djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 16:49:42 GMT -5
So is your main point with catering? You don't think people should have to cater an event they don't approve of? But like if they wanted to just buy a cookie or some bread they should be able to do so? My main point is that you shouldn't be forced to provide services to events for which you have a moral objection. it might surprise you to learn that i agree with you. but this was not about weddings. and it was not about "services". a catering company could "opt out" of catering any event it damned well pleases, for any reason whatsoever. catering is not covered by public accommodation, as catered events are generally private. and it is done by subscription/appointment. these are reasons that it has nothing to do with the PA argument. incidentally, i should point out that tallguy and bills and i agree and disagree on this subject to varying degrees. so, the argument that you are making would probably APPEAL to tallguy, but not to me. if it is not food, housing, or medical care, i think discrimination SUCKS, but it is relatively benign and tolerable. tallguy would argue that it isn't, and bills would expand that argument to all individuals that are not governed by corporate law. your failure to see this as an issue of public accommodation means that we are actually talking about different things, PI. you are talking about the freedom for someone to practice religion in ways which do not harm non-consenting others, and it is your FEELING (a feeling which has no legal standing in Oregon) that this should not apply to a bakery. it is my feeling that it should. and it should also apply to any other place that provides food on demand to the public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 18:11:59 GMT -5
So is your main point with catering? You don't think people should have to cater an event they don't approve of? But like if they wanted to just buy a cookie or some bread they should be able to do so? My main point is that you shouldn't be forced to provide services to events for which you have a moral objection. People say "it's not about the cake" or the flowers, or whatever else but that it is about a larger issue....but the truth is that it really is about the cake in this instance and it is also about how far these types of protections should go. If I wanted to go to any business and buy supplies for an event that that owner had a moral/ethical issue with, they should have the right to tell me that they can't in good conscience sell me the items because they know what they are going to be used to support. Let's say it's a "Pro-Life" campaign and the owner believes it's an attack on a woman's right to choose, they shouldn't be forced to provide their products or service, or let's say it's for a Trump or Clinton rally and the owner really has an issue with either of those candidates, they shouldn't be forced to provide service for those events; if there is an LGBTQ event, the same criteria should be applied in whether a business should be forced to provide a service or not (although I highly doubt the reaction would be the same as refusing service to other conventions and we'd be having the same discussion we are now)...but at the same time, those businesses should be able to provide service to those events they believe in without fear of repercussions that they are providing service to some events and not others because of moral/ethical beliefs. Weddings aren't protected events anymore than any of the events I mentioned above, the only issue anybody has is who the wedding is for and the size of the lobby group behind them. As I've said before, we may not always like or agree with the choices people make, but we do need to allow room for them to make those choices. And our "main point" is that no one is FORCED to do a damn thing. People make choices, what they are required to do is abide BY those choices. If you freely choose to open a public business then all you are being required to do is you serve the freaking public... all of them. If you don't want to serve the public... don't open a public business. It's not rocket science.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 18:31:10 GMT -5
My main point is that you shouldn't be forced to provide services to events for which you have a moral objection. People say "it's not about the cake" or the flowers, or whatever else but that it is about a larger issue....but the truth is that it really is about the cake in this instance and it is also about how far these types of protections should go. If I wanted to go to any business and buy supplies for an event that that owner had a moral/ethical issue with, they should have the right to tell me that they can't in good conscience sell me the items because they know what they are going to be used to support. Let's say it's a "Pro-Life" campaign and the owner believes it's an attack on a woman's right to choose, they shouldn't be forced to provide their products or service, or let's say it's for a Trump or Clinton rally and the owner really has an issue with either of those candidates, they shouldn't be forced to provide service for those events; if there is an LGBTQ event, the same criteria should be applied in whether a business should be forced to provide a service or not (although I highly doubt the reaction would be the same as refusing service to other conventions and we'd be having the same discussion we are now)...but at the same time, those businesses should be able to provide service to those events they believe in without fear of repercussions