Conservative lawmakers and faith groups seek exemptions after same-sex ruling
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
In fact, you could just put any state with some sort of history of racial bias under federal control, and require people living in those states to file court orders and appeals of their own to ban people from their stores, rather than the other way around.
You could maybe do this with some sort of legal act about civil rights.
If you impose your own "moral" standards on literally everyone who happens to share a citizenship with you, you're not just a moron, but incredibly egotistical to boot.
And it's not our duty to change their beliefs. They can cling to them all they like, but then deserve everything that entails.
GameGuru59
Banned
Hmmm, that would probably work better, I have to admit.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Because it's a beautiful venue to get married in? Because the entire family of one of the betrothed got married there? Because it's the church they both attend on a weekly basis?
Littlefang
Member
Oh you're sad because a law was passed for same-sex marriage and you might be discriminated against because you don't like same-sex marriage? When that exact same law allows a huge amount of people (who have been discriminated against their whole lives) to have equal rights? Clearly your feelings are more important than the rights of other people. I cannot fathom this.
And I think that is where you are losing most everybody here. You are so concerned with a business owner's rights but what about the right of other individual's? Does not a person have more of a fundamental right to not be discriminated against and to buy goods from anywhere they please? You logic is flawed in that you believe there is justification for anybody to think differently of people, but people are just people it is a simple as that. Unless somebody is making out in your store, coming in naked, preaching, or causing a scene there really is no particular reason anybody should be seen as anything else but a customer.
That's a nice thought in an ideal world. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, we have RL examples of this liberal ideology not working. There is a reason why these anti-discrimination laws had to be introduced in the first place.
Churches are a different issue though.
GameGuru59
Banned
Not "justification", a right. I'm not making a moral judgement, and neither should the government. And a person has a right to buy goods in places that will accept them, in so far as the rejection of their business is not systematic.
And for the record, this tag is inaccurate. I'm not arguing in favor of Jim Crow Laws, I'm arguing in favor of an alteration of the CRA such that it would allow people to do what they will with their own property. That's actually the lack of government intervention, rather than a proactive discriminatory law like the Black Codes or Jim Crow Laws.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Again with the business-in-a-vacuum shit. Private business owners and their businesses benefit greatly from tax payer money that pays for municipal services and infrastructure, including improvements to that infrastructure as well as accessibility and aesthetics that increase traffic to the business.
And they already have the legal right to refuse service based on certain behavior that is destructive, abusive or obscene.
Given those two facts, there is nothing here to even debate.
If they want full freedom to discriminate against customers, they can start their business on a private island, build dedicated infrastructure to provide water, power and trash disposal, and pay for all of it. Then they can start a ferry service to bring customers over, and accept only white, Christian males over 6 feet tall who can prove employment and demonstrate proficiency with nunchucks, if they wish.
Red Liquorice
Member
Would people saying private business should be able to serve and not serve who they want be ok with businesses that turn away - for example - black people, the disabled or women? I can't even imagine this kind of attitude being supported if there were news stories about some family business ushering a black family out of their store because it's against their beliefs to do business with "those people".
I don't understand this reasoning at all, it's just another mask to hide your homophobia behind.
I don't understand this reasoning at all, it's just another mask to hide your homophobia behind.
crimsonspider89
Banned
No Business should not be allowed to discriminate base on anything. This leads to an area of the preferred group gaining advantage in the economic place.
All there is to it. Churches yes can deny to do marriages base on sexuality and such.
But businesses should not be able to.
All there is to it. Churches yes can deny to do marriages base on sexuality and such.
But businesses should not be able to.
Wiktor
Member
To have their revenge on those homophobes?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Yes, I am very much aware of what the old south looked like before desegregation. Philosophical nuance is a thing people are allowed to discuss in a vaccum. Chill out with your self-righteousness. I never said there was a practical difference or that GameGuru was in the right. We're just in the realm of ideas here for the sake of rhetorical exercise.
The only thing I've argued in this thread is that religious institutions should retain the right to refuse to host and officiate wedding ceremonies that they don't wish to facilitate. They have that right already anyway for any reason. They can refuse to marry based on race, sexual orientation, or even if the officiant just doesn't like the couple on a personal level. Private business should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. I am there with you.
BertramCooper
Banned
There's a big difference between simply having purely private religious convictions and nothing more, and imposing your religious convictions on others through a government that is constitutionally required to be secular.
If a person doesn't like gays and never will like gays because of religion - whatever. But that person should at least recognize that it's inappropriate and brazenly unconstitutional to use the government as a means to discriminate gay people.
Nikodemos
Member
This, right here.
History says otherwise. Look at the last 10 years, even.
You can discuss whatever you want in a vacuum as nobody said otherwise, just like I point out why it's silly to argue it that way. You confuse self righteousness with what is reality.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Lol, you don't actually know that calling people "bigots" and subjecting them to ridicule was the route cause of the cultural shift on gay marriage. I've always found appeals to empathy or logical argument to be much more effective ways of convincing people that marriage equality was a good cause/constitutionally mandated.
