Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[San Lumen]

What do you consider life essential goods and services? For instance, do you consider gasoline for a gar to be an essential good? How about having a doctor, access to medicine, the ability to buy food at a grocery store. Does it make a difference if this is in a big city versus a tiny rural town?

You raise a valid point about gasoline. My answer to that is that I lean towards a solid maybe? Yeah, I know that’s a lame answer but I’m genuinely unsure if it should be classified as life essential. One certainly could live without in but in the times we live in, lacking the ability to get gas could snowball into you not being able to do anything. But that also depends on where you live, too. I’m not one hundred percent committed to this definition and open to having my mind changed but I’d define “life essential” as a requirement in order to live day to day without much issue. Things like groceries, medicine, doctor visits, and housing are things I’d put under that category. I would also mention that I think most if those should be covered by the government anyway.

What is essential goods and services?

Id be all for government housing as it would mean lower rents but why should a landlord have the right to evict you for who you are?

In theory no but I doubt they would.

I answer this up above in this post.

If they own that land, then it’s their property, no? Or am i misunderstanding how ownership works in this case? Seems similar to renting out a place.

Why not? A white woman can’t play MLK in a serious historical film about him, it’d be ridiculous.

So in other words if a hotel, gas station or store which might be the only one in town too bad. Just drive to the next town which could be miles away? Why should a grocer be exempt if they are a racist or dont like LGBT people?

I dont see why a landlord should be able to evict someone if they are gay. It might be their property but its denying someone housing for bigotry.

[Ors Might]

You raise a valid point about gasoline. My answer to that is that I lean towards a solid maybe? Yeah, I know that’s a lame answer but I’m genuinely unsure if it should be classified as life essential. One certainly could live without in but in the times we live in, lacking the ability to get gas could snowball into you not being able to do anything. But that also depends on where you live, too. I’m not one hundred percent committed to this definition and open to having my mind changed but I’d define “life essential” as a requirement in order to live day to day without much issue. Things like groceries, medicine, doctor visits, and housing are things I’d put under that category. I would also mention that I think most if those should be covered by the government anyway.


I answer this up above in this post.

If they own that land, then it’s their property, no? Or am i misunderstanding how ownership works in this case? Seems similar to renting out a place.

Why not? A white woman can’t play MLK in a serious historical film about him, it’d be ridiculous.

So in other words if a hotel, gas station or store which might be the only one in town too bad. Just drive to the next town which could be miles away? Why should a grocer be exempt if they are a racist or dont like LGBT people?

I dont see why a landlord should be able to evict someone if they are gay. It might be their property but its denying someone housing for bigotry.

I already explained why providers of essential goods and services shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate in providing those. It’s an attempt to balance the right to live with the right to freedom of association.

You don’t have to allow other citizens onto your property, you know. Unless one has a contractual obligation to allow someone to rent their property, they have just as much of a right to be a bigot as anyone else.

[San Lumen]

So in other words if a hotel, gas station or store which might be the only one in town too bad. Just drive to the next town which could be miles away? Why should a grocer be exempt if they are a racist or dont like LGBT people?

I dont see why a landlord should be able to evict someone if they are gay. It might be their property but its denying someone housing for bigotry.

I already explained why providers of essential goods and services shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate in providing those. It’s an attempt to balance the right to live with the right to freedom of association.

You don’t have to allow other citizens onto your property, you know. Unless one has a contractual obligation to allow someone to rent their property, they have just as much of a right to be a bigot as anyone else.

Ok a grocer is exempt but what about another type of store that might be the only one in town? Too bad just go to the next town which could miles away.?

So in addition to repealing the Civil Rights Act we should also repeal the fair housing act? You are aware the very concept of suburbia was founded on racism?

[Des-Bal]

Ok a grocer is exempt but what about another type of store that might be the only one in town? Too bad just go to the next town which could miles away.?

So in addition to repealing the Civil Rights Act we should also repeal the fair housing act? You are aware the very concept of suburbia was founded on racism?

I lived in a town that had no grocery stores that would serve us. It was because there were no grocery stores. Go to the next town or just move.

[San Lumen]

Ok a grocer is exempt but what about another type of store that might be the only one in town? Too bad just go to the next town which could miles away.?

So in addition to repealing the Civil Rights Act we should also repeal the fair housing act? You are aware the very concept of suburbia was founded on racism?

I lived in a town that had no grocery stores that would serve us. It was because there were no grocery stores. Go to the next town or just move.

