Support NeoGAF

[GameGuru59]

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.

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

 

[BocoDragon]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

*crossing my fingers for account suicide via porn dump*

 

[excelsiorlef]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

Promise?

 

[slit]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

You mean you're going to leave GAF?

This is awful! Your wisdom was going to be our shining beacon of salvation.

 

[M1ch04c4n0]

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.

If only the indigenous people have had that same control on who entered their lands when the Europeans show up....

 

[legacyzero]

Nope. Churches shouldn't get a pass either.

Yes they should.

This is where the line should be drawn. Religious folks should have rights, same as LBGT.

 

[Besthelboy]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

I agree, people should be more open minded GameGuru59.

Though, aren't you the one arguing for people to be close minded? To be able to close the doors of their business to people who have a skin color they hate and would like to eliminate from the world or enslave? Or have a sexual orientation they THINK will bring destruction to the United States? Shouldn't they be more open minded GameGuru59? Shouldn't they move on with their archaic thoughts?

 

[Dai101]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

Oh no. Don't leave us!!

 

[Zaphod]

Re-read my posts in the thread. There's exceptions for undue hardship.

I've seen that, but what's the limit for undue hardship?

 

[Link]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

Sorry we're not more open-minded about discrimination.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

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.

This is a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between religious institutions and the government in the United States. While it's true that the Constitution deliberately and specifically set up a secular government, religious liberty was a cornerstone of the American founding philosophy. Many early American settlers were religious groups that had been persecuted in Europe prior to expatriation. These include the Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, Jews (to a smaller extent) and many other Christian splinter sects that faded out shortly after they got here. Religious intolerance had been a major issue in colonies/states like Massachusetts, which had been founded as a strictly Puritan state. Rhode Island was founded by a non-Puritan who had been refused rights and privileges afforded to Puritans in the colony. Rhode Island was, for this reason, the first colony to have a policy of freedom of religion.

This led, during the drafting of the Constitution, to the specific notation that freedom of religion along with freedom of speech should be affirmed as one of the primary and highest laws of the land. The first amendment exempts religious institutions from almost all civil law in the United States. This has almost always been a good thing for minority groups. Really, this marks the first time that the amendment has protected religious behavior that is in the interest of a majority religion. In the past, it's been quite different. If government had the power to regulate religion can you imagine what would have happened to American Jews during the early 20th century? Or what the Bush administration would have done to American Muslim communities post-9/11.

There's also the fact that, due to America's secular government, churches or other religious institutions are not necessary to be legally married in the eyes of the state. They are entirely optional. Also it's pretty safe to assume that gay couples who are Christian and want to be married in a church, would probably all already attend a gay-friendly church that wouldn't discriminate. That's been the case with the two gay couples I know who were married in a church. I think this will really be a complete non-issue on both sides. All states that had legalized same sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling also had these exemptions for churches/mosques/etc. and there haven't been reported cases of this kind of discrimination that I'm aware of in any of them.

 

[dabig2]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

And nothing of value would be lost, except to a few of the posters people on here who might show up for only a few politic-related threads a year, but even they can smell the low hanging fruit you represent in discussions.

 

[GameGuru59]

I agree, people should be more open minded GameGuru59.

Though, aren't you the one arguing for people to be close minded? To be able to close the doors of their business to people who have a skin color they hate and would like to eliminate from the world or enslave? Or have a sexual orientation they THINK will bring destruction to the United States? Shouldn't they be more open minded GameGuru59? Shouldn't they move on with their archaic thoughts?

Yes. But not allowing them to do what they want on their own property won't change that. At least I don't think so...

And I'm not arguing for anyone to be closed minded. I simply want to see people be themselves.

Oh no. Don't leave us!!

Don't worry, I'll stick around for the gaming part.

 

[Armaros]

This is a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between religious institutions and the government in the United States. While it's true that the Constitution deliberately and specifically set up a secular government, religious liberty was a cornerstone of the American founding philosophy. Many early American settlers were religious groups that had been persecuted in Europe prior to expatriation. These include the Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, Jews (to a smaller extent) and many other Christian splinter sects that faded out shortly after they got here. Religious intolerance had been a major issue in colonies/states like Massachusetts, which had been founded as a strictly Puritan state. Rhode Island was founded by a non-Puritan who had been refused rights and privileges afforded to Puritans in the colony. Rhode Island was, for this reason, the first colony to have a policy of freedom of religion.