I mean, sure, a lot of the people who remain unconvinced of that will always be unconvinced, but calling people bigots to their face or browbeating them with your opinion certainly isn't helpful to your argument. I don't think it's the most hurtful thing you could do for the cause, but the only thing it's going to improve is your sense of self-righteousness because you've "stood up to power" in some nebulous, meaningless way.
I mean, obviously referring to them as bigots in a vacuum or around like-minded people isn't helpful or hurtful, but if we're talking about attempting to make tangible change in people's opinion I think it's a poor strategy.
It wasn't the content of your post that was self-righteous, it was your unnecessarily condescending tone. Which you have continued to implement in this one.
Tone? You do know we are typing to each other here, correct?
demented waffle
Gold Member
Everybody benefits from public services. This isn't a good argument.
The seg laws of the past are a much better argument. One that is hard to ignore.
Fenderputty
Banned
9 people had to die before a flag came down yet we should let businesses do racist stuff because society wouldn't allow it.
onadesertedisland
Member
Anyone hiding behind their religion to justify their bigotry is a coward and deserves to be the villain history will see them as.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Well if it wasn't intended I apologize for taking offense. Maybe that's my fault for taking for granted that everyone knows what the South was like during segregation.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Churches can do what they like.
The great thing is that they'll be subject to the free market. Inclusionary churches vs traditional bigotry churches. Good luck guys!!
The great thing is that they'll be subject to the free market. Inclusionary churches vs traditional bigotry churches. Good luck guys!!
GameGuru59
Banned
Well, whoever did it is ignorant of what Jim Crow is. It's not an accurate portrayal of my argument. But I'm used to it at this point...
Most people have a hard time arguing with someone who is completely divorced from reality.
GameGuru59
Banned
Or imagines a different one. I know, most people aren't as creative as I am. It's been a consistent problem in my life.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Maybe if you're "used" to having your argument seen as pro-Jim Crow, you should step back and think about why that is.
I bet.
Oh my such a martyr!
So when is you crucifixion?
BTW, your libertarian view point is hardly new so stop pretending you're such a profound thinker.
Then why are you wasting your time arguing on a video game OT forum instead of spreading your brilliance and creativity to the world at large.
You're arguing for a world where a black man might have to go across town to go to the mixed grocery store while hoping that the cab he just called to get there serves people of color.
CAUSE NO ONE WILL LISTEN STOP BEING SO DAMN DEMEANING /s
hosannainexcelsis
Member
Well, attendance at churches overall in the US has been steadily declining, with liberal mainline denominations declining the most rapidly and non-denominational evangelical churches being the most resistant to such decline. So I don't think the free market has shown that endorsing same-sex marriage is a real asset to a church in terms of attracting participants.
Link
The Autumn Wind
So you're crafting arguments based on an imagined world where racism doesn't exist. How exactly is that creative?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Not going to church at all is also an alternative to "traditional marriage" churches.
The point being, they can choose not to marry who they like, and they will become increasingly niche institutions as society continues to evolve.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Guru's tag is the best thing to come out of this thread. Hilarious.
GameGuru59
Banned
I know. I actually came to the idea when I was watching Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow. I said "hmmmm, that's not a bad point."
Because people get angry when I've tried to talk about similar "hot button" issues before in real life. For some reason people get emotional when debating this stuff, even in academia. It's frustrating. That's why I come here. To test creative ideas on you guys, to hear what you think.
Re-read my posts in the thread. There's exceptions for undue hardship.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Guru going ham got him a tag..and now for a ham gif..
Congrats, brother Guru!
Congrats, brother Guru!
CornBurrito
Member
Ironic then, that churches of a religion that preaches love and acceptance need to be as discriminatory and militant as possible to retain a devout group of worshippers.
hosannainexcelsis
Member
My point is that there's no evidence to suggest that instead choosing to marry anyone who asks would make them any less niche. Saying to churches "Better embrace same-sex marriage or be left behind!" isn't a convincing argument when embracing same-sex marriage would still result in them being "left behind".
Well test some more creative ideas on us. We'd love to hear them.
So far all you've given us is stuff you stole from Rand Paul.
GameAddict411
Member
I think the fact that the US is secular country is somewhat ignored in this thread. The government should provide equal rights for to all people regardless of their gender, race, and sexual orientation. Religious Institutes have no rights to discriminate against anyone, and if they want to, their license or any of their benefits should be revoked. It doesn't matter if it's Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or any religion for that matter. Conservatives who argue that the new law that enable gay couple to marry will discriminate against them is silly. What's even more silly is that they want discriminating laws against imaginary discrimination from LGBT?! Someone have already mentioned this here, but logic and religion doesn't mix at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked