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

[danielpalos]

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

some on the left believe it is as simple as not-for-profit status can make it.

 

[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.

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

Thanks drifter!
Yes but I might specify in those rights that those laws cannot be abused to harass or discriminate against beliefs of either party.

Since you generally dont go around pushing your beliefs on others, you dont abuse the law.

But ppl who conflict so badly they harass each other, the law should specify they have a duty to avoid each other to prevent MUTUAL discrimination and to avoid harassment and court costs incurred to the public.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

drifter OK so if "Not everyone is Christian" and can't be forced to be,
why force everyone to accept homosexuality either if that's not their belief?

Why is it okay to force THAT belief on people if you are going to say it isn't fair to make everyone mediate?

Shouldn't people have the right to choose their affiliations so they don't get discriminated against, either way?

I understand YOU also don't want you or your friends being discriminated against.
So why not avoid this altogether, all forms and cases of it.

Give people the OPTION of TRAINING them to recognize and avoid conflicts.
So that way EVERYONE'S rights and beliefs are protected equally; there can be a process to screen out business-client relations, and agree not to conduct business together if it is going to lead to one side or the other getting discriminated against. That's a mutual agreement to blame the CONFLICT (not each other) for avoiding each other. So everyone is treated equally.

AGAIN yes you could say this is imposing on people to offer this choice, so either
1. recognize there is mutual imposition there anyway, with both sides imposing on each other; so if you are saying you don't agree with imposing mediation or separation, how is that any worse than the two sides already pushing their ways on the other and demanding the other change?
2. Or train people in advance so they choose freely, and not wait until conflicts erupt to cause discrimination. The same way prolife advocacy is by free choice, to try to prevent abortion in advance, instead of waiting until after it's too late and then trying to force one way or another.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Yes but I might specify in those rights that those laws cannot be abused to harass or discriminate against beliefs of either party.

Since you generally dont go around pushing your beliefs on others, you dont abuse the law.

But ppl who conflict so badly they harass each other, the law should specify they have a duty to avoid each other to prevent MUTUAL discrimination and to avoid harassment and court costs incurred to the public.

Only bad management finds ways to lose sales and then blame it on Labor.

Was there no other Labor available that could have accomplished the Art advertised by that alleged practitioner of the Art of Bakery.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Yes but I might specify in those rights that those laws cannot be abused to harass or discriminate against beliefs of either party.

Since you generally dont go around pushing your beliefs on others, you dont abuse the law.

But ppl who conflict so badly they harass each other, the law should specify they have a duty to avoid each other to prevent MUTUAL discrimination and to avoid harassment and court costs incurred to the public.

Only bad management finds ways to lose sales and then blame it on Labor.

Was there no other Labor available that could have accomplished the Art advertised by that alleged practitioner of the Art of Bakery.

danielpalos
Who says there has to be any blame at all?

The same way you criticize "shifting costs around"
what's the deal with "shifting blame around"?

Who says there has to be any blame at all?
Why not just focus on corrections directly and skip the blame?

BTW as for notforprofit business
There are many charities I found that served the public
by using DBA under one person's name to cut the admin and filing they couldn't afford.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to focus on their charity work but would get bogged down in
paperwork that requires paid staff.

You CAN act as a nonforprofit business
and just use the regular business/DBA set up
to deduct all expenses 100% as business costs
and still do all the work as charity. Only covering
costs, or even losing money, but existing to serve others.

With small charities, it is easier to operate that way,
where all resources go directly into services.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Yes but I might specify in those rights that those laws cannot be abused to harass or discriminate against beliefs of either party.

Since you generally dont go around pushing your beliefs on others, you dont abuse the law.

But ppl who conflict so badly they harass each other, the law should specify they have a duty to avoid each other to prevent MUTUAL discrimination and to avoid harassment and court costs incurred to the public.

Only bad management finds ways to lose sales and then blame it on Labor.

Was there no other Labor available that could have accomplished the Art advertised by that alleged practitioner of the Art of Bakery.

danielpalos
Who says there has to be any blame at all?

The same way you criticize "shifting costs around"
what's the deal with "shifting blame around"?

Who says there has to be any blame at all?
Why not just focus on corrections directly and skip the blame?

BTW as for notforprofit business
There are many charities I found that served the public
by using DBA under one person's name to cut the admin and filing they couldn't afford.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to focus on their charity work but would get bogged down in
paperwork that requires paid staff.

