The Liberal Illusion of Equality and Tolerance: Homosexual Edition

[NYcarbineer]

All three of those points are red herrings.

No they are not....they are simply popping out the term "gay" and putting in "shooting sports".

Given Carbine's views on guns and firearms, yes they are.

Um, I grew up in rural upstate New York. I spent my very first $30 of wages on a gun, a Savage .410/22 over/under. To make a long story short you should really learn to only talk about things you know.

 

[rightwinger]

Ahh, stumped I see. Now that I have demonstrated yet another discrepancy in the liberal ideal of equality and tolerance, I would suggest to those of you liberals who opined:

Don't you dare ever lecture me or anyone else on equality when your party passed laws against interracial marriage. Or when you're willing to take the rights of the pious and sacrifice them all in the name of your version of tolerance. You know how The Crusades went, right? When people tried to force their beliefs down other peoples throats? They were destroyed. The campaign was ended. And so likewise, is this one.

I have a personal question

As a young person, why do you care?

I was raised to be repulsed by homosexuality. It was a given. As I got older, I realized it really was no big deal and didn't hurt me or affect me in anyway. Live and let live

Why do you care? How does homosexual marriage affect your ability to live your life as you want to?

Why do you care that I care? As an older person, why do you care?

I was raised to be tolerant of everyone. I was also raised never to let people like you dissuade me from having an opinion either, just because you happen to be offended by them.

Why do I care? I have homosexual friends. Three of them to be precise. Two of them are married, one is engaged. The way that affects my life is that I have to be careful about what I say around them. I also take great care not to offend them. If you want to get technical, I am having to sacrifice my freedom of opinion to maintain at least two of those friendships.

Satisfied?

Thanks for your honest response

So is your issue that these are your friends and it makes you uncomfortable because they are gay? What do you want to say around them that you can't? Is your opinion that you are repulsed by them and if you told them they would not be your friends?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No they are not....they are simply popping out the term "gay" and putting in "shooting sports".

Given Carbine's views on guns and firearms, yes they are.

Um, I grew up in rural upstate New York. I spent my very first $30 of wages on a gun, a Savage .410/22 over/under. To make a long story short you should really learn to only talk about things you know.

Then by advocating gun control and the infringement on the rights of other gun owners, then subsequently owning a gun, you are a hypocrite. To make a long story short, you have pivoted away from the main topic of discussion, and are now trying to argue ignoratio elenchi. Goodbye.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, my version of "endorse" is my freedom to approve and disapprove of anything and anyone I wish.

By these public accommodation laws, they (congress) have passed a law which in regards to religion, "prohibits the free exercise thereof" as put by the First Amendment. By forcing someone to serve you because you are gay and they have a religious opposition to it, you are therefore "prohibiting the free exercise" of this persons faith by arbitrarily dismissing their beliefs and rights to act on them for the sake of equal treatment.

Okay, then perhaps now you can acknowledge that my reference to Reynolds v United States was relevant to your topic.

Polygamy (or precisely bigamy) was outlawed. A Mormon challenged the law on the grounds that polygamy was a religious exercise. The Court ruled against him and upheld the law.

Was that decision wrong? Did that decision arbitrarily dismiss Mormon beliefs and rights?

Polygamy is also irrelevant to this topic. Why so much dodging, Carbine? Can you not answer me with a straight face? And yes, it did violate that Mormon's rights and beliefs.

Anywho, they also upheld Jim Crow laws and the states rights to be racist, for a time. Oh wait, you forgot that one, didn't you?

So you endorse polygamy? You support the Supreme Court overturning Reynolds v. US and invalidating all laws against polygamy as unconstitutional?

On the grounds that it is a religious practice?

Logically then, if someone formed a church (as Joseph Smith formed a church) and as part of its doctrine of beliefs included same sex marriage,

THEN you would be compelled to endorse same sex marriage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given Carbine's views on guns and firearms, yes they are.

Um, I grew up in rural upstate New York. I spent my very first $30 of wages on a gun, a Savage .410/22 over/under. To make a long story short you should really learn to only talk about things you know.

Then by advocating gun control and the infringement on the rights of other gun owners, then subsequently owning a gun, you are a hypocrite. To make a long story short, you have pivoted away from the main topic of discussion, and are now trying to argue ignoratio elenchi. Goodbye.

You introduced 'lifestyle' into the discussion. This is part of your topic. And unless you support convicted felons and children owning machine guns you also support 'infringement'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Additionally,

oooh yes we do ! it has been the RIGHT of business owners for more years than most posters here have been breathing, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

is this clear enough for you liberfools ?

If you are in a public business, you serve the public. Irregardless of their color, creed, or sexual orientation. We had a real revolution in the '60's where we decided that we would take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously, 'That all men are created equal'. You don't like it? Move to Uganda.

 

[DiamondDave]

Additionally,

oooh yes we do ! it has been the RIGHT of business owners for more years than most posters here have been breathing, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

is this clear enough for you liberfools ?

If you are in a public business, you serve the public. Irregardless of their color, creed, or sexual orientation. We had a real revolution in the '60's where we decided that we would take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously, 'That all men are created equal'. You don't like it? Move to Uganda.

No.. sorry.. it is not a 'public business'... it is not owned by the public, nor is it owed to the public as a right

And while you are created equal in standing.. everything you choose to do is not forced upon everyone else

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
oooh yes we do ! it has been the RIGHT
If you are in a public business, you serve the public. Irregardless of their color, creed, or sexual orientation. We had a real revolution in the '60's where we decided that we would take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously, 'That all men are created equal'. You don't like it? Move to Uganda.

