business discrimination, nutjob Christians, and fabulous gays...

[AndroidAggie]

what i do get:

 

- protected classes and the 14th amendment (or is that 14th article of faith?  i always get those two mixed up)  if you're going to do business in America, you better do it with anyone and everyone irrespective of class/race/religion/creed/color

- wanting to ensure that real, life necessary services such as lodging, housing, food, medical care, etc... is not denied to anyone for (any? dumb?) reasons

 

what i don't get:

 

those who are opposed seem to think that there is no valid reason for denying business to a customer based their choice as a result of their homosexuality.  as such, i feel that those opposed to, for example, the indiana law, conflate the apparently innate homosexual nature with the choice to get married.  i think it is wrong to refrain from selling a thing to a gay guy because he is gay.  i do not think it is wrong to refrain from selling a non-life necessary service/widget to a gay couple because they have chosen to get married.  especially, as this example highlights, when that service/widget can be reasonably interpreted as a tacit participation/endorsement in an event that i morally oppose.

 

at least, i see that there's a difference.  but it seems this is not a commonly shared notion.  quite the contrary, it feels like people think i'm inherently wrong, preparing the way to go back to jim crow, etc... like we're operating with two very different frameworks of how to judge ethics and morals.

 

have i got it correctly?  there is no space for disagreement on this point?

 

disclaimer 1: i can't believe i feel compelled to say this, but i am vehemently opposed to retribution or punitive action against lgbtq's.  i recognize them as children of God who naturally deserve my love, respect, and friendship until such a time as they do something to squander it.  in that case, they themselves would be personally on the hook for their actions and my personal relationship with them would be poisoned; not on account of their sexual orientation or even their lifestyle.  iow i'm not looking for reasons to dump on someone just because i morally judge their lifestyle and choice to be wrong.

 

disclaimer 2: i am going against my own wisdom in posting this, as i'm kinda tired of the gay marriage fight.  i still think marriage is firstly about union of spouses and closely in second inextricably linked to childrearing and being a family unit as it exists in the fabric of society.  i oppose gay marriage only for moral and religious reasons (which are understandably not welcome in the laïque sector - a sort of common denominator from whence diverse people may unite in order to govern themselves in peace), but also because i feel children have a right to a mother and a father.  our biology requires the balance, imo so does the social rearing of children.  despite all that, i accept gay marriage as the reality of the times.  the game's over.  within 5-10 years it'll be the law of the land and i will go on living my life and trying to live and let live inasmuch as possible.

[AndroidAggie]

tl;dr: android hates gays and wants to murder them for being too fabulous

[East Coast Aztec]

tl;dr: android hates gays and wants to murder them for being too fabulous

If you  are mad because they rock matching velour track suits better  than you and yours, yes, you's a hater.  The karma god is going to turn 3/5 of your children gay, 1 to enjoy BBC, and the fifthe will be to your standard, to show the stark contrast between them.

 

Prayers sent, AA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That said, my opinion is that people should be protected from discrimination from things they have no control over.  Since gay is such a gray area as to choice or born-as-is, it is the PC motion to lump them in.  I don't think people's choices should be protected (ie, dress code, rudeness, espousing political or religious beliefs, public displays of affection, etc).  A warning and then the boot should be the prerogative of the business owner, at their risk of business loss.

[HR_Poke]

I think it's a knee jerk reaction to how litigious our society has become. I think businesses should be able to refuse service but should face the public consequences if they do. If you are a baker and won't make a cake for a hat wedding then fine, but then you reap the ramifications of bad publicity. All lawsuits do is earn lawyers a ton of money and make business owners smarter in how they choose to discriminate.

[renoskier]

This place can be very informative; word for the day:

 

1. Laïcité is currently a core concept in the French constitution, Article 1 of which formally states that France is a secular republic ("La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.")

 

 

Thanks AA, and good post.

[happycamper]

what i do get:

 

- protected classes and the 14th amendment (or is that 14th article of faith?  i always get those two mixed up)  if you're going to do business in America, you better do it with anyone and everyone irrespective of class/race/religion/creed/color

- wanting to ensure that real, life necessary services such as lodging, housing, food, medical care, etc... is not denied to anyone for (any? dumb?) reasons

 

what i don't get:

 

those who are opposed seem to think that there is no valid reason for denying business to a customer based their choice as a result of their homosexuality.  as such, i feel that those opposed to, for example, the indiana law, conflate the apparently innate homosexual nature with the choice to get married.  i think it is wrong to refrain from selling a thing to a gay guy because he is gay.  i do not think it is wrong to refrain from selling a non-life necessary service/widget to a gay couple because they have chosen to get married.  especially, as this example highlights, when that service/widget can be reasonably interpreted as a tacit participation/endorsement in an event that i morally oppose.

 

at least, i see that there's a difference.  but it seems this is not a commonly shared notion.  quite the contrary, it feels like people think i'm inherently wrong, preparing the way to go back to jim crow, etc... like we're operating with two very different frameworks of how to judge ethics and morals.

