Support NeoGAF

[Gordon Shumway]

My head..

 

[Armaros]

City planning departments keep records on what businesses offer what services. Moreover, you could go to court if you felt the business was the only business that offered a desired service. If you were harmed by the lack of service to a certain degree, you would win the case and the business would be required to provide you with that service. Not that hard really.

And yes, I get what implementing such a law would entail. There would be an upside though. If white businesses closed their doors to blacks, for example, more black owned businesses would pop up to fill the demand. Same with businesses that refused LGBT people.

Its not hard.

You just have to give up your 14th amendment protections and then pay a lawyer so you can sue the business and hope another business will open so you can use a service.

 

[dabig2]

You haven't answered my question.

We have had a time in history when ALL of what you have stated was happening.

Its called Segregation.

So you want that again? Because acting like the Country is forward enough to remove discrimination protections across the country is naive. We are seeing the same exact stuff with LGBT individuals still. Since the many states dont have protections like they do for race and religion. And you want to to remove those protections also?

sounds like he's saying we've progressed enough to invite the good ol days back. A bullshit argument to anyone who still has working neurons. Respect and freedom should never be left up to the delirious concept of the free market.

 

[Alucrid]

City planning departments keep records on what businesses offer what services. Moreover, you could go to court if you felt the business was the only business that offered a desired service. If you were harmed by the lack of service to a certain degree, you would win the case and the business would be required to provide you with that service. Not that hard really.

And yes, I get what implementing such a law would entail. There would be an upside though. If white businesses closed their doors to blacks, for example, more black owned businesses would pop up to fill the demand. Same with businesses that refused LGBT people.

I'm glad that GameGuru can always find an upside to discrimination

 

[GameGuru59]

Its not hard.

You just have to give up your 14th amendment protections and then pay a lawyer so you can sue the business and hope another business will open so you can use a service.

You have to have a lawyer to go to court? That's news to me.

I'm glad that GameGuru can always find an upside to discrimination

Well yeah, many would argue that the black communities were stronger in cities when they were forced to look out for themselves due to housing and economic segregation.

 

[thefit]

City planning departments keep records on what businesses offer what services. Moreover, you could go to court if you felt the business was the only business that offered a desired service. If you were harmed by the lack of service to a certain degree, you would win the case and the business would be required to provide you with that service. Not that hard really.

And yes, I get what implementing such a law would entail. There would be an upside though. If white businesses closed their doors to blacks, for example, more black owned businesses would pop up to fill the demand. Same with businesses that refused LGBT people.

Legitimizing Jim crow laws would mean it would be legal for banks and land/building owners to refuse business/ loans and leases to whomever they don't like.

 

[Armaros]

You have to have a lawyer to go to court? That's news to me.

You expect to win most court battles without a lawyer?

Edit: Oh its you, the "there should be no private community pools person' but apparently "YES TO SEGREGATION"

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Yeah, let's have people jump through crazy hoops, deal with the courts and all that entails, just to not be discriminated against by something like a Bakery.

That just sounds like an idea only an asshole would express.

 

[GameGuru59]

Legitimizing Jim crow laws would mean it would be legal for banks and land/building owners to refuse business/ loans and leases to whomever they don't like.

No it wouldn't. There are specific laws regarding that. And if I wrote the new law legalizing discrimination myself, I would exempt banks and other highly essential institutions.

You expect to win most court battles without a lawyer?

I think I could do okay, personally. Other people... eh... Also, in these cases, judges should provide some leniency for the fact that the people bringing these cases aren't going to know much about law. All that should be required should be a map showing where the nearest business is that provides the same service.

Edit: Oh its you, the "there should be no private community pools person' but apparently "YES TO SEGREGATION"

I don't understand what you guy's problem is with that? My whole point about being against private pools is that they are allowed to segregate. Therefore, the city should outlaw them through zoning, and construct its own pools where everyone can attend. Private ownership exists to serve who the owner wants it to serve. Public ownership exists to serve the the public. It's not that hard a concept to understand in my view.

Yeah, let's have people jump through crazy hoops, deal with the courts and all that entails, just to not be discriminated against by something like a Bakery.

That just sounds like an idea only an asshole would express.

Until you're the baker.

 

[outunderthestars]

You expect to win most court battles without a lawyer?