This led, during the drafting of the Constitution, to the specific notation that freedom of religion along with freedom of speech should be affirmed as one of the primary and highest laws of the land. The first amendment exempts religious institutions from almost all civil law in the United States. This has almost always been a good thing for minority groups. Really, this marks the first time that the amendment has protected religious behavior that is in the interest of a majority of a religion. In the past, it's been quite different. If government had the power to regulate religion can you imagine what would have happened to American Jews during the early 20th century? Or what the Bush administration would have done to American Muslim communities post-9/11.

There's also the fact that, due to America's secular government, churches or other religious institutions are not necessary to be legally married in the eyes of the state. They are entirely optional. Also it's pretty safe to assume that gay couples who are Christian and want to be married in a church, would probably all already attend a gay-friendly church that wouldn't discriminate. That's been the case with the two gay couples I know who were married in a church. I think this will really be a complete non-issue on both sides. All states that had legalized same sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling also had these exemptions for churches/mosques/etc. and there haven't been reported cases of this kind of discrimination that I'm aware of in any of them.

If there were instances of churches being forced to provide gay marriages against their beliefs instead of voluntarily, we would have seen a huge spotlight from the media.

Also lawsuits filed as well.

 

[GameAddict411]

This is a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between religious institutions and the government in the United States. While it's true that the Constitution deliberately and specifically set up a secular government, religious liberty was a cornerstone of the American founding philosophy. Many early American settlers were religious groups that had been persecuted in Europe prior to expatriation. These include the Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, Jews (to a smaller extent) and many other Christian splinter sects that faded out shortly after they got here. Religious intolerance had been a major issue in colonies/states like Massachusetts, which had been founded as a strictly Puritan state. Rhode Island was founded by a non-Puritan who had been refused rights and privileges afforded to Puritans in the colony. Rhode Island was, for this reason, the first colony to have a policy of freedom of religion.

This led, during the drafting of the Constitution, to the specific notation that freedom of religion along with freedom of speech should be affirmed as one of the primary and highest laws of the land. The first amendment exempts religious institutions from almost all civil law in the United States. This has almost always been a good thing for minority groups. Really, this marks the first time that the amendment has protected religious behavior that is in the interest of a majority religion. In the past, it's been quite different. If government had the power to regulate religion can you imagine what would have happened to American Jews during the early 20th century? Or what the Bush administration would have done to American Muslim communities post-9/11.

There's also the fact that, due to America's secular government, churches or other religious institutions are not necessary to be legally married in the eyes of the state. They are entirely optional. Also it's pretty safe to assume that gay couples who are Christian and want to be married in a church, would probably all already attend a gay-friendly church that wouldn't discriminate. That's been the case with the two gay couples I know who were married in a church. I think this will really be a complete non-issue on both sides. All states that had legalized same sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling also had these exemptions for churches/mosques/etc. and there haven't been reported cases of this kind of discrimination that I'm aware of in any of them.

Then why do we have this thread? Why are the conservatives trying their best to impose laws to discriminate against LGBT?

 

[hateradio]

*crossing my fingers for account suicide via porn dump*

The scandal!

 

[Armaros]

Then why do we have this thread? Why are the conservatives trying their best to impose laws to discriminate against LGBT?

Because the evangelical right wing has decided that seperation of church and state is one sided. So that we should mandate relgious based laws against gays by the Government.

And they mostly support the GOP. And the GOP wants those votes.

They also don't believe the U.S. government should be/is secular. They believe it should be/is Christan.

 

[GameGuru59]

The scandal!

lol about time someone noticed this great piece of English satire.

 

[BertramCooper]

Sorry we're not more open-minded about discrimination.

You're not being tolerant of my intolerance!

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

Damn it! Tags just fuck with folks..

 

[GameAddict411]

Because the evangelical right wing has decided that seperation of church and state is one sided. So that we should mandate relgious based laws against gays by the Government.

And they mostly support the GOP. And the GOP wants those votes.

They also don't believe the U.S. government should be/is secular. They believe it should be/is Christan.

well, they can fuck off.

 

[hosannainexcelsis]

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.

If you actually attend an average non-denominational church of the sort that is most vibrant, you'll find that they're the very opposite of discriminatory and militant. Their core mission statement is usually some variant on spreading the love of God to the world, and that is what they attempt to do through the preaching from the pulpit, through the relational connections they encourage between everyone who comes through the doors, through the community outreach to the less fortunate that they engage in. They strive to be a welcoming and caring community that fosters the spiritual health of anyone who seek them out.

