Originally Posted by JamesMac
My children who don't live in the USA have done projects on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. Both are held up as courageous examples of what people in the USA can achieve, and also how far the USA has come.
Some 60 years later it seems a number of you wouldn't allow Rosa Parks to sit on that bus if she were a lesbian. Indeed some would even say she is "like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement" for demanding the seat.
It's staggering that a country like the USA can be so closed minded versus its peers, and the comparisons to Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Iran should be a bit of a wake up call. Most would expect you to be more like Denmark, Canada or Norway.
I sincerely doubt there is anyone here (participating in this conversation) who would take the position you are asserting in your second paragraph. Remember, in the 60s and before there was government sactioned, government enforced discrimination against blacks and other minorities. There were "whites only" drinking fountains in public (i.e., government) buildings. That's disgraceful and RP and MLK are rightfully lauded for their brave efforts to address those injustices.
Where it get murky, and this is where many people cannot understand or refuse to accept a critical distinction, is when the discrimination is done by private actors and not the government. This was happening (and still happens), but is a whole different kettle of fish. Do I think you should refuse to serve someone because you don't like their "lifestyle" or religion or color or gender or whatever? In most cases, of course not. Do I think you should have legal recourse against that person who make this ill-advised/offensive decision? In most cases, no. If you have a monopoly or are performing some critical service, then maybe, but not for normal day to day stuff. If some idiot wants to start a gays-only car sharing service or a whites-only laudromat, then so be it. I am free to boycott or consume those services as I see fit. Maybe I even pass myself off as gay so I can use the former. We don't need the government stepping in in any case. And we certainly don't need a judge deciding whether the person was justified in discriminating because of a "valid" religious conviction or an "invalid" other reason.
So, you see, this isn't a question of "hate filled Christian gay bashers" on one sides and freedom loving liberals on the other.