that they are providing service to some events and not others because of moral/ethical beliefs. Weddings aren't protected events anymore than any of the events I mentioned above, the only issue anybody has is who the wedding is for and the size of the lobby group behind them. As I've said before, we may not always like or agree with the choices people make, but we do need to allow room for them to make those choices. And our "main point" is that no one is FORCED to do a damn thing. People make choices, what they are required to do is abide BY those choices. If you freely choose to open a public business then all you are being required to do is you serve the freaking public... all of them. If you don't want to serve the public... don't open a public business. It's not rocket science. i know this might be a stretch for some people, but it reminds me of someone who enlists in the army, and then decides that they are going to be a conscientious objector. i think that argument is going to fall utterly flat for about 25% of the posters here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 18:37:21 GMT -5
And our "main point" is that no one is FORCED to do a damn thing. People make choices, what they are required to do is abide BY those choices. If you freely choose to open a public business then all you are being required to do is you serve the freaking public... all of them. If you don't want to serve the public... don't open a public business. It's not rocket science. i know this might be a stretch for some people, but it reminds me of someone who enlists in the army, and then decides that they are going to be a conscientious objector. i think that argument is going to fall utterly flat for about 25% of the posters here. Exactly. Interestingly enough... I was thinking that exact same point.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 19:39:48 GMT -5
And our "main point" is that no one is FORCED to do a damn thing. People make choices, what they are required to do is abide BY those choices. If you freely choose to open a public business then all you are being required to do is you serve the freaking public... all of them. If you don't want to serve the public... don't open a public business. It's not rocket science. i know this might be a stretch for some people, but it reminds me of someone who enlists in the army, and then decides that they are going to be a conscientious objector. i think that argument is going to fall utterly flat for about 25% of the posters here. It's actually a really big stretch for a comparison, a closer comparison would be if somebody joins the military and takes a stand saying they won't waterboard/torture somebody because they have a moral/ethical objection to doing it. Of course you'd have very few posters here saying "well they shouldn't have joined the military then."
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 19:44:59 GMT -5
My main point is that you shouldn't be forced to provide services to events for which you have a moral objection. People say "it's not about the cake" or the flowers, or whatever else but that it is about a larger issue....but the truth is that it really is about the cake in this instance and it is also about how far these types of protections should go. If I wanted to go to any business and buy supplies for an event that that owner had a moral/ethical issue with, they should have the right to tell me that they can't in good conscience sell me the items because they know what they are going to be used to support. Let's say it's a "Pro-Life" campaign and the owner believes it's an attack on a woman's right to choose, they shouldn't be forced to provide their products or service, or let's say it's for a Trump or Clinton rally and the owner really has an issue with either of those candidates, they shouldn't be forced to provide service for those events; if there is an LGBTQ event, the same criteria should be applied in whether a business should be forced to provide a service or not (although I highly doubt the reaction would be the same as refusing service to other conventions and we'd be having the same discussion we are now)...but at the same time, those businesses should be able to provide service to those events they believe in without fear of repercussions that they are providing service to some events and not others because of moral/ethical beliefs. Weddings aren't protected events anymore than any of the events I mentioned above, the only issue anybody has is who the wedding is for and the size of the lobby group behind them. As I've said before, we may not always like or agree with the choices people make, but we do need to allow room for them to make those choices. And our "main point" is that no one is FORCED to do a damn thing. People make choices, what they are required to do is abide BY those choices. If you freely choose to open a public business then all you are being required to do is you serve the freaking public... all of them. If you don't want to serve the public... don't open a public business. It's not rocket science. "It's so simple even the religious should be able to understand it" right? Of course you say that wasn't meant to be insulting, but that spin explanation was even more of an insult. If I were to say something this so simple "even you should be able to understand it, " my guess is the mods would step in and you would take it for an insult. So to save you the time of explaining your opinions in ways even I should be able to understand, I'll just leave with me saying that I have no intention of engaging you any further on this conversation. You see it as one thing, I see it as another and we'll part ways with this conversation because any chance of either of us coming to an understanding ended with that comment you made.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2016 19:53:49 GMT -5