It's important to note that love as understood by Christianity doesn't involve affirming everyone's behaviors or approving of people doing whatever their feelings tell them to do. I've seen a couple people bring up the story of the woman caught in adultery found in John 8 of the Bible in relation to Christian beliefs, but they haven't quoted the end of the passage:

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Jesus doesn't say, "Because I do not condemn you, you can go right back and continue with your adultery and that'll be just fine and dandy." He says, "Because I have given you freedom from condemnation, I also now ask of you to follow the path of freedom from sin." Jesus preaches both forgiveness of sin and repentance of sin. It's the same Christian perspective that is at work in the opening of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, when the bishop who housed Jean Vajean, after Valjean is discovered by police absconding with the bishop's silver, gives Valjean the silver he did not steal and prevents him from being arrested. He does not tell Valjean, "You have my permission to go on stealing," but "With this silver, go and make an honest man of yourself." This is Christian mercy in action.

So the concept of Christian love is embracing each person as precious in the eyes of God, and offering them the grace and forgiveness that God offers us, as well as encouraging each other to avoid the sin that breaks God's heart while persuing the virtue that pleases God, and ultimately will lead to the most fulfilling life. This is, of course, a much, much broader program than the mere narrow issue of homosexuality, and those Christians who exclusively focus on that issue, especially when they use it to ignore the sin in their own lives, are badly mistaken on what the teachings they claim to follow actually say. The Christian teaching on the sanctity of marriage and the proper role of sex within it challenges many Christians living in America today. Ultimately, the ideal of Christian love as practiced by the church means that the church should be open and welcoming to all who seek its doors, recognizing that we are all sinners in need of God's grace, while challenging everyone to not continue in their life of sin, as Jesus challenged the woman caught in adultery, but to repent and seek the path of holiness that leads to communion with God and with each other.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Then why do we have this thread? Why are the conservatives trying their best to impose laws to discriminate against LGBT?

They aren't concerned about churches being forced to provide gay marriage services. They're worried about wedding cake bakeries, wedding planners, wedding singers, etc. Who are part of the wedding industry but are private businesses whose owners may have religious objections to providing services for same-sex weddings. Some people in this thread keep saying "churches shouldn't be allowed to discriminate either" and that's why religious institutions (as opposed to private businesses) got brought into it.

Like I said in an earlier post, though, I really doubt this will be an issue. Gay couples are only going to want to hire service providers that approve of their marriage, and business owners with religious objections are free to say "I cannot refuse service, but I disapprove of your marriage" in which case they haven't been discriminatory (in the legal sense, anyway) and the gay couple will probably want to find a different service provider anyway.

 

[typist]

Just thought it might be relevant to mention that in Denmark gay couples won the right to marry in any church they liked, obviously the US isn't Denmark but Denmark has taken a position that could set a precedent, can read more about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Just an exercise in empathy, suppose you're part of a gay couple and want to get married. Suppose you've attended plenty of church weddings in your life and have had your heart set on a church wedding since childhood. Suppose you met your partner in a particular church at the wedding of a friend so you want to get married at that church. You consider yourself a devout Christian and have always been a loyal member of your church, even donating money and promoting the religion. You ignore the homophobia in Leviticus and embrace the inclusivity of the New Testament. Suppose that (for religious reasons) you don't consider your marriage legitimate unless it is conducted in a church by an ordained minister of god. You just want to get married at this particular church, you want to have the same sort of traditional religious wedding as everyone else in your faith group.

Then it turns out the minister is hateful and homophobic. He won't marry you because he's a bigot who only cherry picks a line or two from his sacred text to justify his hate - he ignores all the other rules about stoning homosexuals/unbelievers and so on.

So the question is, who should the state protect? Bear in mind that both the minister and the gay couple in this example consider themselves devoutly religious. Isn't the freedom of the gay couple to practise their religious ceremony in their sacred building more deserving of protection than the religious freedom of the minister to be bigoted? In Denmark nobody forces anti-gay minister's to do gay weddings, they just say the gay couple is absolutely allowed to use the church, and some other (less bigoted) minister can conduct the ceremony. Seems fair to me

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Just thought it might be relevant to mention that in Denmark gay couples won the right to marry in any church they liked, obviously the US isn't Denmark but Denmark has taken a position that could set a precedent, can read more about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

That's been misreported. They've won the right to marry in any church belonging to the Danish state church (because Denmark still has one of those). Unaffiliated churches get to do whatever they want.

 

[Armaros]

That's been misreported. They've won the right to marry in any church belonging to the Danish state church (because Denmark still has one of those). Unaffiliated churches get to do whatever they want.