Edit: Oh its you, the "there should be no private community pools person' but apparently "YES TO SEGREGATION"

It makes perfect sense. You can open any business you want, and discriminate against anyone you choose, as long as it isn't a pool, because the one inalienable right people have is to play Marco Polo wherever they want.

 

[The Technomancer]

No it wouldn't. There are specific laws regarding that. And if I wrote the new law legalizing discrimination myself, I would exempt banks and other highly essential institutions.

I think I could do okay, personally. Other people... eh... Also, in these cases, judges should provide some leniency for the fact that the people bringing these cases aren't going to know much about law. All that should be required should be a map showing where the nearest business is that provides the same service.

Until you're the baker.

Why do you feel the right to discriminate is more important than the right to not be discriminated against? I mean, in either case someone's freedom is being curtailed, right? Why not require businesses to make the petition to the court to discriminate based on a certain class?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL ARGUE WITH GAMEGURU.

Seriously.

 

[neorej]

So if a catholic gay couple wanted to get married in a church because of religious reasons, the church wants to ban them because of religious reasons, who would be in their rights?

 

[Dice]

I don't understand this from a Christian theological perspective. Similar things, to my mind:

Matthew 22:5 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

1 Corinthians 8:8 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

The point of both would seem to be that the way people look at things doesn't matter to your personal standing with God. As that second passage continues, it does that say essentially that if another Christian perceives it as giving the OK to something sinful, you shouldn't encourage them to do that thing. However, that is only increasing the importance of your personal declaration in your relationship to others as opposed to the actions in themselves, and it also has nothing to do with the relational dynamics with unbelievers.

There are some later verses about honoring government roles, which are quite weighty if you consider they were practicing unjust/oppressive taxes and murdering Christians, but that is slightly less applicable. The point is, I have no idea where these people are getting, from a Christian theological perspective, that they should refuse to do innocuous things for sinners that the government says they should do, just because they disagree with the perception of them? If you don't think it's a legitimate marriage, just bake the damn cake and say out loud that you don't believe it is legitimate. Then the "sinner" got the message, and God saw you do it, right?

Especially considering the opening part of the second passage, it would seem it matters more if they perceive you as an unloving bigot asshole than whether or not they perceive you as a Christian approving of their sinful concepts of marriage. I mean, I don't ask for much. You can go ahead and sell your brain to your religion and follow it hardcore and miss out on much in life, but at least be consistent to the religion if you choose that option!

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

So if a catholic gay couple wanted to get married in a church because of religious reasons, the church wants to ban them because of religious reasons, who would be in their rights?

The church. The church is a tax-exempt religious institution. The couple are just private citizens. Legally, the church wins.

 

[Escape Goat]

If a corporation is a person according to the Supreme Court how are they going to settle these religious exemption laws? Not correctly I don't think.

 

[Scrooged]

I mean, your church doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, more power to you, no-one's ever suggested otherwise I don't think

Businesses? Fuck off though

Exactly.

Nope. Churches shouldn't get a pass either.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not the government's job to force churches to perform services that are against their beliefs. Separation of church and state is important.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Are we really arguing over whether society really wouldn't be so bad after all, in fact it might be kinda great, if everybody was freely discriminating against everyone else - based on the innate attributes of individuals. Like skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Why have a society in the first place. Why not just go fully anarchist because if you don't have some ground rules for how people have to treat others in order to be allowed into the playground, you don't really have anything resembling a society.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, issued a directive to state agencies saying that employees should not be penalized for refusing to act in violation of their beliefs. “No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage,” he said in a statement

^fuck this guy. If want to hold public office and be a government employee, you will abode by the SCOTUS holding, otherwise get in the fucking unemployment line until you fund a new job.

 

[VistraNorrez]

As someone raised Catholic and who went to Catholic schools for 13 years (now atheist), I don't remember anywhere in the bible that says not to serve gay people. But I must have missed something so where in any Christian religion does it say one cannot serve gay people?

And the other thing I know about Catholicism is that when my wife and I got married (she is Catholic) they Church made it very clear the state marriage license meant nothing to them. The Church only recognizes their own certificate. Not sure why any other religion should be any different. The governments licenses should mean nothing to you if you are a Christian, it has nothing to do with your God, so you should have no problem distributing them. There is no moral conundrum.

 

[bengraven]

Government - follow the law. When you bend the laws, you question why that law exists and you question your government. If this is your employer, you're being insubordinate and should be fired.

As someone raised Catholic and who went to Catholic schools for 13 years (now atheist), I don't remember anywhere in the bible that says not to serve gay people. But I must have missed something so where in any Christian religion does it say one cannot serve gay people?

And the other thing I know about Catholicism is that when my wife and I got married (she is Catholic) they Church made it very clear the state marriage license meant nothing to them. The Church only recognizes their own certificate. Not sure why any other religion should be any different. The governments licenses should mean nothing to you if you are a Christian, it has nothing to do with your God, so you should have no problem distributing them. There is no moral conundrum.

There's also nothing in there about proper etiquette on a plane or whether cloning is ethical. Because it was written 2000 years ago by a few people of different but similar religious doctrines and different but similar cultural statuses specific to their region and thrown together like an essay the day before that essay is due. Why we have to base our nation's laws on a scroll written by some religious nut locked in his hut in the middle of the desert in a country that doesn't even exist anymore I don't know.

 

[thefit]

Churches would win what these governors want is these same seperation of church and state exemptiins extended to businesses that proclaim their religiouse rights are being trampled on. Not going to happen. They arent churches they are businesses.

 

[pwack]

I think I could do okay, personally. Other people... eh... Also, in these cases, judges should provide some leniency for the fact that the people bringing these cases aren't going to know much about law. All that should be required should be a map showing where the nearest business is that provides the same service.
.

You can't make a sensible post on an Internet forum or manage to hold yourself to a consistent viewpoint on social liberties. You would get your ass handed to you in court.

 

[KJRS_1993]

I mean, your church doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, more power to you, no-one's ever suggested otherwise I don't think

I disagree with this as well to be honest.
Somebodies religious beliefs don't excuse any kind of prejudice to anybody in my opinion.

 

[GameGuru59]

It makes perfect sense. You can open any business you want, and discriminate against anyone you choose, as long as it isn't a pool, because the one inalienable right people have is to play Marco Polo wherever they want.

No. Running a pool is easily within the government's ability to achieve. There's no need to privatize it. In fact, most pools wouldn't work privately- that's why they have the shitty HOA (historically created as a means of discrimination) pseudo-government levy a fee upon the residents to pay for them. The city government should be running these pools.

Now when it comes to a restaurant, the government is less-able to provide that service in a way that people will want it delivered. Therefore, restaurants work better as private businesses.

Why do you feel the right to discriminate is more important than the right to not be discriminated against? I mean, in either case someone's freedom is being curtailed, right? Why not require businesses to make the petition to the court to discriminate based on a certain class?

I already wrote about this in a previous thread, but I would say that this right of private individuals to discriminate is important if we want to maintain a clear distinction between public and private ownership.

The pool debate is a good example of this. HOA's exist because white suburbanites sought to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. As we saw in the Texas incident, they still largely serve this purpose- though much less visibly. If that pool were a public pool, the entire incident likely would not have happened. First off, the police would have been in much better communication with the people running the pool, because they would be public officials. In fact, they may have already have been there in the role of peace-officer. Second, when the incident did occur, multiple HOA officials started leading the police around indicating who was and who weren't supposed to be in the neighborhood. If the pool were publicly owned, the police would have told those fuckers to kick rocks. That entire incident stemmed from our national confusion about public and private ownership. The same could be said of the bakery incident in Oregon- an example much closer to the topic of this thread.

Furthermore, I do believe religious people are harmed when they can't exercise their religion in their own private business. In fact, one could say it is the government enforcing societal norms upon people in their own private businesses. That is wrong.

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL ARGUE WITH GAMEGURU.

Seriously.

I actually admire people who rise to defend societal norms. It shows they have an understanding of why they believe a certain thing. It's always good to exercise that "muscle" in my opinion. To challenge yourself. I invite you to participate.

 

[gutter_trash]

conservatives should just pack their bags and move to Saudi Arabia where they share their antiquated values

 

[VistraNorrez]

There's also nothing in there about proper etiquette on a plane or whether cloning is ethical. Because it was written 2000 years ago by a few people of different but similar religious doctrines and different but similar cultural statuses specific to their region and thrown together like an essay the day before that essay is due. Why we have to base our nation's laws on a scroll written by some religious nut locked in his hut in the middle of the desert in a country that doesn't even exist anymore I don't know.

