Why wouldn't an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts?

[danielpalos]

dudes and Esquires,

There is already a solution in forms of Commerce (well regulated). There is already a distinction available for Tax purposes via not-for-profit status.

Why so many shell games with Statism, Persons on the Right; and then, complaining that the least wealthy are enjoying steak and lobster in the largest Economy on Earth.

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

 

[martybegan]

The T-Shirt company cannot discriminate against gay people. But it can choose not to write any pro-gay messages on their shirts. If gay people are upset about that then tough shit.

The only reason you agree with it is because you figure you can't get away with punishing this guy. He has the same beliefs as the bakers, but you know speech is more protected (currently)

Given the choice I know you would put him out of business as well, you can't help it, statism is in your blood.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The T-Shirt company cannot discriminate against gay people. But it can choose not to write any pro-gay messages on their shirts. If gay people are upset about that then tough shit.

The only reason you agree with it is because you figure you can't get away with punishing this guy. He has the same beliefs as the bakers, but you know speech is more protected (currently)

Given the choice I know you would put him out of business as well, you can't help it, statism is in your blood.

Again with the willfull ignorance? I have said the EXACT SAME thing regarding all of these cases. The shirt maker's speech is protected, and the bakers speech is ALSO protected. The difference is the baker's cases did not involve speech. And the courts agree.

 

[danielpalos]

Since those of the opposing view have no valid rebuttal or argument; then this concept should be advanced at any convenient opportunity.

dudes and Esquires,

There is already a solution in forms of Commerce (well regulated). There is already a distinction available for Tax purposes via not-for-profit status.

Why so many shell games with Statism, Persons on the Right; and then, complaining that the least wealthy are enjoying steak and lobster in the largest Economy on Earth.

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

 

[danielpalos]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

 

[emilynghiem]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

Dear danielpalos
What about this idea
If businesses get 100% deductions
For their losses and expenses,
Why not change that percent to give the full deduction to businesses that invest a certain %
In sustainable charity outeach, like
Teaching charities to make their
Foundations selfsustaining. And only give partial deductions if businesses don't do any nonprofit
Community outreach. Indirectly wouldn't that reward and encourage businesses to adopt a more community conscious attitude. Suing ppl tends to invoke even more defensiveness and objection, the more you force someone the more they resist and blame it on bullying so it kills the relationship. What about building relationships by offering greater tax breaks to businesses that help charities develop their endowments and manage investments to.support their own outreach without handouts. Isnt that another way to teach ppl to fish, why not reward that with tax breaks more than businesses that dont invest in microlending or business training to help create sustainable economy through education. How can we use reward instead of punishment to encourage change in a sustainable direction?

 

[danielpalos]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

Dear danielpalos
What about this idea
If businesses get 100% deductions
For their losses and expenses,
Why not change that percent to give the full deduction to businesses that invest a certain %
In sustainable charity outeach, like
Teaching charities to make their
Foundations selfsustaining. And only give partial deductions if businesses don't do any nonprofit
Community outreach. Indirectly wouldn't that reward and encourage businesses to adopt a more community conscious attitude. Suing ppl tends to invoke even more defensiveness and objection, the more you force someone the more they resist and blame it on bullying so it kills the relationship. What about building relationships by offering greater tax breaks to businesses that help charities develop their endowments and manage investments to.support their own outreach without handouts. Isnt that another way to teach ppl to fish, why not reward that with tax breaks more than businesses that dont invest in microlending or business training to help create sustainable economy through education. How can we use reward instead of punishment to encourage change in a sustainable direction?

because, dear Person on the Right; cost shifting is cost shifting, not finding better solutions at lower cost.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