i know this might be a stretch for some people, but it reminds me of someone who enlists in the army, and then decides that they are going to be a conscientious objector. i think that argument is going to fall utterly flat for about 25% of the posters here. It's actually a really big stretch for a comparison, a closer comparison would be if somebody joins the military and takes a stand saying they won't waterboard/torture somebody because they have a moral/ethical objection to doing it. Of course you'd have very few posters here saying "well they shouldn't have joined the military then." Except that waterboarding and torture are illegal. Well, unless you are part of the Bush administration who declared otherwise. Or a GOP presidential candidate.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 19:56:10 GMT -5
It's actually a really big stretch for a comparison, a closer comparison would be if somebody joins the military and takes a stand saying they won't waterboard/torture somebody because they have a moral/ethical objection to doing it. Of course you'd have very few posters here saying "well they shouldn't have joined the military then." Except that waterboarding and torture are illegal. Well, unless you are part of the Bush administration who declared otherwise. Or a GOP presidential candidate. So basically it wasn't illegal when it happened, but because you have a moral objection to it, you would find it perfectly acceptable for a person to stand firm in their moral/ethical objections in that case even if they joined the military after it was made public?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 20:01:01 GMT -5
i know this might be a stretch for some people, but it reminds me of someone who enlists in the army, and then decides that they are going to be a conscientious objector. i think that argument is going to fall utterly flat for about 25% of the posters here. It's actually a really big stretch for a comparison, a closer comparison would be if somebody joins the military and takes a stand saying they won't waterboard/torture somebody because they have a moral/ethical objection to doing it. Of course you'd have very few posters here saying "well they shouldn't have joined the military then." Umm... the military isn't supposed to BE waterboarding or torturing.... so that kind of doesn't work because the bakery that bakes wedding cakes IS SUPPOSED TO BE baking wedding cakes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 20:02:47 GMT -5
And our "main point" is that no one is FORCED to do a damn thing. People make choices, what they are required to do is abide BY those choices. If you freely choose to open a public business then all you are being required to do is you serve the freaking public... all of them. If you don't want to serve the public... don't open a public business. It's not rocket science. "It's so simple even the religious should be able to understand it" right? Of course you say that wasn't meant to be insulting, but that spin explanation was even more of an insult. If I were to say something this so simple "even you should be able to understand it, " my guess is the mods would step in and you would take it for an insult. So to save you the time of explaining your opinions in ways even I should be able to understand, I'll just leave with me saying that I have no intention of engaging you any further on this conversation. You see it as one thing, I see it as another and we'll part ways with this conversation because any chance of either of us coming to an understanding ended with that comment you made. I see it as it is... you see it as how you wish it was (even though it's clearly not)... that's the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 20:06:36 GMT -5
To compare "torture of people not wanting to be tortured" to "freely choosing baking cakes as a profession and being required to do so equally for everyone that wants one" is ludicrous in the extreme.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2016 20:18:45 GMT -5
Except that waterboarding and torture are illegal. Well, unless you are part of the Bush administration who declared otherwise. Or a GOP presidential candidate. So basically it wasn't illegal when it happened, but because you have a moral objection to it, you would find it perfectly acceptable for a person to stand firm in their moral/ethical objections in that case even if they joined the military after it was made public? Actually it WAS illegal under several different authorities (U.S. law, international law, Army regulations, international treaties on torture and human rights, etc.) Rogue elements within the administration of a feckless idiot cannot make it otherwise. And yes, you do (I believe) have the freedom to disobey an unlawful order. Where in the case of providing one's normal business service do you think it is unlawful to comply with the law?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 20:43:05 GMT -5
