LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V3

[Immoren]

Yes. Because thats how open shops work.

Yes they should be allowed to refuse them services or yes they should have to make them a cake?

Make the cake.

[Benuty]

Yes they should be allowed to refuse them services or yes they should have to make them a cake?

Make the cake.

Besides a cake isn't anything special unlike human rights.

Unless cakes were sapient organisms.

[West Verrica]

In that case should a trans baker have to make a cake for a person burning a rainbow flag while wearing a shirt that reads "I hate gays" with the confederate flag on it.

No. Because that person is causing a disturbance in the shop.

Ok I'll change it again then. The flag is no longer on fire, but it was printed to look on fire. Actually just use your imagination to design the most vile being ever, like a very very obvious neo-nazi confederate trump supporter or something like that should they have to serve that thing. Also should they have to make this person as good a cake as another person, if they were required to serve them.

[West Verrica]

If they were an exclusive service they could have the excuse, but if I recall that bakery wasn't exclusive for Christians only.

I'm confused what you mean by this.

[Nature-Spirits]

No. Because that person is causing a disturbance in the shop.

Ok I'll change it again then. The flag is no longer on fire, but it was printed to look on fire. Actually just use your imagination to design the most vile being ever, like a very very obvious neo-nazi confederate trump supporter or something like that should they have to serve that thing. Also should they have to make this person as good a cake as another person, if they were required to serve them.

The prospective customer is actively engaging in hate speech against the shop owner, so no, they should not have to bake the cake. In fact, they would have grounds to call law enforcement if they felt threatened.

But this situation isn't equivalent to the cases you're referring to, anyway, because bigots are not an oppressed class.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

No. Because that person is causing a disturbance in the shop.

Ok I'll change it again then. The flag is no longer on fire, but it was printed to look on fire. Actually just use your imagination to design the most vile being ever, like a very very obvious neo-nazi confederate trump supporter or something like that should they have to serve that thing. Also should they have to make this person as good a cake as another person, if they were required to serve them.

If what the person is doing isn't a disturbance, they have a right to the shops service. If what they are doing is causing a disturbance, then they can be kicked out/refused service. The line is wavy, and ultimately this is why we have judges - a lot of these things are case-by-case. I can't answer a blanket hypothetical.

[Immoren]

If they were an exclusive service they could have the excuse, but if I recall that bakery wasn't exclusive for Christians only.

I'm confused what you mean by this.

Cake clubs duudee.

[United Marxist Nations]

No. Because that person is causing a disturbance in the shop.

Ok I'll change it again then. The flag is no longer on fire, but it was printed to look on fire. Actually just use your imagination to design the most vile being ever, like a very very obvious neo-nazi confederate trump supporter or something like that should they have to serve that thing. Also should they have to make this person as good a cake as another person, if they were required to serve them.

I think this is the most convoluted hypothetical I have seen on NSG.

[West Verrica]

The prospective customer is actively engaging in hate speech against the shop owner, so no, they should not have to bake the cake. In fact, they would have grounds to call law enforcement if they felt threatened.

But this situation isn't equivalent to the cases you're referring to, anyway, because bigots are not an oppressed class.

[
If what the person is doing isn't a disturbance, they have a right to the shops service. If what they are doing is causing a disturbance, then they can be kicked out/refused service. The line is wavy, and ultimately this is why we have judges - a lot of these things are case-by-case. I can't answer a blanket hypothetical.

Both of these comments make sense to me. I don't agree but they make sense

[West Verrica]

I think this is the most convoluted hypothetical I have seen on NSG.

I'd like to thank my self, my parents, my educators, and most of all United Marxist Nations who gave me this award.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

If what the person is doing isn't a disturbance, they have a right to the shops service. If what they are doing is causing a disturbance, then they can be kicked out/refused service. The line is wavy, and ultimately this is why we have judges - a lot of these things are case-by-case. I can't answer a blanket hypothetical.

That's Interesting.

Let me put it this way, since hypotheticals are pretty much a main-stay of this discussion, though it won't be perfect.

If I, a transwoman, ran a shop. Someone came into that shop demanding service while babbling about "Fucking tranny pedophiles ruining America" and was walking around with some kind of anti-LGBT symbol displayed prominently and had all kinds of queerphobic slogans portrayed all over his clothing, I would be able to deny service and kick them out of my shop because they are causing what would classify a disturbance. Even if I was a cis-het-white-male I would have the ability to do the same. Similarly if a guy walked in with a speedo, wrapped in a rainbow flag, and started kissing every dude in sight while throwing glitter everywhere, I would also be able to throw that person out.

If someone came in wearing a crucifix, I couldn't kick them out, because they aren't causing a disturbance. If that person was having a simple conversation with another Christian in the shop, in which they said "I don't really think gay marriage should be legal," I would have to serve them, because they aren't causing a disturbance. Similarly, people cannot be denied service for being gay, or being gay and bringing their partner, or even having a Public Display of Affection with their partner.

[West Verrica]

That's Interesting.

Let me put it this way, since hypotheticals are pretty much a main-stay of this discussion, though it won't be perfect.

If I, a transwoman, ran a shop. Someone came into that shop demanding service while babbling about "Fucking tranny pedophiles ruining America" and was walking around with some kind of anti-LGBT symbol displayed prominently and had all kinds of queerphobic slogans portrayed all over his clothing, I would be able to deny service and kick them out of my shop because they are causing what would classify a disturbance. Even if I was a cis-het-white-male I would have the ability to do the same. Similarly if a guy walked in with a speedo, wrapped in a rainbow flag, and started kissing every dude in sight while throwing glitter everywhere, I would also be able to throw that person out.

