You're really painting the word "discrimination" with a broad brush here. Not "all" discrimination is based on hate. Are you talking about discrimination in public entities?
Take for instance, private all-girls schools. They discriminate against boys, who may be just as smart and talented, but they don't differentiate because they hate boys. Take for instance the NFL. They don't discriminate against female football players because they hate them.
I agree with you. Note my comment specifically refers to all the ones mentioned in my post
So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials? Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches? Look beyond the whole, "OMG! They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business.
Remember, you are "that group" to someone.
Really? Those are your examples. I'm not going to say anything beyond that because I know it's hopeless.
(or, I have again misinterpreted what someone is saying)
This just clears the way for more discrimination lawsuits, as Peter Schiff talked about on his radio show, and others have pointed out... i.e. someone comes to your business and they are disruptive so you ask them to leave, but they just happen to be gay, so now you have to prove that you that you refused to serve them not because they were gay, but because they were creating a disturbance?
People should have the right to discriminate, it will be financially disadvantageous so most will not want to do so, and it is bad for business. But people should still be able to choose, and the issue is much broader than this tiny gay issue. Employers discriminate against pot smokers through drug testing -- is that discrimination in states that have legalized it? The examples can go on and on..
It's also a sad state of things when a thread like this is the busiest in a while here. That just goes to show how little is happening around Apple at the moment.
Maybe the thread is busy because it's important to a lot of people on both sides of the issue. We are not that far from a time when being "suspected" of being gay was a basis for denying insurance coverage (before AIDS) as well as housing. One didn't have to be gay - just the suspicion was good enough.
Really? Those are your examples. I'm not going to say anything beyond that because I know it's hopeless.
(or, I have again misinterpreted what someone is saying)
That's nice...get in that snide slap in the face implication that those who disagree are hopeless.
You also didn't answer my questions; should either business owner have to do something they find offensive or against their religion? I mean, it seems like it's open season on Christians, but we can't touch the Jews and can't even mention possibly potentially maybe offending Muslims in this country for fear of being ostracized.
This just clears the way for more discrimination lawsuits, as Peter Schiff talked about on his radio show, and others have pointed out... i.e. someone comes to your business and they are disruptive so you ask them to leave, but they just happen to be gay, so now you have to prove that you that you refused to serve them not because they were gay, but because they were creating a disturbance?
As I understand it, the US already has such laws outlawing discrimination against people based on race, religion and nationality. Has it led to an avalanche of frivolous discrimination lawsuits? Does the impact of these lawsuits outweigh the benefits of living in a society free from racial and religious discrimination?
I thought America already had a political party like that — the Libertarian party(?). The two party American political system isn't working.
I suppose you're right. We need a third party so old angry Christian white men will have a place to go where they can pretend that this whole country is made up of people like them and it's still the "good ol' days."
That's nice...get in that snide slap in the face implication that those who disagree are hopeless.
You also didn't answer my questions; should either business owner have to do something they find offensive or against their religion? I mean, it seems like it's open season on Christians, but we can't touch the Jews and can't even mention possibly potentially maybe offending Muslims in this country for fear of being ostracized.
Now you're changing your argument. Why don't you discuss your examples from the earlier post and explain to everyone how they are the same as/similar to not serving gay people.
Ok well then I think vegetarian restaurants should be forced to serve meat because not doing so discriminates against consumers who prefer meat. And eating mets is perfectly legal in the United States. And I think CVS should have to reverse its policy of not selling cigarettes in its stores because that is discriminating against smokers, many of whom I'm sure shopped at CVS for other items as well. Last time I checked, smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal in the United States.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! This has to be the worst analogy of all time.
Now you're changing your argument. Why don't you discuss your examples from the earlier post and explain to everyone how they are the same as/similar to not serving gay people.
No, I'm not changing the argument and my examples stand. Should a business owner be forced to do something against their beliefs regardless of who is doing the demanding? By your apparent position, this should be something reserved exclusively for gays. But it isn't; if you step back and divorce yourself of the emotion and look at this dispassionately, you'll see the other scenarios where this could come into play.