 

have i got it correctly?  there is no space for disagreement on this point?

 

disclaimer 1: i can't believe i feel compelled to say this, but i am vehemently opposed to retribution or punitive action against lgbtq's.  i recognize them as children of God who naturally deserve my love, respect, and friendship until such a time as they do something to squander it.  in that case, they themselves would be personally on the hook for their actions and my personal relationship with them would be poisoned; not on account of their sexual orientation or even their lifestyle.  iow i'm not looking for reasons to dump on someone just because i morally judge their lifestyle and choice to be wrong.

 

disclaimer 2: i am going against my own wisdom in posting this, as i'm kinda tired of the gay marriage fight.  i still think marriage is firstly about union of spouses and closely in second inextricably linked to childrearing and being a family unit as it exists in the fabric of society.  i oppose gay marriage only for moral and religious reasons (which are understandably not welcome in the laïque sector - a sort of common denominator from whence diverse people may unite in order to govern themselves in peace), but also because i feel children have a right to a mother and a father.  our biology requires the balance, imo so does the social rearing of children.  despite all that, i accept gay marriage as the reality of the times.  the game's over.  within 5-10 years it'll be the law of the land and i will go on living my life and trying to live and let live inasmuch as possible.

I think today marriage is as much about securing existing people's economic security as it is the next generation's. I also think that the difference between two primary caregivers and one is much larger than the difference between a man and a woman primary caregiver and two same sex primary caregivers. 

 

Finally, there are so many religions that get married in this country with such differing rules that I think it is reasonable to have the government just say that marriage is the union of two persons of the age of majority and let the many churches decide what they recognize and don't. I mean, Catholicism does not recognize marriage between two people who are incapable of having sex. If your spouse breaks their back, sorry, your marriage is invalid. Other religions have specific criteria for when divorce is acceptable, etc. Cast a wide net for as many citizens as possible and then let them sort out morality in their own community. 

[THEUniversityofNevada]

It's a sticky wicket. As ECA pointed out. It's difficult to hold religious freedom over individual rights when the exercise of those religious freedoms discriminates against a class of people. The argument then inevitably falls back on whether sexual orientation is a "choice." If it's not choice, then you can't discriminate on that basis.

We'll run ourselves around in circles arguing whether science has concluded sexual orientation is a choice. For me, it comes down to a simple thought experiment, "Did I wake up one day and decide I was attracted to members of the opposite sex?" The answer's no and I'd venture a guess that would be true of 99.9999% of people you ask.

However, there's no (ok, minuscule) doubt gender isn't a choice and the T in LBGT stands for transgender and it includes people who are, without a doubt, born something different from male or female. If they are born that way, how is it legal to deny them any more than you could deny an interracial couple.

I think, just as there are limits to the freedom of speech, there are limits to religious freedom.

[AndroidAggie]

It's a sticky wicket. As ECA pointed out. It's difficult to hold religious freedom over individual rights when the exercise of those religious freedoms discriminates against a class of people. The argument then inevitably falls back on whether sexual orientation is a "choice." If it's not choice, then you can't discriminate on that basis.

We'll run ourselves around in circles arguing whether science has concluded sexual orientation is a choice. For me, it comes down to a simple thought experiment, "Did I wake up one day and decide I was attracted to members of the opposite sex?" The answer's no and I'd venture a guess that would be true of 99.9999% of people you ask.

However, there's no (ok, minuscule) doubt gender isn't a choice and the T in LBGT stands for transgender and it includes people who are, without a doubt, born something different from male or female. If they are born that way, how is it legal to deny them any more than you could deny an interracial couple.

I think, just as there are limits to the freedom of speech, there are limits to religious freedom.

 

I'm not trying to argue that 'being gay' is a choice.  if that's what you got from my post, then we need to start over.

 

The bold part is what I'm getting at - you seem to begin your post with the idea/assumption/moral decision that to deny a service or widget in the support of something like gay marraige is textbook discrimination.

 

Do I understand you properly?

 

In the event I do understand properly, then I hope to further illustrate my point here:

 

Scenario 1:

You two are gay so I won't rent to you.

Wrong because you can't deny a service - a life necessary service, what's more - because someone's gay.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 2:

I won't sell you this iphone because you are gay.

Wrong because you can't deny a product, even one that's not necessary, simply because you disagree with the guy's lifestyle or think it's morally wrong.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 3:

I decline to sell you a wedding cake because I disagree with gay marriage.

Admissible, because I feel that tacit participation in gay marriage is tantamount to endorsement and this is not something I'm willing to do.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

[AndroidAggie]

my takeaway from this is that the country, laws, and judges have spoken:  if you don't want to be caught in a position where you'd be endorsing/supporting gay marriage, don't get in the business that would put you there.

 

i find that unfortunate.

[East Coast Aztec]

I'm not trying to argue that 'being gay' is a choice.  if that's what you got from my post, then we need to start over.

 

The bold part is what I'm getting at - you seem to begin your post with the idea/assumption/moral decision that to deny a service or widget in the support of something like gay marraige is textbook discrimination.

