Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[ChrisL]

So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.

*****SMILE*****

No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied. It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying. *sigh* I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.

*****SMILE*****

No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied. It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying. *sigh* I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

So if they don't carry the figurines and what-not for that type of cake they don't have to make it.

Therefore all a bakery has to do is say... "I'm sorry we don't carry they items to produce a cake of that sort."

*****SMILE*****

 

[WorldWatcher]

So if they don't carry the figurines and what-not for that type of cake they don't have to make it.

Therefore all a bakery has to do is say... "I'm sorry we don't carry they items to produce a cake of that sort."

*****SMILE*****

Here is a cake from the website of one of the bakers having issues with public accommodation laws (Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado).

Many wedding cakes these days don't have figurines anymore.


>>>>

 

[ChrisL]

No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied. It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying. *sigh* I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

So if they don't carry the figurines and what-not for that type of cake they don't have to make it.

Therefore all a bakery has to do is say... "I'm sorry we don't carry they items to produce a cake of that sort."

*****SMILE*****

They would at least be able to fight a discrimination charge rather than blatantly breaking the law. Also, you could at least play a GOOD song and a different song rather than the same song which really isn't that great of a song, IMO.

 

[ChrisL]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

I've turned away business because the customer not only wants a discount but a lifetime guarantee or they don't ever want to pay for me to look at something.

Sorry I don't work for free - TANSTAAFL!

*****SMILE*****

 

[ChrisL]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

I've turned away business because the customer not only wants a discount but a lifetime guarantee or they don't ever want to pay for me to look at something.

Sorry I don't work for free - TANSTAAFL!

*****SMILE*****

That's not the same thing, obviously.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I also don't give to charities. I prefer to help people who need the help directly.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

I've turned away business because the customer not only wants a discount but a lifetime guarantee or they don't ever want to pay for me to look at something.

Sorry I don't work for free - TANSTAAFL!

*****SMILE*****

That's not the same thing, obviously.

It's usually the ones that can afford it that think they deserve some special consideration.

They don't like it when a person says they won't do somethin' for them out of the kindness of their heart.

*****SMILE*****

 

[dblack]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us should be able to advocate for social change by the work we choose to do, and the way we spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue is by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

 

[ChrisL]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

 

[dblack]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.

 

[ChrisL]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.

Please. This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals. Why can't people just be honest? Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky. They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them. That violates their civil rights.

 

[dblack]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.

Please. This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals. Why can't people just be honest? Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky. They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them. That violates their civil rights.

I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.

 

[ChrisL]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.

Please. This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals. Why can't people just be honest? Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky. They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them. That violates their civil rights.

I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

 

[dblack]

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.

Please. This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals. Why can't people just be honest? Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky. They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them. That violates their civil rights.

I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

 

[ChrisL]

Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people. It failed then and it fails now.

We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.

Please. This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals. Why can't people just be honest? Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky. They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them. That violates their civil rights.

I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

 

[orogenicman]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I'm trying to figure out what right you actually have to discriminate against anyone.

 

[dblack]

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I'm trying to figure out what right you actually have to discriminate against anyone.

Do you think you have a right to choose who your friends are?