So basically it wasn't illegal when it happened, but because you have a moral objection to it, you would find it perfectly acceptable for a person to stand firm in their moral/ethical objections in that case even if they joined the military after it was made public? Actually it WAS illegal under several different authorities (U.S. law, international law, Army regulations, international treaties on torture and human rights, etc.) Rogue elements within the administration of a feckless idiot cannot make it otherwise. And yes, you do (I believe) have the freedom to disobey an unlawful order. Where in the case of providing one's normal business service do you think it is unlawful to comply with the law? You are correct. The UCMJ article that proves it is: Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation Note the words I bolded. As a military person can only be punished for failure to follow a LAWFUL order, the right to not obey an unlawful one is implicit.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 20:45:35 GMT -5
So basically it wasn't illegal when it happened, but because you have a moral objection to it, you would find it perfectly acceptable for a person to stand firm in their moral/ethical objections in that case even if they joined the military after it was made public? Actually it WAS illegal under several different authorities (U.S. law, international law, Army regulations, international treaties on torture and human rights, etc.) Rogue elements within the administration of a feckless idiot cannot make it otherwise. And yes, you do (I believe) have the freedom to disobey an unlawful order. Where in the case of providing one's normal business service do you think it is unlawful to comply with the law? I disagreed with Bush on almost everything, but I didn't think he was an idiot...and there is a difference between providing your product or service for personal use or providing it for an event; you don't see a difference, whereas I do and have provided examples where I don't feel it is wrong for a business to reject providing products or services to events they have an issue with (i.e. Republican/Democrat convention, Pro-Choice or Pro-Life rallies, LGBTQ events, etc), but I do feel businesses should have the right to provide products or services for any one of those events they agree with without feeling the need to provide products and services to all of them. It doesn't mean that I think businesses should be able to deny products or services to all Republicans, Democrats, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, LGBTQ people but I do think they should have the right to deny products or services to events that the business owner feels promote those causes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 20:56:34 GMT -5
i know this might be a stretch for some people, but it reminds me of someone who enlists in the army, and then decides that they are going to be a conscientious objector. i think that argument is going to fall utterly flat for about 25% of the posters here. It's actually a really big stretch for a comparison, i was certain you would think so.a closer comparison would be if somebody joins the military and takes a stand saying they won't waterboard/torture somebody because they have a moral/ethical objection to doing it. Of course you'd have very few posters here saying "well they shouldn't have joined the military then." except torture is illegal according to international law. so, actually you would be following the USMC of conduct by NOT doing it. if you were brought up for failing to obey orders, you could cite it. of course, you would probably get a dishonorable discharge for doing it, because that is just how the kangaroo court system works in the military, but as i said before, if you have moral objections to something, you should be willing to take that risk. failure to follow illegal orders is technically not illegal. but good luck getting that past a tribunal. my point was this: when you JOIN the military, you should be aware of what can happen. you might have to kill people. if that goes against your morals, then you shouldn't join.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 20:58:50 GMT -5
Except that waterboarding and torture are illegal. Well, unless you are part of the Bush administration who declared otherwise. Or a GOP presidential candidate. So basically it wasn't illegal when it happened, but because you have a moral objection to it, you would find it perfectly acceptable for a person to stand firm in their moral/ethical objections in that case even if they joined the military after it was made public? it has been illegal since WW2. we doubled down on that in 1984, when we became signatory to the TAT. i found it really odd that this treaty was almost never cited during our most recent trip down that immoral rabbit hole.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 21:01:14 GMT -5
Actually it WAS illegal under several different authorities (U.S. law, international law, Army regulations, international treaties on torture and human rights, etc.) Rogue elements within the administration of a feckless idiot cannot make it otherwise. And yes, you do (I believe) have the freedom to disobey an unlawful order. Where in the case of providing one's normal business service do you think it is unlawful to comply with the law? I disagreed with Bush on almost everything, but I didn't think he was an idiot...and there is a difference between providing your product or service for personal use or providing it for an event. i agree completely. the event in this case was a RECEPTION. i am not aware of any moral reasoning for failing to sell a cake to a RECEPTION. and again, if they were CATERING the event, they would have had every right to refuse to do it. you can't make a black person cater an Aryan Nations event, either.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Jun 5, 2016 21:07:06 GMT -5
Maybe, I'm wrong. Maybe, I'm right.