If someone came in wearing a crucifix, I couldn't kick them out, because they aren't causing a disturbance. If that person was having a simple conversation with another Christian in the shop, in which they said "I don't really think gay marriage should be legal," I would have to serve them, because they aren't causing a disturbance. Similarly, people cannot be denied service for being gay, or being gay and bringing their partner, or even having a Public Display of Affection with their partner.

Ok, I get it now, thanks for taking the time to explain your position.
EDIT(s): I'm kinda hungry.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Let me put it this way, since hypotheticals are pretty much a main-stay of this discussion, though it won't be perfect.

If I, a transwoman, ran a shop. Someone came into that shop demanding service while babbling about "Fucking tranny pedophiles ruining America" and was walking around with some kind of anti-LGBT symbol displayed prominently and had all kinds of queerphobic slogans portrayed all over his clothing, I would be able to deny service and kick them out of my shop because they are causing what would classify a disturbance. Even if I was a cis-het-white-male I would have the ability to do the same. Similarly if a guy walked in with a speedo, wrapped in a rainbow flag, and started kissing every dude in sight while throwing glitter everywhere, I would also be able to throw that person out.

If someone came in wearing a crucifix, I couldn't kick them out, because they aren't causing a disturbance. If that person was having a simple conversation with another Christian in the shop, in which they said "I don't really think gay marriage should be legal," I would have to serve them, because they aren't causing a disturbance. Similarly, people cannot be denied service for being gay, or being gay and bringing their partner, or even having a Public Display of Affection with their partner.

Ok, I get it now, thanks for taking the time to explaining your position.

No problem!

[Linux and the X]

Similarly if a guy walked in with a speedo, wrapped in a rainbow flag, and started kissing every dude in sight while throwing glitter everywhere, I would also be able to throw that person out.

Health regulations would require you to kick everyone out and shut down the establishment for disinfection. Fuckin' art herpes.

[The Grene Knyght]

Good for them. It's nice to see Christianity get more liberal, tradition be dammned.

Tradition is what the faith is based on. Disregarding it is basically blasphemy.

Doesn't that make every schism with he church blasphemy too? Protestantism goes entirely against numerous church traditions. In that sense, this would just be the icing on the blasphemy cake.
Edit - whoops, my browser opened this thread a few pages back instead of on the current one - seems the discussion has moved on. My bad...

[United Marxist Nations]

Tradition is what the faith is based on. Disregarding it is basically blasphemy.

Doesn't that make every schism with he church blasphemy too? Protestantism goes entirely against numerous church traditions. In that sense, this would just be the icing on the blasphemy cake.

Pretty much.

[Socialist Czechia]

Gay pride parade, 13.8. in Prague. With my girlfriend. And communist flag.

To let know, just because I am oldschool hardcore marxist, doesn't mean I can't hug guys loving guys.

...and to laugh and laugh very sad, very small groups with 'god hates fags' flags.



EDIT: although I totally hate pro-American and capitalist propaganda every year: like every corrupted corporation and US Embassy in Central Europe must be there. Parasites.

[The Grene Knyght]

EDIT: although I totally hate pro-American and capitalist propaganda every year: like every corrupted corporation and US Embassy in Central Europe must be there. Parasites.

I can't stand it when once a year all the corporations and conservatives pretend to be pro-LGBT to boost profit or votes. It makes me so furious.

[Jumalariik]

Yes. Some Christians are Arians. Some Christians are Donatists. There's a nice word for that.

Are you really going to go down the road of labelling everyone who doesn't agree with you (and a bunch of long dead, bickering Romans) a heretic?

See there's a difference between disagreeing with me and disagreeing with the general consensus of Christian theologians up until recently.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Are you really going to go down the road of labelling everyone who doesn't agree with you (and a bunch of long dead, bickering Romans) a heretic?

See there's a difference between disagreeing with me and disagreeing with the general consensus of Christian theologians up until recently.

Yes. But it's not really a meaningful one, and doesn't make a blanket statement that there can be no such thing as same-sex marriage in Christianity any less stupid.

[Jumalariik]

See there's a difference between disagreeing with me and disagreeing with the general consensus of Christian theologians up until recently.

Yes. But it's not really a meaningful one, and doesn't make a blanket statement that there can be no such thing as same-sex marriage in Christianity any less stupid.

Ehhhh not really. No.

[Dagashi]

EDIT: although I totally hate pro-American and capitalist propaganda every year: like every corrupted corporation and US Embassy in Central Europe must be there. Parasites.

I can't stand it when once a year all the corporations and conservatives pretend to be pro-LGBT to boost profit or votes. It makes me so furious.

Because its not as though capitalists and conservatives can be Pro-LGBT.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I can't stand it when once a year all the corporations and conservatives pretend to be pro-LGBT to boost profit or votes. It makes me so furious.

Because its not as though capitalists and conservatives can be Pro-LGBT.

By definition, no. A conservative can't be pro-LGBT.

[Nariterrr]

Because its not as though capitalists and conservatives can be Pro-LGBT.

By definition, no. A conservative can't be pro-LGBT.

I disagree, a conservative is generally someone who is cautious of social change in general, while LGBT rights are social changes, many conservatives may exceptions on the issue. While they might not be 'conservatives' on the issue of same-sex marriage, they can still be 'conservatives' in a general since.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

By definition, no. A conservative can't be pro-LGBT.

I disagree, a conservative is generally someone who is cautious of social change in general, while LGBT rights are social changes, many conservatives may exceptions on the issue. While they might not be 'conservatives' on the issue of same-sex marriage, they can still be 'conservatives' in a general since.

In the context of the statement, I felt that it was more directed at asshats like Ted Cruz who give their 'thoughts and prayers' to Orlando while attending events held by ministers who call for gays to be murdered.