In my two examples, the Jewish print shop owner would have no grounds to refuse the Neo-Nazi if they wanted to contract for business forms for a local garage and the Muslim caterer would have no grounds to refuse the patron if they asked for a vegetable platter.
No, I'm not changing the argument and my examples stand. Should a business owner be forced to do something against their beliefs regardless of who is doing the demanding? By your apparent position, this should be something reserved exclusively for gays. But it isn't; if you step back and divorce yourself of the emotion and look at this dispassionately, you'll see the other scenarios where this could come into play.
In my two examples, the Jewish print shop owner would have no grounds to refuse the Neo-Nazi if they wanted to contract for business forms for a local garage and the Muslim caterer would have no grounds to refuse the patron if they asked for a vegetable platter.
Bad analogies and you don't even understand why.
I'll give you a hint... if the gay couple asked the baker to make a cake depicting two men f*cking... then that is similar to your examples.
A bit like South Africa eh? If I don't want these blacks to drink in my (whites only) bar, swim in the public baths or use these drinking fountains then I should have that right? I mean, the blacks can always get those things somewhere else.
:no: :no:
It's hard for some people to realise that human rights are all our rights. Some people think it's fine until they find themselves at the sharp end of someone else's discrimination. If there's enough people it can be a short step to legal discrimination.
I'll give you a hint... if the gay couple asked the baker to make a cake depicting two men f*cking... then that is similar to your examples.
Wrong...the gay couple asked the baker to make a wedding cake for them...which celebrated something that the baker's faith found morally and spiritually wrong, and thus baking the cake would be acting to support such an act. It doesn't matter what the cake topper was, it was the context for the cake. Just like the context for the printer and caterer in my examples.
Wrong...the gay couple asked the baker to make a wedding cake for them...which celebrated something that the baker's faith found morally and spiritually wrong, and thus baking the cake would be acting to support such an act. It doesn't matter what the cake topper was, it was the context for the cake. Just like the context for the printer and caterer in my examples.
That's where I believe you are wrong.
If the Jewish printers printed Nazi propaganda for other people then it would be wrong to deny a neonazi group the same business. (even though I think it's ludicrous to include neonazis as an example).
If Muslims made pulled pork sandwiches for atheists but wouldn't make them for Christians... then that is wrong.
Do you understand, yet...
The bakers make wedding cakes for other people and by not including gay people then they are excluding a group of people based on sexual preference. It would be similar to not making a wedding cake for black people or for Jewish people if the bakers were Muslim.
If the Jewish printers printed Nazi propaganda for other people then it would be wrong to deny a neonazi group the same business. (even though I think it's ludicrous to include neonazis as an example).
If Muslims made pulled pork sandwiches for atheists but wouldn't make them for Christians... then that is wrong.
Do you understand, yet...
The bakers make wedding cakes for other people and by not including gay people then they are excluding a group of people based on sexual preference. It would be similar to not making a wedding cake for black people or for Jewish people if the bakers were Muslim.
The USA is not a theocracy... yet.
It isn't a theocracy, but it is becoming a tyranny of the minority.
In Japan it is very common to see "Japanese Only Signs" With "No Gaijin Allowed" (Gaijin are foreigners) I also saw similar signs in Korea and China. This law reminded me of that. Exclusionary practices based on physical characteristics or sexuality seems so 20th century now. But at the same time the fact that this law even made it to the governor's desk is scary.
Really? Did you read the bill? If so, please point out to me where it references or mentions "homosexuality".
A lot of folks here are commenting on something they have never seen nor read.
So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials? Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches? Look beyond the whole, "OMG! They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business.
Remember, you are "that group" to someone.