But it's just kind of crummy that being a LGBTQ member means something can be denied to you for something you literally have NO control over.
I guess you can't really help your thoughts but I feel like being a Democrat or a Republican...or pro-life or pro-choice is something someone has a little more control over.
Maybe...it's just me...but I'd feel less bad if an event I was at didn't want to be catered to because I'm a Democrat or I'm pro-life. In all honesty...I've switched from being more of a Republican mind set to a Democratic mind-set. This is a lot to do with me being transgender. As much as I view a lot of Republican policies to possibly be more realistic...when it comes down to it I personally have more to lose when it comes to most Republican candidates because they're highly against the LGBTQ...most Republicans are. I have a better chance of keeping my rights the same as everyone elses rights with a Democratic candidate..it's just the way it is. For me? It's the first thing I actually have to look at before supporting a candidate..their stance on the lgbtq because it's what would effect me the most.
I've even switched back and fourth so many times on pro-life and pro-choice. But I can't ever switch being transgender, rather I transitioned or not..i'd always be that.
But for me it's difficult to be denied something because i'm a member of the LGBTQ which I have no real control over...it comes to me like being straight comes to others. Nobody gets denied service because they're straight...so I just don't understand why someone can be denied service because they're gay. This is something someone can't control. If I could have I would have.
It's a lot harder to be denied service because someone doesn't agree with who you are. It's not a hit at a view you have. It is a LEGIT hit at who you are. "I don't approve of who you are" that's what it's saying. "I don't agree with Democratic views." "I don't agree with pro-choice." is so much different then denying someone of the LGBTQ for something they can't control. It's not a view you're denying, it's them you're denying, it's who they are. Some people believe it's not damaging for someone to be denied service. But it is. It's like telling them they're not equal as the man standing in line behind them. It's telling them you don't approve of who they are. You're not disagreeing with a view they have. You're disagreeing with literally who they are. You just want some dang cake and instead of getting the cake you're getting told they don't approve of who you are. I'm sorry...BUT being denied service because of a view difference is different then being denied service for who you are...
And I don't think anyone can say it's not harmful to that person being denied service because they probably have never experienced it in their life because they're not part of the LGBTQ. Just like online bullying? Just like school bullying? Being told things that are telling you that you're not accepted are damaging. Suicide among people that are bullied or not accepted isn't a myth, it's true. And you don't know what that could do to a person. What if that person has so many people bullying them...telling them they're not normal, they're disgusting... then they walk into a store ask for some "cake" and they're denied service for who they are. Not ONLY are they being bullied they're now having basic rights almost every person has which is to walk into a darn store a buy a piece of cake without being told "Nope. Don't approve of who you are."
I don't know. I'm probably describing it incredibly wrong. Like I can say "Oh no, i'm not part of the LGBTQ community." but by default I always will be because I'm transgender. By default a gay person is part of that community rather they'd like to be or not.
A lot of people can be quiet or hide if they're Republican or Democrat. It's not something they really have to talk about or something that they need to mention some where...they can if they choose to but they don't have to.
But because of appearance or because of a person you love...boom you get the label. It's not as easily hidden.
You deny me service because I think Harry Potter is the best thing in the world...alright matter of a view I have that could be wrong and heck may be changed some day.
