisfy your agenda.
 
I ask that because, if a baker is going to use religious conviction to deny services to gay people wouldn't they also be able to extend that to denying services to weddings for other religions? I'm asking because I've never heard of a Christian bakery turning away a wedding cake for a Muslim ceremony. Would they have the right to do that?

Why shouldn't they be able to deny services to Muslims?
 
Why shouldn't they be able to deny services to Muslims?

That's what I'm asking, would they have the right? I've never heard of a lawsuit about a Christian/Muslim/etc. couple being turned away from a Muslim/Christian/etc. bakery.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top