I'm not getting into this debate, but I wanted to point this out:
Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Vince wrote:Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
Lucky he's not a gay and living in Arizona.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Let's toss the entire first amendment out the window then. Because you can always come up with speech and religion that make other people uncomfortable to the point of nonacceptance.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Vince wrote:Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
Lucky he's not a gay and living in Arizona.
It's okay. He wasn't ordering a wedding cake.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Let's toss the entire first amendment out the window then. Because you can always come up with speech and religion that make other people uncomfortable to the point of nonacceptance.
I have been thinking about how to word a post about this... about how peoples' fucking feelings should not be protected by legislation, and therefor, gunpoint.
I don't give a flying fuck if you don't FEEL unaccepted. I don't accept a lot of people. I don't think I should go to jail for not pretending like I do.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I can't deny that there are plenty of oversensitive assholes on the gay side of this debate that are ... well, oversensitive assholes. Personally I try to be a bit forgiving about that because some of them - the older ones, at least - really have spent a lifetime being persecuted by their family or community. There's plenty of dead gays to go around, some tortured to death and others who stupidly decided suicide was the best response to constant harassment. No doubt some of the people that survived that are a bit ... touchy. Uptight. Resentful.
But my forgiveness only goes so far. Some of them are just plain old assholes, not really any better than the people that do the persecuting and bullying previously mentioned.
There's plenty of asshole to go around here.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Leisher wrote:I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
I have been sympathetic to gay people for a long time. Especially growing up. It's hard enough when you fall within the accepted parameters of "normal". Teenagers natural state of being is to feel different and as if they do not belong. I truly can't imagine how difficult that is for gay teenagers.
I really have no issue with gay people, other than the fact that from my experience they are one of the most openly racist and bigoted group I've ever encountered when I used to go to gay AA meetings.
But something has happened in the last few years. The Mathew Sheppard killing happened and a complete fabrication occurred with that becoming a "hate crime". It seems like every couple of weeks we have a story take off on social media that's picked up by the HuffPost and every other left leaning blog and news agency that we find out later is a hoax invented whole cloth by the homosexual at the center of the alleged "discrimination".
All the while, gays are being beaten (sometimes to death) for actually being gay in minority communities. But if the aggressor is in one of the other "protected classes" (ie, black or Hispanic), then that story isn't news worthy. But refuse to bake them a wedding cake while being white, and by God they'll make you pay!
Phil Robertson said in his interview that he thought what they were doing was a sin. It was a little coarse with the language he used, but he was not advocating imprisoning them or killing them or denying them their rights or stoning them to death. As a matter of fact, he never suggested doing ANYTHING to them. He simply stated that he thought it was a sin. The embarrassing reaction from the (vocal) gay community was quite simply a child's hissy fit.
If any of this were about gay rights, we'd be hearing more about the stories of the plight of gays in minority communities at a national level. We're not, because this isn't about gay rights. I don't know for what purpose, but we're being played.
Quite possibly this is simply about a few members of the gay community seeing the shit tons of money Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made over the years and opting for their slice of the pie.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Let's toss the entire first amendment out the window then. Because you can always come up with speech and religion that make other people uncomfortable to the point of nonacceptance.
Please explain how your statement applies to my statement.
Explain how forcing someone to do something they don't want to do for someone else equals freedom.
I would argue that the trend of being ostracized publicly for having your own opinion that varies from the opinion du jour is doing more damage to the first amendment than some baker not wanting to make a gay couple of cake (or whatever).
I'm not saying a person's beliefs and choices shouldn't be respected. What I am saying is that someone else's beliefs and choices shouldn't be ignored to appease the first person.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
There's no way you'll convince me that religion, a thing that is your personal choice, deserves more protection than sexual orientation, which isn't something you choose. The fact that race and national origin are in there as well supports that theory. Later on, "gender" was added to that list, also something you're stuck with. I fail to see how the knowledge/belief in your own sexuality is any less important than your knowledge/belief in your preferred supernatural being(s).
This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.
I suppose as long as the owner receives absolutely zero federal assistance of any kind and does biz only in his state, then fine.
However, it looks like any public accommodation is subject.
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”. Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.
Supreme Court says interstate commerce trumps your personal beliefs about your customers, be they religious or otherwise. Other than Moreton not wanting to deal with blacks as opposed to gays, I see little difference as far as legal merit goes.
Most businesses are public spaces. They involve things like sales tax, health codes, regulations, etc. They are not houses of faith. If someone files a tax return and lists themselves as biz owner, certain legal shit kicks in. Occasionally, I'll grant that some transactions shouldn't be covered by this. If the dude that teaches piano on your street doesn't want to give you private lessons because you're gay, that's his thing. If the dude that runs your local coffee shop doesn't serve you for the same reason, I consider it a whole different world.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Vince wrote:Malcolm, it sounds like your larger complaint should be that the Constitution has not been amended to protect sexual orientation.
Because back then "gay" typically meant "happy." Even uttering the word "sodomy" was probably grounds for hanging. The fact it was left off is a historical and cultural oversight. There is no earthly reason why race or religion should be set above or below who you fuck. If church and state need a barrier between them, both sides ought to stop fucking scaling the wall.
Want your choice of which customers to serve? Fine. You get no federal assistance or privs for operating a small biz or any other support normally given to those that operate within fed mandates. I can't think of a mid-sized or large operation would be insane enough to try this type of thing. A gov't that wants a strong economy, after all, has a legit interest in making sure their sales and goods reach as large an audience as possible. A smaller customer base isn't good for biz (and therefore tax revenue).
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:Because back then "gay" typically meant "happy." Even uttering the word "sodomy" was probably grounds for hanging. The fact it was left off is a historical and cultural oversight. There is no earthly reason why race or religion should be set above or below who you fuck. If church and state need a barrier between them, both sides ought to stop fucking scaling the wall.
Um... Amendment process... to Amend... to add to... doesn't matter what gay meant back then. To Amend. Built into the system.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
The basis for the power the fed wields for the Civil Rights Act is derived from the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has declared that beats individual freedom of religion. ENDA would most likely fall under that same commerce umbrella argument. The first amendment doesn't necessarily need changing.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."