The Gay Thread - Page 64 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2015, 04:01 PM   #946
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You know I stand on your side with this, right? The reasons above are what make the law a horrible piece of legislated hate, but I feel boycotting based on the catering was the wrong battle.

Their reasoning is wrong, but I feel any company should have the right to deny services that might be considered endorsing someone or something they disagree with. I wouldn't print t-shirts for Ted Cruz, NRA, or anything else I didn't want to look like I was endorsing. They shouldn't be able to deny pizza to anyone who is gay, but I support their right to deny catering.

oh i know what side you are on -- the point i was making is that it is entirely legal for them to refuse service. they could do it before this law, and they can do it after this law.

"considered endorsing" is really vague, and that's where i think the issue really is. is baking a cake "endorsing" something, or is it merely providing a product? that, i think, is where people can disagree in good faith.

however, in states with protected status for LGBT people, like NM, photography or cakes are part of business, and if you are open to the public you are open to all the public, whether a KKK rally or a gay wedding. it is, legally, discrimination to provide a cake for a straight wedding but not a gay one.

on a personal level, i would never do this. i would bring my business elsewhere. but the law is on the side of the plaintiffs in the NM, CO, and WA cases.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 04:02 PM   #947
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:34 AM
listening to my Tune-In radio app the last couple of days I have been hitting conservative talkers a bit. Mark Levin is my favorite, Limbaugh is ok, Savage not so good, Hannity has been interesting. Glenn Beck the least.
Anyways for the most part there have been lamentations and wailing, with some viscous out burst. Now, with this they (along with Fox News) will have a 24/7 story to tell about how brutal the PC crowd has been to ruin a family's dream of owning a small business and creating jobs. But how America truly is 'exceptional' because we take care of our own.


Joan of Arc - 2015

__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 04:27 PM   #948
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
oh i know what side you are on -- the point i was making is that it is entirely legal for them to refuse service. they could do it before this law, and they can do it after this law.



"considered endorsing" is really vague, and that's where i think the issue really is. is baking a cake "endorsing" something, or is it merely providing a product? that, i think, is where people can disagree in good faith.



Personally if I was a cake maker and asked to make a racist wish in icing it would go beyond just providing a product. If they bought a "stock" cake, then have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 04:35 PM   #949
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Personally if I was a cake maker and asked to make a racist wish in icing it would go beyond just providing a product. If they bought a "stock" cake, then have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


here's the thing: if it were me, i'd be all like, "oh, darn, too many weddings that weekend, we can't fit you in." how hard is that?

something tells me that these bakers and florists were making as much of a point as the people who sued them. everyone is being a big old drama queen.

everyone should get over their damn selves, imho.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 04:35 PM   #950
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:34 AM
providing a service or a product is not the same thing as going to a meeting on your off time or making a voluntary donation, if you don't bake a cake will the event be canceled? or will you just give them a talking point about how bigoted you are and give them victim status.

making these arguments is agreeing it is ok to discriminate against LGBT people.

I would rather make the statement that even people I disagree with have a right to services and products as long as the are law-abiding, tax paying citizens, (or illegals that pick my food for slave wages)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 04:36 PM   #951
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Now, with this they (along with Fox News) will have a 24/7 story to tell about how brutal the PC crowd has been to ruin a family's dream of owning a small business and creating jobs.

exactly. it's a race to victimhood. remember when the Left supposedly did that?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 04:41 PM   #952
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:34 AM
i'm off public radio, Pacifica, and the BBC for now
the other side (show) is much more entertaining.

before this they were in a circular firing squad and almost conceding the election to Hillary "Rotten" Clinton

I'm afraid this will give them a ray of hope
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 05:19 PM   #953
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I'm afraid this will give them a ray of hope

really? the denouncement of the law and Pence seems pretty unanimous, or maybe i'm too deep in my bubble of no discrimination and full lega. equality -- though i do read a lot of right wing blogs. i guess Tom Cotton is right -- i should be grateful that i don't live in Iran, because they hang gays there, so his not killing me is awfully Christian of him.

i would think that this is exciting insofar as it comes to rallying the base for the primaries, but if they were to look at the national landscape, gay rights is a vote winner in 2016, the total opposite of 2004 when a bunch of churches in southeastern Ohio tilted the election for W.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 06:22 PM   #954
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
here's the thing: if it were me, i'd be all like, "oh, darn, too many weddings that weekend, we can't fit you in." how hard is that?



something tells me that these bakers and florists were making as much of a point as the people who sued them. everyone is being a big old drama queen.



everyone should get over their damn selves, imho.

Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 08:38 PM   #955
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i would think that this is exciting insofar as it comes to rallying the base for the primaries, but if they were to look at the national landscape, gay rights is a vote winner in 2016, the total opposite of 2004 when a bunch of churches in southeastern Ohio tilted the election for W.
Every time the Republicans pull this kind of shit, it makes me smile just a bit. They do this and expect to win nationally?

Keep it coming, boys. Dig yourselves deeper into that base-pandering bullshit.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 09:06 PM   #956
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You know I stand on your side with this, right? The reasons above are what make the law a horrible piece of legislated hate, but I feel boycotting based on the catering was the wrong battle.

Their reasoning is wrong, but I feel any company should have the right to deny services that might be considered endorsing someone or something they disagree with. I wouldn't print t-shirts for Ted Cruz, NRA, or anything else I didn't want to look like I was endorsing. They shouldn't be able to deny pizza to anyone who is gay, but I support their right to deny catering.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Thank you BVS for actually allowing free speech to work both ways.

The RFRA is not just about Christians. It is about allowing people of any religious belief or non-belief a day in court to explain why they have refused to participate in an activity.



To those opposed to the RFSA, consider this scenario and question: Suppose I own a bakery and for years I have served all people regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. One day a guy walks in and identifies himself as a member of a Nazi organization. They are having a celebration in honor of Hitler’s birthday and he would like me to create a cake embellished with a swastika.

I inform him that because of my religious beliefs I cannot meet this request, but will gladly sell him anything else he would like. He storms out and promptly hires a lawyer and sues me.

The federal government then demands that I meet his request or I will face a fine and/or time in jail.

Because of my refusal, do you agree with the government forcing me to go against my religious belief or else?


A bit of history of the bill:

The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—only three three senators voted against passage it. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 1993 states started passing similar versions of the law.
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 09:30 PM   #957
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Thank you BVS for actually allowing free speech to work both ways.



The RFRA is not just about Christians. It is about allowing people of any religious belief or non-belief a day in court to explain why they have refused to participate in an activity.







To those opposed to the RFSA, consider this scenario and question: Suppose I own a bakery and for years I have served all people regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. One day a guy walks in and identifies himself as a member of a Nazi organization. They are having a celebration in honor of Hitler’s birthday and he would like me to create a cake embellished with a swastika.



I inform him that because of my religious beliefs I cannot meet this request, but will gladly sell him anything else he would like. He storms out and promptly hires a lawyer and sues me.



The federal government then demands that I meet his request or I will face a fine and/or time in jail.



Because of my refusal, do you agree with the government forcing me to go against my religious belief or else?





A bit of history of the bill:



The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—only three three senators voted against passage it. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 1993 states started passing similar versions of the law.

This law is different than those, you should read the link I posted earlier. This law goes above and beyond those examples.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 09:44 PM   #958
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:34 AM
This is the way Indiana and Ark should have approached this if they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

Utah — yes, Utah — passes landmark LGBT rights bill - The Washington Post


IronHorse, please think just for a moment, in your example you substitute Nazis for just regular law-abiding, tax paying Americans,

Maybe you should have said a Jewish couple that wanted a Star of David on their cake. Should you have a right to say your faith prevents you from serving them because you find their chosen life style offensive?

Quote:
Matthew 27:25 New American Standard Bible
And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

Acts 18:6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 09:53 PM   #959
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:34 AM
The Gay Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Thank you BVS for actually allowing free speech to work both ways.



The RFRA is not just about Christians. It is about allowing people of any religious belief or non-belief a day in court to explain why they have refused to participate in an activity.







To those opposed to the RFSA, consider this scenario and question: Suppose I own a bakery and for years I have served all people regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. One day a guy walks in and identifies himself as a member of a Nazi organization. They are having a celebration in honor of Hitler’s birthday and he would like me to create a cake embellished with a swastika.



I inform him that because of my religious beliefs I cannot meet this request, but will gladly sell him anything else he would like. He storms out and promptly hires a lawyer and sues me.



The federal government then demands that I meet his request or I will face a fine and/or time in jail.



Because of my refusal, do you agree with the government forcing me to go against my religious belief or else?





A bit of history of the bill:



The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—only three three senators voted against passage it. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 1993 states started passing similar versions of the law.


1. This bill is different from the 1993 law in many important and intended ways.

2. Denying people service on the basis of sexual orientation is not free speech. In a state which has given protected status to LGBT members, it is discrimination. Legally. It is. There's no getting around it.

3. Being a member of the Nazi Party is not, anywhere, a legally protected status. You have the right to be a Nazi, but there are no laws that protect your legal status as a Nazi in the ways that there are regarding race, gender, or sexual orientation (in some states). People are free to discriminate against you on that basis. So your analogy is bunk. The appropriate analogy would be if someone asked you to make a cake for an interracial wedding and you refused because your religion forbids you to condone race mixing. With this law, it could now be legal to do this in Indiana. It could also be legal for a Muslim baker to refuse to seve your wife unless she is wearing a burka.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2015, 10:49 PM   #960
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
1. This bill is different from the 1993 law in many important and intended ways.

2. Denying people service on the basis of sexual orientation is not free speech. In a state which has given protected status to LGBT members, it is discrimination. Legally. It is. There's no getting around it.

3. Being a member of the Nazi Party is not, anywhere, a legally protected status. You have the right to be a Nazi, but there are no laws that protect your legal status as a Nazi in the ways that there are regarding race, gender, or sexual orientation (in some states). People are free to discriminate against you on that basis. So your analogy is bunk. The appropriate analogy would be if someone asked you to make a cake for an interracial wedding and you refused because your religion forbids you to condone race mixing. With this law, it could now be legal to do this in Indiana. It could also be legal for a Muslim baker to refuse to seve your wife unless she is wearing a burka.

This law does is not about discrimination. Discrimination is against the law.

This law is about giving a person their chance in court to show why they have refused to participate in an activity because of their religious beliefs.

What religion forbids interracial marriage?

A Muslim refusing to serve my wife, based on her appearance, would be discrimination. My wife requesting the Muslim baker to bake a cake embellished with a degrading image of Mohammed would be forcing the Muslim to go against his religious convictions.

That is what the law is about.
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com