I know, so that brings me to the point that these people have to prove their religion is against serving gay people. And Christians cannot do that. There is nothing in the Bible that says do not treat gay people with the respect your government has bestowed upon them. I'm certain the Bible actually shows the opposite considering how Jesus treated the fringes of society in it.

 

[GameGuru59]

You can't make a sensible post on an Internet forum or manage to hold yourself to a consistent viewpoint on social liberties. You would get your ass handed to you in court.

This is just a pastime for me. You'd be surprised what I can do when I actually get bothered enough to research shit.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I know, so that brings me to the point that these people have to prove their religion is against serving gay people. And Christians cannot do that. There is nothing in the Bible that says do not treat gay people with the respect your government has bestowed upon them. I'm certain the Bible actually shows the opposite considering how Jesus treated the fringes of society in it.

I think it's probably a pretty bad idea for society to get into the habit of springing Biblical trivia pop-quizzes on people who assert they have a religious duty and then deciding whether or not their interpretation of their own religion is true enough to justify protection.

See also: Whether Sikhs have a real duty to wear Kirpans, whether Muslim women have a true duty to ear a headscarf, whether Christians must refuse to participate in war, whether anti-usury prohibitions in a variety of religions apply in the modern world, whether Jewish inmates must be server kosher meals, a wide variety of religious duties with respect to cutting or not cutting hair or beards, etc.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is just a pastime for me. You'd be surprised what I can do when I actually get bothered enough to research shit.

You characterized the process as "easy". I can't think of any way in which I would call having to go to court and research legal arguments just to ensure service at a business as "easy". At the very least it takes time, time that plenty of people can't afford

 

[boiled goose]

Nope. Churches shouldn't get a pass either.

What? Religious marriage is a religious ceremony. You can't force religions to add ceremonies.

If a Muslim mosque doesn't pray Jewish prayers they have to?

Nah

A trickier one is whether they can discriminate membership. For private clubs I think it is fine. The tax emepmt status of churches makes it weirder.

 

[aliengmr]

While I understand the idea of protecting a business's right to discriminate, there comes a point where certain ideas should die. It's hard to explain, but I am really not liking the idea of leaving it at "Freedom of expression, next". Stopping the debate there, for issues like the discrimination of a group of people, allows these ideas to fester until people see that the Confederate flag has been obviously racist.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we force people to think certain things, but that maybe they shouldn't get a free pass from being shamed. Sure, be an asshole, and while I won't force you to stop being an asshole, I'll continue calling you an asshole, that sort of thing.

 

[GameGuru59]

You characterized the process as "easy". I can't think of any way in which I would call having to go to court and research legal arguments just to ensure service at a business as "easy". At the very least it takes time, time that plenty of people can't afford

Well if the court option is too hard (personally I'd be thrilled to take someone to court, but that's me...) you could vest the power in a commission or board- similar to a Board of Zoning Appeals or Planning Commission. That would take care of most low level cases before they went to court.

 

[Grimsen]

So, under the GameGuru Regime, how hard would it be for a black gay couple driving through Mississippi to get food? Just wondering

 

[The Technomancer]

Well if the court option is too hard (personally I'd be thrilled to take someone to court, but that's me...) you could vest the power in a commission or board- similar to a Board of Zoning Appeals or Planning Commission. That would take care of most low level cases before they went to court.

That's still a lot of hoops to jump through to ensure service, and at this point I think its clear that there's just a real ideological divide, that you believe the right to discriminate is so important that all of these impositions and hurdles are "worth it"

 

[KillGore]

I dont think it's a good idea to force Churches to marry gay people. That's going to get really messy. Besides, why would gay people want to get married in a conservative church?

Other businesses? Fuck off

 

[Maximus.]

Some people take religion to the worst extremes. They use it blindly to shade their internal feelings and find some sort of justification using religion as their basis for reasoning. Sickening and immature.

 

[VistraNorrez]

I think it's probably a pretty bad idea for society to get into the habit of springing Biblical trivia pop-quizzes on people who assert they have a religious duty and then deciding whether or not their interpretation of their own religion is true enough to justify protection.