The Muslim caterer wouldn't have been selected by your fictional client. Generally when you're looking for caterers you'll have access to their menus and you wouldn't select one that doesn't have an item that you must have on their menu
Comments
I agree with you. Note my comment specifically refers to all the ones mentioned in my post
So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials? Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches? Look beyond the whole, "OMG! They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business.
Remember, you are "that group" to someone.
Really? Those are your examples. I'm not going to say anything beyond that because I know it's hopeless.
(or, I have again misinterpreted what someone is saying)
This just clears the way for more discrimination lawsuits, as Peter Schiff talked about on his radio show, and others have pointed out... i.e. someone comes to your business and they are disruptive so you ask them to leave, but they just happen to be gay, so now you have to prove that you that you refused to serve them not because they were gay, but because they were creating a disturbance?
People should have the right to discriminate, it will be financially disadvantageous so most will not want to do so, and it is bad for business. But people should still be able to choose, and the issue is much broader than this tiny gay issue. Employers discriminate against pot smokers through drug testing -- is that discrimination in states that have legalized it? The examples can go on and on..
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/Allen-West-gay-rights-Arizona-civil-rights/2014/02/26/id/554962?promo_code=FA07-1&utm_source=Schiff Radio&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
Maybe the thread is busy because it's important to a lot of people on both sides of the issue. We are not that far from a time when being "suspected" of being gay was a basis for denying insurance coverage (before AIDS) as well as housing. One didn't have to be gay - just the suspicion was good enough.
Really? Those are your examples. I'm not going to say anything beyond that because I know it's hopeless.
(or, I have again misinterpreted what someone is saying)
That's nice...get in that snide slap in the face implication that those who disagree are hopeless.
You also didn't answer my questions; should either business owner have to do something they find offensive or against their religion? I mean, it seems like it's open season on Christians, but we can't touch the Jews and can't even mention possibly potentially maybe offending Muslims in this country for fear of being ostracized.
This just clears the way for more discrimination lawsuits, as Peter Schiff talked about on his radio show, and others have pointed out... i.e. someone comes to your business and they are disruptive so you ask them to leave, but they just happen to be gay, so now you have to prove that you that you refused to serve them not because they were gay, but because they were creating a disturbance?
As I understand it, the US already has such laws outlawing discrimination against people based on race, religion and nationality. Has it led to an avalanche of frivolous discrimination lawsuits? Does the impact of these lawsuits outweigh the benefits of living in a society free from racial and religious discrimination?
I suppose you're right. We need a third party so old angry Christian white men will have a place to go where they can pretend that this whole country is made up of people like them and it's still the "good ol' days."
That's nice...get in that snide slap in the face implication that those who disagree are hopeless.
You also didn't answer my questions; should either business owner have to do something they find offensive or against their religion? I mean, it seems like it's open season on Christians, but we can't touch the Jews and can't even mention possibly potentially maybe offending Muslims in this country for fear of being ostracized.
Now you're changing your argument. Why don't you discuss your examples from the earlier post and explain to everyone how they are the same as/similar to not serving gay people.
Ok well then I think vegetarian restaurants should be forced to serve meat because not doing so discriminates against consumers who prefer meat. And eating mets is perfectly legal in the United States. And I think CVS should have to reverse its policy of not selling cigarettes in its stores because that is discriminating against smokers, many of whom I'm sure shopped at CVS for other items as well. Last time I checked, smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal in the United States.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! This has to be the worst analogy of all time.
It's very scary to see so many people thinking that it would be okay for the USA to become a theocracy.
Quote:
Now you're changing your argument. Why don't you discuss your examples from the earlier post and explain to everyone how they are the same as/similar to not serving gay people.
No, I'm not changing the argument and my examples stand. Should a business owner be forced to do something against their beliefs regardless of who is doing the demanding? By your apparent position, this should be something reserved exclusively for gays. But it isn't; if you step back and divorce yourself of the emotion and look at this dispassionately, you'll see the other scenarios where this could come into play.
