- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,153
- Reaction score
- 64,579
- Points
- 148
I agree!
I'm just going to point out that I did not make the statement gourimoko attributed to me that gays should not have the right to raise children.
I agree!
I agree!
But that discussion is completely outside the context of this thread, at least as far as what Q-tip has posted in here, which has not been bigoted in the slightest.
I'm just going to point out that I did not make the statement gourimoko attributed to me that gays should not have the right to raise children.
@gourimoko - my contention is that if it's legal for a BUYER to discriminate on the basis for any reason he damn well chooses, then it should be equally legal for a SELLER to do the same.
While I agree with the general concept of equal access to the marketplace, I think it's just that: equal ACCESS, not equal OUTCOME. Everyone in this country can access our free market system, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to get exactly what they want from whomever they want. If our hypothetical florist doesn't want to do business with two gay men who are getting married, he can subvert your interpretation of things simply by saying, "Sorry, I don't have the resources available at the time of your wedding to help you." All the while the real reason he won't assist them is because he believes it violates his own religious principles. So, congratulations - any laws passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation won't prevent anything of the sort.
Moreover, I would think the gay couple in question would prefer to do business with somebody who was genuinely thrilled to have their business and would, therefore, provide a better overall customer service experience, rather than trying to legally force our hypothetical religious florist to do the job. Again, using the law to COMPEL a business owner to provide a service that he can't provide without violating his own religious principles doesn't help the consumer in question. It only makes it more likely that both parties to the transaction will come away from the experience unhappy.
I vehemently disagree. If a person chooses to enrich themselves by entering into the public marketplace, then they must follow the social contract and follow the rules of that marketplace. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of society apply to you. And as a society, slowly but surely we have decided that discrimination is wrong. Therefore, either participate in society and do not discriminate, or make your own private club and discriminate all you want.
So I take it you are opposed to the public accommodation portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation."
I am opposed to all legislative attempts to control individuals when such control COMPELS them to violate their own individual consciences. And before anyone misconstrues the meaning behind my words... no, that doesn't mean a person who believes that murder or rape is OK should be allowed to kill or rape others at will.
I'm not sure how much clearer I need to be for you to understand.
Everyone should have the right to participate in the free marketplace without being compelled to use their bodies or talents in any way that violates their own consciences. That is a basic principle of human rights - SELF DETERMINATION. An ultra-religious Christian florist should not be compelled to use his business to assist two gay men with their upcoming nuptials. A devout Muslim who owns a silk-screening shop should not be compelled to produce t-shirts that say, "Fuck Allah" just because a rabid Muslim hater comes in to his shop and wants them. A Jewish bookstore owner should not be compelled to place pornographic material on the shelves of his store if his conscience tells him to do so would be unethical.
I'm sorry if you disagree, Gour.
Always cracks me up how those in the majority that historically discriminated against a small minority make themselves out to be the aggrieved when society makes them stop. Hint - you aren't the minority.I get it. You think the will of the majority should trump the beliefs of individuals, and the individual must be COMPELLED AGAINST THEIR WILL to comply with the wishes of that majority... or else they should get the fuck out of Dodge.
That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm offended at the implication that I might be in favor of the whole "separate but equal" bullshit with respect to race relations in this country.
Do you think a devout Muslim should be compelled against his will and his conscience to produce "Fuck Allah" t-shirts just because a neo-Nazi comes in to his shop and demands them?
Do you think a devout Muslim should be compelled against his will and his conscience to produce "Fuck Allah" t-shirts just because a neo-Nazi comes in to his shop and demands them?
A bogus argument. They wouldn't be refusing to offer services to a person, but rather refusing to produce something offensive. Really, is the distinction that difficult to make? It isn't. I would expect them to produce t-shirts that were not offensive if ordered. As well I would expect the neo-Nazi not to be blatantly offensive to the Muslim while doing business.