Dear danielpalos
What about this idea
If businesses get 100% deductions
For their losses and expenses,
Why not change that percent to give the full deduction to businesses that invest a certain %
In sustainable charity outeach, like
Teaching charities to make their
Foundations selfsustaining. And only give partial deductions if businesses don't do any nonprofit
Community outreach. Indirectly wouldn't that reward and encourage businesses to adopt a more community conscious attitude. Suing ppl tends to invoke even more defensiveness and objection, the more you force someone the more they resist and blame it on bullying so it kills the relationship. What about building relationships by offering greater tax breaks to businesses that help charities develop their endowments and manage investments to.support their own outreach without handouts. Isnt that another way to teach ppl to fish, why not reward that with tax breaks more than businesses that dont invest in microlending or business training to help create sustainable economy through education. How can we use reward instead of punishment to encourage change in a sustainable direction?

because, dear Person on the Right; cost shifting is cost shifting, not finding better solutions at lower cost.

What the hell are you blabbering about?

 

[emilynghiem]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

Dear danielpalos
What about this idea
If businesses get 100% deductions
For their losses and expenses,
Why not change that percent to give the full deduction to businesses that invest a certain %
In sustainable charity outeach, like
Teaching charities to make their
Foundations selfsustaining. And only give partial deductions if businesses don't do any nonprofit
Community outreach. Indirectly wouldn't that reward and encourage businesses to adopt a more community conscious attitude. Suing ppl tends to invoke even more defensiveness and objection, the more you force someone the more they resist and blame it on bullying so it kills the relationship. What about building relationships by offering greater tax breaks to businesses that help charities develop their endowments and manage investments to.support their own outreach without handouts. Isnt that another way to teach ppl to fish, why not reward that with tax breaks more than businesses that dont invest in microlending or business training to help create sustainable economy through education. How can we use reward instead of punishment to encourage change in a sustainable direction?

because, dear Person on the Right; cost shifting is cost shifting, not finding better solutions at lower cost.

Dear danielpalos
I'm a progressive prochoice Green Democrat who believes in microlending and education in ownership and management to train people and communities to be self-governing and end poverty and dependence on welfare and govt.

I AM talking about finding better and SUSTAINABLE solutions that are more cost effective.

The WAY I am talking about getting there is REWARDING citizens for investing in sustainable
business education and development.

Why not let citizens receive interest on loans into sustainable programs that develop a revenue base for education and nonprofit service instead of punishing through higher taxes to pay for corporate and social welfare that isn't sustainable?

 

[danielpalos]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

Dear danielpalos
What about this idea
If businesses get 100% deductions
For their losses and expenses,
Why not change that percent to give the full deduction to businesses that invest a certain %
In sustainable charity outeach, like
Teaching charities to make their
Foundations selfsustaining. And only give partial deductions if businesses don't do any nonprofit
Community outreach. Indirectly wouldn't that reward and encourage businesses to adopt a more community conscious attitude. Suing ppl tends to invoke even more defensiveness and objection, the more you force someone the more they resist and blame it on bullying so it kills the relationship. What about building relationships by offering greater tax breaks to businesses that help charities develop their endowments and manage investments to.support their own outreach without handouts. Isnt that another way to teach ppl to fish, why not reward that with tax breaks more than businesses that dont invest in microlending or business training to help create sustainable economy through education. How can we use reward instead of punishment to encourage change in a sustainable direction?

because, dear Person on the Right; cost shifting is cost shifting, not finding better solutions at lower cost.

What the hell are you blabbering about?

something you should have a clue and a Cause about, if you want to be taken as anything more than a hearsayer and a soothsayer in any serious venues.

 

[danielpalos]

The homos got stuffed. It's about time a judge followed the law and Constitution

Any thing more than just the usual propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

If religionists feel the need to practice their religion in Commercial venues it should be done on a not-for-profit basis--or, does the right just like to be "harassed" so they can go on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet for funding.