You deny me service because I'm transgender? That's something I can't control. That's something that will never be changed. That's who I am just as that baker could potentially be a straight white male and they can't change any of those things and they won't be denied because of it. sexuality. gender. color. things people can't control should never be told are wrong or be used against them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2016 21:07:16 GMT -5
Actually it WAS illegal under several different authorities (U.S. law, international law, Army regulations, international treaties on torture and human rights, etc.) Rogue elements within the administration of a feckless idiot cannot make it otherwise. And yes, you do (I believe) have the freedom to disobey an unlawful order. Where in the case of providing one's normal business service do you think it is unlawful to comply with the law? I disagreed with Bush on almost everything, but I didn't think he was an idiot...and there is a difference between providing your product or service for personal use or providing it for an event; you don't see a difference, whereas I do and have provided examples where I don't feel it is wrong for a business to reject providing products or services to events they have an issue with (i.e. Republican/Democrat convention, Pro-Choice or Pro-Life rallies, LGBTQ events, etc), but I do feel businesses should have the right to provide products or services for any one of those events they agree with without feeling the need to provide products and services to all of them. It doesn't mean that I think businesses should be able to deny products or services to all Republicans, Democrats, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, LGBTQ people but I do think they should have the right to deny products or services to events that the business owner feels promote those causes. And I have stipulated that there both is and should be an "active participation" exemption. I have even argued that a photographer has a good case for one in spite of the New Mexico decision to the contrary. A baker does not rise to that level, nor does a florist. Those are normal, simple business transactions which do not require ACTIVE participation in the event. Hence, no exemption from the law.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Jun 5, 2016 21:14:30 GMT -5
I actually can understand not wanting to cater a Gay wedding. I do understand that. Just like I understand if a Priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple.
But only catering. I understand not wanting to cater.
But I don't even understand not catering a LGBTQ event. The gay wedding part because they're in a ceremony catering something they don't approve.
But, to deny an LGBTQ event is denying people that are just being who they are. They can't control it. They can control getting married I give a person that. But, they have no control over being part of the LGBTQ community and I can't get on board with someone refusing to serve someone simply for being at a place where they're being themselves.
I can't get on board with someone not approving a person of the LGBTQ and denying them a service. Disapprove in private. Not in public.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 21:25:40 GMT -5
I disagreed with Bush on almost everything, but I didn't think he was an idiot...and there is a difference between providing your product or service for personal use or providing it for an event; you don't see a difference, whereas I do and have provided examples where I don't feel it is wrong for a business to reject providing products or services to events they have an issue with (i.e. Republican/Democrat convention, Pro-Choice or Pro-Life rallies, LGBTQ events, etc), but I do feel businesses should have the right to provide products or services for any one of those events they agree with without feeling the need to provide products and services to all of them. It doesn't mean that I think businesses should be able to deny products or services to all Republicans, Democrats, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, LGBTQ people but I do think they should have the right to deny products or services to events that the business owner feels promote those causes. And I have stipulated that there both is and should be an "active participation" exemption. I have even argued that a photographer has a good case for one in spite of the New Mexico decision to the contrary. A baker does not rise to that level, nor does a florist. Those are normal, simple business transactions which do not require ACTIVE participation in the event. Hence, no exemption from the law. In your opinion it doesn't....but to different business owners it may. As for the photographer, the decision was based using the exact same logic you are using. People are protected, the events they attend are not and while this may seem like a loophole, it is none-the-less true and why I draw the line where I do.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 21:27:27 GMT -5
I actually can understand not wanting to cater a Gay wedding. I do understand that. Just like I understand if a Priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple. But only catering. I understand not wanting to cater. But I don't even understand not catering a LGBTQ event. The gay wedding part because they're in a ceremony catering something they don't approve. But, to deny an LGBTQ event is denying people that are just being who they are. They can't control it. They can control getting married I give a person that. But, they have no control over being part of the LGBTQ community and I can't get on board with someone refusing to serve someone simply for being at a place where they're being themselves. I can't get on board with someone not approving a person of the LGBTQ and denying them a service. Disapprove in private. Not in public. Just because a person is having or at an LGBTQ event doesn't mean the person is any of those things...it just means they have the event to promote those causes. So denying a product or service for that event is no different than denying it for any other event. As I just mentioned in a previous post, I have no real issue with people being protected but just as many posters feel that the business owner's personal protections shouldn't be extended to their business, in the same way protection of protected classes of people shouldn't be extended to events for those causes either.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Jun 5, 2016 21:31:43 GMT -5
No denying an LGBTQ event is still saying "I don't approve of the LGBTQ" rather it's just lgbtq people. It's not saying "I don't approve of this view." it's not approving of someone that is trans or gay...