And since the US has seperation of church and state, it has no real parallel.

 

[Christine]

That's been misreported. They've won the right to marry in any church belonging to the Danish state church (because Denmark still has one of those). Unaffiliated churches get to do whatever they want.

Exactly. You have no more right to use a private church for your wedding than you do to use my home for it.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I'm sorry, but I really don't believe this is true. I live in Alabama, and I've seen crossdressers and similarly "unconventional" people get served at bars and such just as well at businesses as any white person- and you can discriminate now against LGBT people in Alabama. Moreover, if Indiana is any indication, people do not react positively to businesses discriminating. Those businesses are shunned and considered outliers. This would still happen under my proposal, and in my opinion the consternation is a good thing. It is better for the public itself to enforce a social norm indirectly than have the government enforce it by law.

"I'm sorry, your lived experience, which is backed up by statistics, holds less weight compared to my casual observations at bars!"

Seriously though, your idea that private businesses should have a carte blanche right to refuse service is stupid and not at all rooted in reality. Most countries already have laws preventing businesses from refusing service if they constitute a misuse of market power, a boycott on the purchaser or other forms of unconsciounable conduct. Should we throw all those away to because lol private business?

 

[GaimeGuy]

If you have limited liability, I don't think your personal beliefs should play a factor in how your business interacts with the public

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Just thought it might be relevant to mention that in Denmark gay couples won the right to marry in any church they liked, obviously the US isn't Denmark but Denmark has taken a position that could set a precedent, can read more about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Well that article seems to confirm that The Telegraph is crappy at reporting, since that's totally not what happened.

 

[CadetMahoney]

The Empire Strikes Back.

I loled at this more than I should have.

 

[water_wendi]

Exactly. You have no more right to use a private church for your wedding than you do to use my home for it.

About that..

 

[CadetMahoney]

In the UK don't the laws say Churches are banned (legally) from performing gay weddings for many years now?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ns-can-opt-in-for-gay-ceremonies-8405966.html

https://churchofengland.org/our-vie...he-church-of-england-an-explanatory-note.aspx

Anything that affected UK society that we can expect to play out in a similar fashion regarding that or are these countries too different to compare?

 

[Matty77]

About that..

That comic makes no sense. Straight religous folks are not being infringed upon in anyway whatsoever by gay marriage. I live in Massachusetts where it has been legal for years, and other than celebration of that with mass marriage licenses on town hall steps throughout the state the day after the decison, you would literally have to look up the gay community or have a gay Friend/relative to know its going on. Same as how unless your involved or in the business you really don't see straight weddings busting out on street corners either.

It's a far cry from someone breaking into your home, bad analogy.

Besides, as the original reason for this thread shows, regardless of lip service the republicans have no problem with "legislating law" when it supports their issues, only when they disagree do they object and try to act like society is being shafted, especially on an issue like this where society is more and more in favor of this and what the court did was just cut through all the bullshit republicans keep using to stopgap block what is inevitable.

 

[water_wendi]

That comic makes no sense. Straight religous folks are not being infringed upon in anyway whatsoever by gay marriage. I live in Massachusetts where it has been legal for years, and other than celebration of that with mass marriage licenses on town hall steps throughout the state the day after the decison, you would literally have to look up the gay community or have a gay Friend/relative to know its going on. Same as how unless your involved or in the business you really don't see straight weddings busting out on street corners either.

It's a far cry from someone breaking into your home, bad analogy.

Besides, as the original reason for this thread shows, regardless of lip service the republicans have no problem with "legislating law" when it supports their issues, only when they disagree do they object and try to act like society is being shafted, especially on an issue like this where society is more and more in favor of this and what the court did was just cut through all the bullshit republicans keep using to stopgap block what is inevitable.

If a gay person wants to eat breakfast in your house there is nothing you can do to stop them now!

Joking aside, yea the cartoon makes no sense whatsoever. So do pretty much all the positions against marriage equality.

 

[typist]

That's been misreported. They've won the right to marry in any church belonging to the Danish state church (because Denmark still has one of those). Unaffiliated churches get to do whatever they want.

Oops, my bad, how embarrassing :/ thanks anyway for the correction, will check my sources more thoroughly in the future and stay away from the Telegraph

 

[Matty77]

If a gay person wants to eat breakfast in your house there is nothing you can do to stop them now!

Joking aside, yea the cartoon makes no sense whatsoever. So do pretty much all the positions against marriage equality.