Dear danielpalos
What about this idea
If businesses get 100% deductions
For their losses and expenses,
Why not change that percent to give the full deduction to businesses that invest a certain %
In sustainable charity outeach, like
Teaching charities to make their
Foundations selfsustaining. And only give partial deductions if businesses don't do any nonprofit
Community outreach. Indirectly wouldn't that reward and encourage businesses to adopt a more community conscious attitude. Suing ppl tends to invoke even more defensiveness and objection, the more you force someone the more they resist and blame it on bullying so it kills the relationship. What about building relationships by offering greater tax breaks to businesses that help charities develop their endowments and manage investments to.support their own outreach without handouts. Isnt that another way to teach ppl to fish, why not reward that with tax breaks more than businesses that dont invest in microlending or business training to help create sustainable economy through education. How can we use reward instead of punishment to encourage change in a sustainable direction?

because, dear Person on the Right; cost shifting is cost shifting, not finding better solutions at lower cost.

Dear danielpalos
I'm a progressive prochoice Green Democrat who believes in microlending and education in ownership and management to train people and communities to be self-governing and end poverty and dependence on welfare and govt.

I AM talking about finding better and SUSTAINABLE solutions that are more cost effective.

The WAY I am talking about getting there is REWARDING citizens for investing in sustainable
business education and development.

Why not let citizens receive interest on loans into sustainable programs that develop a revenue base for education and nonprofit service instead of punishing through higher taxes to pay for corporate and social welfare that isn't sustainable?

I laud your goals; but merely disagree on the best use of capital resources. Only the right prefers to complain about Income Taxes while insisting on more supply side economics programs that call for a warfare-State paradigm and merely bail out the wealthiest and then trickle down.

We would not need an Income Tax but for our warfare-State economy.

 

[emilynghiem]

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

 

[Michelle420]

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

I disagree about this issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

I disagree about this issue.

Exactly, drifter!
That's why the govt should stay out of issues of personal beliefs.

People don't agree on God because it is personal and FAITH based.
Govt should not make decisions forcing people to change their beliefs about God.

So if people can't agree on God, religion, marriage, etc. then
agree to stay away from each other.

Just like removing Christian references from schools: If people don't agree with those beliefs, then don't impose them.

Keep beliefs in private practice, just like religious schools set up their own programs,
or prolife groups run their own programs. Then NOBODY has to get offended.

Now if people AGREE to change their beliefs, just like Obama AGREED to change his beliefs about gay marriage, that's the way it SHOULD be. Beliefs about marriage and homosexuality are FAITH based so it should remain each person's INDIVIDUAL choice.

Just like someone's beliefs about God and Christianity can change by FREE CHOICE, and should never be forced on them by govt.

This is the same argument I use with prolife friends who want to protect the right to life. Their arguments are still FAITH based, and cannot be proven "when the soul enters the body" and that "person has a separate consciousness and will."

So as long as it is FAITH based, then govt cannot mandate based on those grounds.

There is a LOT of suffering caused by abortion also, a LOT of people affronted and offended that even though they DON'T believe in abortion, the laws endorse it and make it legal and protect it.

Don't you think ABORTION laws discriminate against people who believe in prolife?
drifter

As long as both sides of the marriage and homosexuality issues have FAITH based beliefs, govt cannot endorse one over the other without discriminating on the basis of creed.

It is better to leave these issues to the PEOPLE to resolve.

drifter you and I both believe that people should be helped in every way not to discriminate, but it is not always up to the GOVT to dictate that or punish it.

Just like with abortion, of course, it is better to counsel and teach people to PREVENT and AVOID abortion, but it is not up to the govt to establish faith based beliefs.

The better way to prevent abortion is by free choice, by education and counseling.

And the same can be applied to preventing discrimination by resolving conflicts directly with the people, instead of trying to force things on people by govt authority.

When it comes to faith based issues, if people AGREED, that's fine, but they don't.
Just like with abortion, if people agree to ban certain procedures, sure, such laws can pass where they are not imposing one set of beliefs over another.

But with any faith-based arguments, people have a right to retain their private choice.

We are going to have to resolve these issues another way, by working them out directly, and not abuse govt to try to force or dictate one side's beliefs or the other's.

 

[Michelle420]

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

I disagree about this issue.

Exactly, drifter!
That's why the govt should stay out of issues of personal beliefs.