 

Do I understand you properly?

 

In the event I do understand properly, then I hope to further illustrate my point here:

 

Scenario 1:

You two are gay so I won't rent to you.

Wrong because you can't deny a service - a life necessary service, what's more - because someone's gay.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 2:

I won't sell you this iphone because you are gay.

Wrong because you can't deny a product, even one that's not necessary, simply because you disagree with the guy's lifestyle or think it's morally wrong.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 3:

I decline to sell you a wedding cake because I disagree with gay marriage.

Admissible, because I feel that tacit participation in gay marriage is tantamount to endorsement and this is not something I'm willing to do.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

I think you and I are around the same page.  Although I don't care if gays want to marry, so I personally would sell them a cake.  I think Scenario 3 is business prerogative.

[HR_Poke]

I think you and I are around the same page. Although I don't care if gays want to marry, so I personally would sell them a cake. I think Scenario 3 is business prerogative.

my question is would you really want someone participating in your wedding if they didn't want to do it?

[East Coast Aztec]

my question is would you really want someone participating in your wedding if they didn't want to do it?

And that is a great point. 

[roswellcoug]

my question is would you really want someone participating in your wedding if they didn't want to do it?

 

 

And that is a great point. 

If I'm a Christian photographer and am forced to photograph a gay wedding, what are the repercussions if every picture is out of focus and the happy day memories are ruined?

Is that then a hate crime?

[East Coast Aztec]

If I'm a Christian photographer and am forced to photograph a gay wedding, what are the repercussions if every picture is out of focus and the happy day memories are ruined?

Is that then a hate crime?

You would more than likely be yelp'd out of business, and you may have to speak with your legal team.

[FSpoopypants]

I think you and I are around the same page.  Although I don't care if gays want to marry, so I personally would sell them a cake.  I think Scenario 3 is business prerogative.

 

Agree, and with social media and information as readily available as it is, especially compared to the '60s, it should be a business owner's choice to do business the way they choose (within reason, of course), and to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

 

my question is would you really want someone participating in your wedding if they didn't want to do it?

 

If I could sue them, you betcha!

 

And that is a great point. 

 

Seriously though, I agree.

[THEUniversityofNevada]

I get what you're saying and I agree it's complicated. I'm sympathetic. I have friends who are people of faith, some, not all, who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and I have friends who are gay, some, not all, who are married or plan to marry in the near future. I know where I stand, but I'm neither gay nor religious. For people of faith with businesses in the public sector, I can see how they would feel they are being forced to close shop or risk being asked to provide a service for something they oppose. For people who are gay, I can see how they would view these laws as an attempt to roll back rights they've fought so hard for.

 

The short term solution would seem to be "find another florist" but I can see how a gay person might feel that that's tantamount to "separate but equal."

 

 

I'm not trying to argue that 'being gay' is a choice.  if that's what you got from my post, then we need to start over.

 

The bold part is what I'm getting at - you seem to begin your post with the idea/assumption/moral decision that to deny a service or widget in the support of something like gay marraige is textbook discrimination.

 

Do I understand you properly?

 

In the event I do understand properly, then I hope to further illustrate my point here:

 

Scenario 1:

You two are gay so I won't rent to you.

Wrong because you can't deny a service - a life necessary service, what's more - because someone's gay.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 2:

I won't sell you this iphone because you are gay.

Wrong because you can't deny a product, even one that's not necessary, simply because you disagree with the guy's lifestyle or think it's morally wrong.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 3:

I decline to sell you a wedding cake because I disagree with gay marriage.

Admissible, because I feel that tacit participation in gay marriage is tantamount to endorsement and this is not something I'm willing to do.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

[HR_Poke]

Agree, and with social media and information as readily available as it is, especially compared to the '60s, it should be a business owner's choice to do business the way they choose (within reason, of course), and to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

If I could sue them, you betcha!

Seriously though, I agree.

so then it's more about money then wanting equal treatment.

[THEUniversityofNevada]

so then it's more about money then wanting equal treatment.

There are going to be bigots and there are going to be scheisters, on both sides of the issue.

[AndroidAggie]

I get what you're saying and I agree it's complicated. I'm sympathetic. I have friends who are people of faith, some, not all, who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and I have friends who are gay, some, not all, who are married or plan to marry in the near future. I know where I stand, but I'm neither gay nor religious. For people of faith with businesses in the public sector, I can see how they would feel they are being forced to close shop or risk being asked to provide a service for something they oppose. For people who are gay, I can see how they would view these laws as an attempt to roll back rights they've fought so hard for.

 

The short term solution would seem to be "find another florist" but I can see how a gay person might feel that that's tantamount to "separate but equal."

 

i agree and appreciate the complexity of the situation.  imo, that alone should be a strong call for restraint in polemics as well as protracted overtures of civility and understanding, but people are people.

[HR_Poke]

There are going to be bigots and there are going to be scheisters, on both sides of the issue.

true. I just know I wouldn't shop at a store that discriminated against me. I wouldn't sue them though.