That made me laugh.

 

[Kinsei]

The scandal!

I thought his avatar was a hippo....

 

[Dai101]

Crossposting from the Salty Thread:

Photographer takes stand against salty client

I can see a lot of business doing the same.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Crossposting from the Salty Thread:



I can see a lot of business doing the same.

The difference here is that the couple withdrew their business voluntarily in reaction to the businesses protected 1st amendment speech. They also signed an objectively legally binding contract that the deposit was nonrefundable, and once that money was given it belonged to the business who have the right to do whatever they wish with it. Nothing discriminatory there.

Guy shouldn't have posted it on Facebook, though. That's just going to feed the victimization narrative.

 

[Christine]

Joking aside, yea the cartoon makes no sense whatsoever. So do pretty much all the positions against marriage equality.

It's coherent if you think your faith community owns marriage. That comic may be a little bit more honest than the artist realized.

 

[JordanN]

I thought his avatar was a hippo....

I thought it was a pirate hat.

 

[water_wendi]

The difference here is that the couple withdrew their business voluntarily in reaction to the businesses protected 1st amendment speech. They also signed an objectively legally binding contract that the deposit was nonrefundable, and once that money was given it belonged to the business who have the right to do whatever they wish with it. Nothing discriminatory there.

Guy shouldn't have posted it on Facebook, though. That's just going to feed the victimization narrative.

The only Christian friend i have is someone who came with their family from Iran to the US in the 80s. i asked him how bad the Christian persecution was in America. He had a good laugh.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Crossposting from the Salty Thread:



I can see a lot of business doing the same.

:>

Made my Monday morning :> (which usually sux)

Thanks <3

So much love going around the world since the weekend amg *___*

 

[Damaniel]

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.

Oooh, oooh, oooh - I found the libertarian!

This is the big problem with the libertarian philosophy - it takes a fundamentally good idea (protecting civil liberties and personal freedom) and takes it to an inflexible, highly unreasonable conclusion (a person's right to 'freedom' allows them to do things like openly discriminate against anyone). There's a reason why there aren't any libertarians in power (other than the Pauls, who everyone already dismisses as nuts).

Personal freedoms, regardless of the libertarian philosophy, do have limits, and those limits come well before the point of the 'fist swinging short of my nose'. Nobody should have to research every last business to figure out which ones will serve you and which won't, and it's not as simple as 'the market will decide'. Do we really want a version of the The Negro Motorist Green Book for LGBT people, one for atheists, one for Muslims, and so on? We're way better than that.

 

[Idba]

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.

You would let businesses be able to refuse service to black people just because they're black? Good old racism is American-like to you?

Please be fucking joking.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That comic makes no sense. Straight religous folks are not being infringed upon in anyway whatsoever by gay marriage. I live in Massachusetts where it has been legal for years, and other than celebration of that with mass marriage licenses on town hall steps throughout the state the day after the decison, you would literally have to look up the gay community or have a gay Friend/relative to know its going on. Same as how unless your involved or in the business you really don't see straight weddings busting out on street corners either.

It's a far cry from someone breaking into your home, bad analogy.

Besides, as the original reason for this thread shows, regardless of lip service the republicans have no problem with "legislating law" when it supports their issues, only when they disagree do they object and try to act like society is being shafted, especially on an issue like this where society is more and more in favor of this and what the court did was just cut through all the bullshit republicans keep using to stopgap block what is inevitable.

A (presumably) gay man violates another man's privacy and puts his nose where it doesn't belong.

A religious man decides that it is their prerogative to restrict the rights of others and invade their privacy.

It makes perfect sense.

 

[Sir Abacus]

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.

What? Common law since the sixteenth century was that public accommodations had to serve anyone that would pay. The "right" to cast out a black from your establishment came up in confederate states after the civil war during reconstruction. I can think of nothing more "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal" than a proprietor serving everyone who asks of their service.

 

[Suikoguy]

You would let businesses be able to refuse service to black people just because they're black? Good old racism is American-like to you?

Please be fucking joking.

Unfortunately, he appears to not be joking. Earlier in the thread he said black people were better off during the segregation era.

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.

I'm curious who this "many" is he speaks of. Frankly I thought the Uncle Ruckus character was more of a joke then a real archetype. Maybe he is secretly Clarence Thomas and he uses this for his outlet? Then again, even I doubt he thinks slavery did not take away human dignity.

 

[Sobriquet]

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 never said that. I was responding to "you are not going to change their beliefs at all."

I completely agree with you.