In my two examples, the Jewish print shop owner would have no grounds to refuse the Neo-Nazi if they wanted to contract for business forms for a local garage and the Muslim caterer would have no grounds to refuse the patron if they asked for a vegetable platter.
Quote:
No, I'm not changing the argument and my examples stand. Should a business owner be forced to do something against their beliefs regardless of who is doing the demanding? By your apparent position, this should be something reserved exclusively for gays. But it isn't; if you step back and divorce yourself of the emotion and look at this dispassionately, you'll see the other scenarios where this could come into play.
In my two examples, the Jewish print shop owner would have no grounds to refuse the Neo-Nazi if they wanted to contract for business forms for a local garage and the Muslim caterer would have no grounds to refuse the patron if they asked for a vegetable platter.
Bad analogies and you don't even understand why.
I'll give you a hint... if the gay couple asked the baker to make a cake depicting two men f*cking... then that is similar to your examples.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/jesus-religious-freedom-gay-lesbian-discrimination
:no: :no:
It's hard for some people to realise that human rights are all our rights. Some people think it's fine until they find themselves at the sharp end of someone else's discrimination. If there's enough people it can be a short step to legal discrimination.
Bad analogies and you don't even understand why.
I'll give you a hint... if the gay couple asked the baker to make a cake depicting two men f*cking... then that is similar to your examples.
Wrong...the gay couple asked the baker to make a wedding cake for them...which celebrated something that the baker's faith found morally and spiritually wrong, and thus baking the cake would be acting to support such an act. It doesn't matter what the cake topper was, it was the context for the cake. Just like the context for the printer and caterer in my examples.
Wrong...the gay couple asked the baker to make a wedding cake for them...which celebrated something that the baker's faith found morally and spiritually wrong, and thus baking the cake would be acting to support such an act. It doesn't matter what the cake topper was, it was the context for the cake. Just like the context for the printer and caterer in my examples.
That's where I believe you are wrong.
If the Jewish printers printed Nazi propaganda for other people then it would be wrong to deny a neonazi group the same business. (even though I think it's ludicrous to include neonazis as an example).
If Muslims made pulled pork sandwiches for atheists but wouldn't make them for Christians... then that is wrong.
Do you understand, yet...
The bakers make wedding cakes for other people and by not including gay people then they are excluding a group of people based on sexual preference. It would be similar to not making a wedding cake for black people or for Jewish people if the bakers were Muslim.
The USA is not a theocracy... yet.
That's where I believe you are wrong.
If the Jewish printers printed Nazi propaganda for other people then it would be wrong to deny a neonazi group the same business. (even though I think it's ludicrous to include neonazis as an example).
If Muslims made pulled pork sandwiches for atheists but wouldn't make them for Christians... then that is wrong.
Do you understand, yet...
The bakers make wedding cakes for other people and by not including gay people then they are excluding a group of people based on sexual preference. It would be similar to not making a wedding cake for black people or for Jewish people if the bakers were Muslim.
The USA is not a theocracy... yet.
It isn't a theocracy, but it is becoming a tyranny of the minority.
It isn't a theocracy, but it is becoming a tyranny by the minority.
Fixed that for you.
(and I'm not talking about gay people)
In Japan it is very common to see "Japanese Only Signs" With "No Gaijin Allowed" (Gaijin are foreigners) I also saw similar signs in Korea and China. This law reminded me of that. Exclusionary practices based on physical characteristics or sexuality seems so 20th century now. But at the same time the fact that this law even made it to the governor's desk is scary.
Really? Did you read the bill? If so, please point out to me where it references or mentions "homosexuality".
A lot of folks here are commenting on something they have never seen nor read.
Here's a link to the bill, it's only two pages and a quick read: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf
So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials? Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches? Look beyond the whole, "OMG! They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business.
Remember, you are "that group" to someone.
The Muslim caterer wouldn't have been selected by your fictional client. Generally when you're looking for caterers you'll have access to their menus and you wouldn't select one that doesn't have an item that you must have on their menu