You CAN act as a nonforprofit business
and just use the regular business/DBA set up
to deduct all expenses 100% as business costs
and still do all the work as charity. Only covering
costs, or even losing money, but existing to serve others.

With small charities, it is easier to operate that way,
where all resources go directly into services.

You may be missing the point about practicing the Art of Bakery and not the Art of Religion on a for-profit basis.

Was there no other Labor available that could have accomplished the Art advertised by that alleged practitioner of the Art of Bakery.

 

[Michelle420]

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

Thanks drifter!
Yes but I might specify in those rights that those laws cannot be abused to harass or discriminate against beliefs of either party.

Since you generally dont go around pushing your beliefs on others, you dont abuse the law.

But ppl who conflict so badly they harass each other, the law should specify they have a duty to avoid each other to prevent MUTUAL discrimination and to avoid harassment and court costs incurred to the public.

But if I want to live in an apartment for rent because it's location is near my work and family and I love the place. I don't want to have to walk away or avoid being discriminated against because the landlord doesn't like me over my skin, my gender, my nationality, my religion.

I want to rent the apartment because I have the money and I'm an upstanding citizen and I deserve the same right as anyone else.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Try finding one.

 

[emilynghiem]

But if I want to live in an apartment for rent because it's location is near my work and family and I love the place. I don't want to have to walk away or avoid being discriminated against because the landlord doesn't like me over my skin, my gender, my nationality, my religion.

I want to rent the apartment because I have the money and I'm an upstanding citizen and I deserve the same right as anyone else.

1. I would support you in working out an arrangement without exacerbating that relationship with a lawsuit.
Getting to know people first is a good way to build stable working relations. That's better than starting something and suing.

2. I would not advise anyone to patronize someone if they have that strong a conflict in ideologies.

If this is necessary to live there, I would say there is a better way than forcing and suing people,
which puts people at odds, looking for the next opportunity to get rid of you anyway.
Why would you set yourself up to fail.

Why have hostile relations to begin with.
Why not work it out where there is no hostility and so no need to sue.

 

[Michelle420]

But if I want to live in an apartment for rent because it's location is near my work and family and I love the place. I don't want to have to walk away or avoid being discriminated against because the landlord doesn't like me over my skin, my gender, my nationality, my religion.

I want to rent the apartment because I have the money and I'm an upstanding citizen and I deserve the same right as anyone else.

1. I would support you in working out an arrangement without exacerbating that relationship with a lawsuit.
Getting to know people first is a good way to build stable working relations. That's better than starting something and suing.

2. I would not advise anyone to patronize someone if they have that strong a conflict in ideologies.

If this is necessary to live there, I would say there is a better way than forcing and suing people,
which puts people at odds, looking for the next opportunity to get rid of you anyway.
Why would you set yourself up to fail.

Why have hostile relations to begin with.
Why not work it out where there is no hostility and so no need to sue.

Thanks.

We are both entitled to our opinions. I know you are a peacemaker.

I still support laws against discrimination

 

[emilynghiem]

But if I want to live in an apartment for rent because it's location is near my work and family and I love the place. I don't want to have to walk away or avoid being discriminated against because the landlord doesn't like me over my skin, my gender, my nationality, my religion.

I want to rent the apartment because I have the money and I'm an upstanding citizen and I deserve the same right as anyone else.

1. I would support you in working out an arrangement without exacerbating that relationship with a lawsuit.
Getting to know people first is a good way to build stable working relations. That's better than starting something and suing.

2. I would not advise anyone to patronize someone if they have that strong a conflict in ideologies.

If this is necessary to live there, I would say there is a better way than forcing and suing people,
which puts people at odds, looking for the next opportunity to get rid of you anyway.
Why would you set yourself up to fail.

Why have hostile relations to begin with.
Why not work it out where there is no hostility and so no need to sue.

Thanks.

We are both entitled to our opinions. I know you are a peacemaker.

I still support laws against discrimination

Well if we ever go into co-mediation together as a team,
I can be the co-facilitator that sympathizes with the hard right side, so they don't feel judged for their biases and defensive or go ballistic, and you can be the safe person who backs the oppressed side to feel equal and not bullied out of negotiations.

We need a better process that doesn't make one side or the other take turns bullying or playing the victim.
That isn't healthy relations and it skews the communication, making it nearly impossible to work out reasonable solutions.

Love you drifter you stay supportive and keep lifting people up
the world is a better place because people like you care to reach out and speak up. good for you baby boo!