Being transgender or gay isn't something anyone should even have an opinion on...
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 21:37:57 GMT -5
No denying an LGBTQ event is still saying "I don't approve of the LGBTQ" rather it's just lgbtq people. It's not saying "I don't approve of this view." it's not approving of someone that is trans or gay... Being transgender or gay isn't something anyone should even have an opinion on... If the event is to promote LGTBQ being added as a protected class, or if it's to promote some other political agenda, it is no different than any other event. If it's just a gather of people, it's no different than any other gathering of people (all of which should be allowed to be denied products or services)...people only look at it differently or think that it should have additional protections because of the people gathering.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2016 21:39:04 GMT -5
And I have stipulated that there both is and should be an "active participation" exemption. I have even argued that a photographer has a good case for one in spite of the New Mexico decision to the contrary. A baker does not rise to that level, nor does a florist. Those are normal, simple business transactions which do not require ACTIVE participation in the event. Hence, no exemption from the law. In your opinion it doesn't....but to different business owners it may. As for the photographer, the decision was based using the exact same logic you are using. People are protected, the events they attend are not and while this may seem like a loophole, it is none-the-less true and why I draw the line where I do. One could literally perform either of those services without even meeting the couple involved, or at the very least not after the initial ordering. Even if you set up at the venue you are finished and gone long before it starts, and possibly before anyone even shows up. How can that qualify as active participation? Those services are exactly the same for a straight wedding, and you are not "actively involved" in the event.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 21:41:40 GMT -5
In your opinion it doesn't....but to different business owners it may. As for the photographer, the decision was based using the exact same logic you are using. People are protected, the events they attend are not and while this may seem like a loophole, it is none-the-less true and why I draw the line where I do. One could literally perform either of those services without even meeting the couple involved, or at the very least not after the initial ordering. Even if you set up at the venue you are finished and gone long before it starts, and possibly before anyone even shows up. How can that qualify as active participation? Those services are exactly the same for a straight wedding, and you are not "actively involved" in the event. If they feel that providing their product or service makes them a part of the event, it is what it is and the only time people have an issue with it is when certain groups of people are affected.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2016 21:52:31 GMT -5
How many times does it become an issue because straight white people are denied service? Can you think of any?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 5, 2016 22:08:13 GMT -5
How many times does it become an issue because straight white people are denied service? Can you think of any? Denying any event could be denying products or services to straight white people, and while that is not the point you are trying to make, it is the point you are missing. I already said that in theory I have no real issue with protecting people from discrimination on an individual basis, but I don't think that same protection should extend to providing products or service to events...who is asking for the product or service is irrelevant.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 23:21:56 GMT -5
And I have stipulated that there both is and should be an "active participation" exemption. I have even argued that a photographer has a good case for one in spite of the New Mexico decision to the contrary. A baker does not rise to that level, nor does a florist. Those are normal, simple business transactions which do not require ACTIVE participation in the event. Hence, no exemption from the law. In your opinion it doesn't....but to different business owners it may. As for the photographer, the decision was based using the exact same logic you are using. People are protected, the events they attend are not and while this may seem like a loophole, it is none-the-less true and why I draw the line where I do. the photographer and the florist are not subject to public accommodation laws. ONLY the baker is, in this example. of course, an ER surgeon would ALSO be subject to these laws, which even you would agree, he should be.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 23:23:44 GMT -5
In your opinion it doesn't....but to different business owners it may. As for the photographer, the decision was based using the exact same logic you are using. People are protected, the events they attend are not and while this may seem like a loophole, it is none-the-less true and why I draw the line where I do. One could literally perform either of those services without even meeting the couple involved, or at the very least not after the initial ordering. Even if you set up at the venue you are finished and gone long before it starts, and possibly before anyone even shows up. How can that qualify as active participation? Those services are exactly the same for a straight wedding, and you are not "actively involved" in the event. this is where this argument falls face down in the mud, imo. it is no more endorsing a wedding to supply food for a reception than it is endorsing death to attend a funeral.
|
|