People don't agree on God because it is personal and FAITH based.
Govt should not make decisions forcing people to change their beliefs about God.

So if people can't agree on God, religion, marriage, etc. then
agree to stay away from each other.

Just like removing Christian references from schools: If people don't agree with those beliefs, then don't impose them.

Keep beliefs in private practice, just like religious schools set up their own programs,
or prolife groups run their own programs. Then NOBODY has to get offended.

Now if people AGREE to change their beliefs, just like Obama AGREED to change his beliefs about gay marriage, that's the way it SHOULD be. Beliefs about marriage and homosexuality are FAITH based so it should remain each person's INDIVIDUAL choice.

Just like someone's beliefs about God and Christianity can change by FREE CHOICE, and should never be forced on them by govt.

This is the same argument I use with prolife friends who want to protect the right to life. Their arguments are still FAITH based, and cannot be proven "when the soul enters the body" and that "person has a separate consciousness and will."

So as long as it is FAITH based, then govt cannot mandate based on those grounds.

There is a LOT of suffering caused by abortion also, a LOT of people affronted and offended that even though they DON'T believe in abortion, the laws endorse it and make it legal and protect it.

Don't you think ABORTION laws discriminate against people who believe in prolife?
drifter

As long as both sides of the marriage and homosexuality issues have FAITH based beliefs, govt cannot endorse one over the other without discriminating on the basis of creed.

It is better to leave these issues to the PEOPLE to resolve.

drifter you and I both believe that people should be helped in every way not to discriminate, but it is not always up to the GOVT to dictate that or punish it.

Just like with abortion, of course, it is better to counsel and teach people to PREVENT and AVOID abortion, but it is not up to the govt to establish faith based beliefs.

The better way to prevent abortion is by free choice, by education and counseling.

And the same can be applied to preventing discrimination by resolving conflicts directly with the people, instead of trying to force things on people by govt authority.

When it comes to faith based issues, if people AGREED, that's fine, but they don't.
Just like with abortion, if people agree to ban certain procedures, sure, such laws can pass where they are not imposing one set of beliefs over another.

But with any faith-based arguments, people have a right to retain their private choice.

We are going to have to resolve these issues another way, by working them out directly, and not abuse govt to try to force or dictate one side's beliefs or the other's.

I don't agree with you.

Not everyone is Christian and not everyone wants to resolve issues, for that reason I want my rights protected, no discrimination and I want that to be the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

Is it wrong for customers to merely assume that management apprenticed at Hostess, and merely ask for volunteers who may need some extra cash?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

I disagree about this issue.

Exactly, drifter!
That's why the govt should stay out of issues of personal beliefs.

People don't agree on God because it is personal and FAITH based.
Govt should not make decisions forcing people to change their beliefs about God.

So if people can't agree on God, religion, marriage, etc. then
agree to stay away from each other.

Just like removing Christian references from schools: If people don't agree with those beliefs, then don't impose them.

Keep beliefs in private practice, just like religious schools set up their own programs,
or prolife groups run their own programs. Then NOBODY has to get offended.

Now if people AGREE to change their beliefs, just like Obama AGREED to change his beliefs about gay marriage, that's the way it SHOULD be. Beliefs about marriage and homosexuality are FAITH based so it should remain each person's INDIVIDUAL choice.

Just like someone's beliefs about God and Christianity can change by FREE CHOICE, and should never be forced on them by govt.

This is the same argument I use with prolife friends who want to protect the right to life. Their arguments are still FAITH based, and cannot be proven "when the soul enters the body" and that "person has a separate consciousness and will."

So as long as it is FAITH based, then govt cannot mandate based on those grounds.

There is a LOT of suffering caused by abortion also, a LOT of people affronted and offended that even though they DON'T believe in abortion, the laws endorse it and make it legal and protect it.

Don't you think ABORTION laws discriminate against people who believe in prolife?
drifter

As long as both sides of the marriage and homosexuality issues have FAITH based beliefs, govt cannot endorse one over the other without discriminating on the basis of creed.