You're criticizing Uganda? lol, you just can't handle the idea that there are black conservatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[No.. sorry.. it is not a 'public business'... it is not owned by the public, nor is it owed to the public as a right

And while you are created equal in standing.. everything you choose to do is not forced upon everyone else

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

 

[Victory67]

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

what does subsection b say?

 

[DiamondDave]

[No.. sorry.. it is not a 'public business'... it is not owned by the public, nor is it owed to the public as a right

And while you are created equal in standing.. everything you choose to do is not forced upon everyone else

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

Except it is not a public business... sorry.. equal treatment by government under law for human citizens is one thing... forcing a privately owned business to give you services based on them being forced to accept your chosen actions is quite another

You do not have a civil right to force acceptance of behavior upon a business owner

 

[paperview]

[No.. sorry.. it is not a 'public business'... it is not owned by the public, nor is it owed to the public as a right

And while you are created equal in standing.. everything you choose to do is not forced upon everyone else

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

Except it is not a public business... sorry.. equal treatment by government under law for human citizens is one thing... forcing a privately owned business to give you services based on them being forced to accept your chosen actions is quite another

You do not have a civil right to force acceptance of behavior upon a business owner

Is it open to the general public, yes or no?

 

[DiamondDave]

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

Except it is not a public business... sorry.. equal treatment by government under law for human citizens is one thing... forcing a privately owned business to give you services based on them being forced to accept your chosen actions is quite another

You do not have a civil right to force acceptance of behavior upon a business owner

Is it open to the general public, yes or no?

Does not make it a 'public business'.. nor does it make it that the business owner must accept the choices and actions of all patrons... remember, this is about refusal of service based on an action, choice, activity, etc.. NOT because a person is a race, color, creed, sex, or religion (though I do not agree with the religion part of the 'civil rights' act, as religion is a choice... and while you are free to worship it as you choose, you are not entitled to force acceptance of it upon someone else)

 

[paperview]

Except it is not a public business... sorry.. equal treatment by government under law for human citizens is one thing... forcing a privately owned business to give you services based on them being forced to accept your chosen actions is quite another

You do not have a civil right to force acceptance of behavior upon a business owner

Is it open to the general public, yes or no?

Does not make it a 'public business'.. .

Well, you're totally, 100% wrong. This isn't something that is open for debate. Open for business to the general public, required to follow zoning and permit laws, as well as a slew of other open-to-the-public rules and requirements and also required to follow public accommodation laws -- yes, it's a public business.

This was settled a long time ago - starting with Heart of Atlanta v US.

I'm sure that won't mean anything to you though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[No.. sorry.. it is not a 'public business'... it is not owned by the public, nor is it owed to the public as a right

And while you are created equal in standing.. everything you choose to do is not forced upon everyone else

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

Except it is not a public business... sorry.. equal treatment by government under law for human citizens is one thing... forcing a privately owned business to give you services based on them being forced to accept your chosen actions is quite another

You do not have a civil right to force acceptance of behavior upon a business owner

I suppose a restaurant could lawfully refuse service to two gay guys who came into the establishment while simultaneously having sex,

otherwise you're not refusing service based on an action.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[No.. sorry.. it is not a 'public business'... it is not owned by the public, nor is it owed to the public as a right

And while you are created equal in standing.. everything you choose to do is not forced upon everyone else

That is your made-up definition of a public business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the distinction clear:

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

US Civil Rights Act - 1964 - Title 2

Except it is not a public business... sorry.. equal treatment by government under law for human citizens is one thing... forcing a privately owned business to give you services based on them being forced to accept your chosen actions is quite another

You do not have a civil right to force acceptance of behavior upon a business owner

Since a business cannot tell if a person is gay, and yet is willing to serve, and profit from, persons whose homosexual orientation is unknown,

that business has no valid cause to claim that it is so harmed by the requirement to serve gays that it must be allowed to refuse that service.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So far, one person has failed to address my set of points. Is there a liberal out there who can debate me seriously without bringing my job situation into it? I mean, I should construe your silence or hostility as an admission that these points are by default true, and that you have nothing to argue them with.

What I don't understand is what motivates you to have a 'hard on' for men and women who either chose or are by nature (or God, since you evoked God in your diatribe) gay or lesbian. These men and women understand they have been targeted as second class citizens in a nation founded (sort of) on the principle of blind justice - i.e. we are all equal before the law (unless of course you're Lenny Bruce, Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart).

In the past gays and lesbians have been denied the opportunity to serve their country in the military service, denied employment and discriminated against by both the private sector, the public sector and the clergy. Jefferson in the DoI wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The Homosexual community has been denied their unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness and choose not to abolish our government - as some in the far right hope to do - but to alter it with non violent protests and petitions to enjoy the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

 

[Dutch]

Proverbs 12:11[/B
Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense.

Proverbs 21:25
The desire of the sluggard kills him, for his hands refuse to labor.

Well Templar it looks like your lifestyle goes against the Bibles teaching too. Maybe Mcdonalds or Wendys should refuse service to you.

 

[Dutch]

Templar, maybe you can get a job as a security guard at one of those stores that refuse service to gays. You can use your gaydar to ferret them out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

2) Lets put it another way: You cannot physically marry poles to poles, and holes to holes (HT to Alfonzo Rachel). I'll stand up for your God given rights, but I won't stand for you legislating your desires into laws for us to follow over God's (That means passing same sex marriage laws), whilst accusing us of trying to establish a theocracy. Or forcing people to serve you against their religiously held beliefs.

There are no 'sex act' requirements to enter into a legally recognized opposite sex marriage, so all your going on about holes and poles is of no relevance or merit to the discussion.

God's laws, such as they might be, are not trump over our human laws. Whether or not you will 'stand for' such is your business.

People who will not stand for God's laws not being the highest law of the land, are theocratic in their beliefs,
and if they attempt to act in law on that belief, they are in fact trying to establish a theocracy.