See also: Whether Sikhs have a real duty to wear Kirpans, whether Muslim women have a true duty to ear a headscarf, whether Christians must refuse to participate in war, whether anti-usury prohibitions in a variety of religions apply in the modern world, whether Jewish inmates must be server kosher meals, a wide variety of religious duties with respect to cutting or not cutting hair or beards, etc.

Considering every religion actually as internal laws that are documented, that would be all they have to produce. Produce the law that says gay people should not be served and then you can claim religious exemption.

 

[bengraven]

I know, so that brings me to the point that these people have to prove their religion is against serving gay people. And Christians cannot do that. There is nothing in the Bible that says do not treat gay people with the respect your government has bestowed upon them. I'm certain the Bible actually shows the opposite considering how Jesus treated the fringes of society in it.

The sad thing about being open for interpretation is that the only interpretation that's right is yours and your social groups. There are hundreds of different sects that follow the same or very similar version of the Bible and yet have their own rules one way or the other. If they didn't, we'd have a blanket religion without any offshoots.

So while it's okay to interpret it the way you want it to serve your religion, it's apparently not okay to interpret it to serve AGAINST religion.

I wouldn't be the first in a very long shot for saying that religion is hypocritical.

 

[Carcetti]

If there's any hard core social conservatives around on GAF still, I'd love for any of them to clue me a bit about opposition to gay marriage. I'd love to hear what a rational reason to oppose homosexuality or gay marriage might be.

Rational reasons don't include
a) not traditional b) supernatural being said so c) it's icky

 

[gutterboy44]

If they want businesses to be like religious institutions in terms of ground for discrimination, fine. But make that a two way street. No more tax exemptions for religious institutions. Lets see how long that lasts.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL ARGUE WITH GAMEGURU.

Seriously.

Heh..

 

[Tallshortman]

Nope. Churches shouldn't get a pass either.

lol get the fuck out with that nonsense. Churches are not places of public accommodation. Churches aren't even required to hold any weddings in the first place.

But a county clerk doesn't want to issue marriage licenses because of their "beliefs"? Find a new line of work.

Yep, the problem is that they're not doing their job. Jobs often change, if you don't agree to it then you certainly aren't forced to stay on. If you take a job with the state, short of being a military chaplain, your job is secular. Religious exemption is such a slippery slope since the government doesn't have any criteria to judge what is and isn't religion.

 

[CharminUltra]

The Empire Strikes Back.

 

[minor effort]

A county clerk doesn't want to issue marriage licenses because of their "beliefs"? Find a new line of work.

 

[GameGuru59]

If they want businesses to be like religious institutions in terms of ground for discrimination, fine. But make that a two way street. No more tax exemptions for religious institutions. Lets see how long that lasts.

Why would that be a two way street?

 

[Messofanego]

See. This is the problem I have. Why should businesses be any different? And before any body brings it up (again), I'm black, and would be willing to have the same standard applied to black people.

In my opinion, if you're not the only business offering a particular service in an area, you should be able to serve who you like. The idea you can't control who enters your business strikes me as very un-American.

Every thread you enter in, you come with a post that makes me go wuuuuuuuuut.

Societies, businesses, gots to be inclusive y'all.

 

[JumpJeff84]

This whole idea of businesses not being allowed to discriminate against people has always been confusing to me...

Like, if I show up at a trendy New York nightclub, they can totally not let me in because they don't like the look of me, and then if a group of young women in heels walk up they get let in- isn't that discrimination based on gender?

I'm not saying that businesses should discriminate against gay people, I'm just confused at how the law separates the issue of a bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding and a nightclub refusing to let someone in for arbitrary reasons.

Can anyone help me out here?

 

[Ahasverus]

Honestly all this shows me is that the federal government is weak as fuck. If they can't sanction and prosecute rebellious PUBLIC funcionaries, they can't do anything.

 

[Matty77]

I disagree with this as well to be honest.
Somebodies religious beliefs don't excuse any kind of prejudice to anybody in my opinion.

But the constitution was built in such a way that at religous organizations have that right.

However as I said I don't think they should get tax exemptions or especially aid.

There is precedent, look at catholic adoption agencies and how many folded because they would not adopt to gay couples, as religous institutions the court ruled they were within their rights and could not be forced due to religion. However they also could not get state or federal aid if they refused.

That's how it should go in my book.