It is better to leave these issues to the PEOPLE to resolve.

drifter you and I both believe that people should be helped in every way not to discriminate, but it is not always up to the GOVT to dictate that or punish it.

Just like with abortion, of course, it is better to counsel and teach people to PREVENT and AVOID abortion, but it is not up to the govt to establish faith based beliefs.

The better way to prevent abortion is by free choice, by education and counseling.

And the same can be applied to preventing discrimination by resolving conflicts directly with the people, instead of trying to force things on people by govt authority.

When it comes to faith based issues, if people AGREED, that's fine, but they don't.
Just like with abortion, if people agree to ban certain procedures, sure, such laws can pass where they are not imposing one set of beliefs over another.

But with any faith-based arguments, people have a right to retain their private choice.

We are going to have to resolve these issues another way, by working them out directly, and not abuse govt to try to force or dictate one side's beliefs or the other's.

I don't agree with you.

Not everyone is Christian and not everyone wants to resolve issues, for that reason I want my rights protected, no discrimination and I want that to be the law.

Right! So the people who are or who aren't can choose to go along with whatever.

If you want to sue over discrimination, that's fine.

But I want to recommend to people to avoid this by resolving their conflicts directly.

Not because govt is forcing them to, but for them to respect each other's beliefs.

So I am taking "anti-discrimination" to an even higher level, where I do not discriminate against people for any of their views. Whatever views they have, I encourage them to work them out as civilly as possible.

I think this would maximize the conflict resolution, and minimize the lawsuits by preventing as many as possible.

So I think I am for the same things you are for drifter
but just not for govt being used to punish people.

I am trying to AVOID going to that point, by mediating conflicts in advance by free choice.

If we PREVENT the root cause of discrimination, then that's another way to stop it instead of just relying on govt or courts to sue "after the fact."

Why not work out the conflicts in advance so there is no discrimination to begin with?

This is like enforcing prolife goals of PREVENTING abortion, but achieving that goal by FREE CHOICE not force of law.

Here, I am looking to PREVENT discrimination, by FREE CHOICE of resolving conflicts, and not relying on force of law to complain or punish after the fact.

That's like people trying to prevent abortion by punishing it after the fact.

If you really want to get rid of abortion, it takes FREE CHOICE to resolve the root causes.

And same with getting rid of discrimination, the resolution of conflicts is done by FREE WILL.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

Is it wrong for customers to merely assume that management apprenticed at Hostess, and merely ask for volunteers who may need some extra cash?

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking.

Now if someone's intent is to be harassing, that could be taken differently by someone else. But even that could be resolved if all parties are open and amicable.

What is the content or intent in asking?
Can't people choose to resolve conflicts peaceably and not rely on govt to referee?

 

[Michelle420]

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.

Since orientation gets into issues of spiritual views and beliefs about sex and gender, this is where I would strongly advise ppl to either agree to mediate and respect each other's beliefs, or agree not to do business together.
NOT because of the CONTENT of each other's beliefs, but because they don't agree.

People don't sue Muslims for disagreeing with Hindus, or Hindus for disagreeing with Muslims. They stay away from each other.

Trying to use political majority or govt ruling to decide spiritual views of orientation is abusive and unconstitutional, because anybody's views on this issue are unproven and FAITH based. Govt should never be abused to decide or punish matters of FAITH that are not proven, or abused to force either side to change their views. Both sides have equal right to their beliefs, and courts should order them to stay away from each other if they cannot agree how to conduct business together. Neither side should be faulted.

Is it wrong for customers to merely assume that management apprenticed at Hostess, and merely ask for volunteers who may need some extra cash?

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking.

Now if someone's intent is to be harassing, that could be taken differently by someone else. But even that could be resolved if all parties are open and amicable.

What is the content or intent in asking?
Can't people choose to resolve conflicts peaceably and not rely on govt to referee?

They can choose, but in instances where people don't want to and instead would rather discriminate, I want laws intact to protect my rights.

Good Luck