Why should you have too? And it isn’t easy for everyone to just move

[Des-Bal]

Why should you have too? And it isn’t easy for everyone to just move

Because you want food and you can't get it there. Handle it the same way you would if you moved somewhere there were 0 grocery stores or if there was 1 grocery store that didn't want to serve you because of your politics, hairstyle, or other non-protected trait.

People have been migrating to more suitable locations for as long as there have been locations and people.

[Ors Might]

I already explained why providers of essential goods and services shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate in providing those. It’s an attempt to balance the right to live with the right to freedom of association.

You don’t have to allow other citizens onto your property, you know. Unless one has a contractual obligation to allow someone to rent their property, they have just as much of a right to be a bigot as anyone else.

Ok a grocer is exempt but what about another type of store that might be the only one in town? Too bad just go to the next town which could miles away.?

So in addition to repealing the Civil Rights Act we should also repeal the fair housing act? You are aware the very concept of suburbia was founded on racism?

Can’t really sympathize. My family already has to drive for miles to get to places that aren’t grocery stores and we manage just fine.

I believe I’ve already told you that government should provide housing. Otherwise nobody should be required to sell or rent their property to someone they don’t want to. Unless you don’t think peoole should have rights to their property?

[San Lumen]

Ok a grocer is exempt but what about another type of store that might be the only one in town? Too bad just go to the next town which could miles away.?

So in addition to repealing the Civil Rights Act we should also repeal the fair housing act? You are aware the very concept of suburbia was founded on racism?

Can’t really sympathize. My family already has to drive for miles to get to places that aren’t grocery stores and we manage just fine.

I believe I’ve already told you that government should provide housing. Otherwise nobody should be required to sell or rent their property to someone they don’t want to. Unless you don’t think peoole should have rights to their property?

Well good for you. Some people don’t want to nor should they have too

Therefore the Levitt brothers the founders of the first suburb Levittown having a policy of “no one not of the Caucasian race will ever be allowed to own a home in this community” is perfectly acceptable? Shouldn’t people have the freedom to shop and reside where they choose?

I’m all for the government providing housing. It would mean lower rents

[Des-Bal]

Well good for you. Some people don’t want to nor should they have too

Therefore the Levitt brothers the founders of the first suburb Levittown having a policy of “no one not of the Caucasian race will ever be allowed to own a home in this community” is perfectly acceptable? Shouldn’t people have the freedom to shop and reside where they choose?

I’m all for the government providing housing. It would mean lower rents

Then they should live somewhere they don't have to.


The freedom to shop and reside where you choose isn't the issue, it's the idea that you can force someone to make a deal with you.

[Pope Joan]

I think if the issue just had to do with being gay or lesbian it would be easier to at least define some standards, and make a little progress.

But this banner with all its proliferating initials and acronyms just seems to cast too wide a net. How can one prove or disprove membership to one of these categories, other than by subjective declaration?


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /26925563/

[Des-Bal]

Well addressing the actual issue the argument in favor of protecting the classes is that if you can't discriminate based on sex you can't discriminate against a women for being attracted to women or identifying as a man.

Doesn't that mean you can discriminate against bisexuals because you're doing nothing to a woman whose attracted to both men and women that you wouldn't do to a man who was attracted to both men and women? Doesn't it mean that people identifying as agender, bigender, nonconforming, etc. could be discriminated against since a person of the opposite sex would be censured equally for identical behavior?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Then they should live somewhere they don't have to.

Because it’s reasonable to assume that it’s economically feasible for everyone to just up and move.

[Des-Bal]

Because it’s reasonable to assume that it’s economically feasible for everyone to just up and move.

Yeah we can't all be as privileged as those upper crust Honduran migrants. Go to a new place. Don't leave. You just moved.

[The Rich Port]

Because it’s reasonable to assume that it’s economically feasible for everyone to just up and move.

Yeah we can't all be as privileged as those upper crust Honduran migrants. Go to a new place. Don't leave. You just moved.

Sure is causing quite a kerfuffle in Trump's drawers, so it must be a big deal. (づ◔ ͜ʖ◔)づ

[Ors Might]

Can’t really sympathize. My family already has to drive for miles to get to places that aren’t grocery stores and we manage just fine.

I believe I’ve already told you that government should provide housing. Otherwise nobody should be required to sell or rent their property to someone they don’t want to. Unless you don’t think peoole should have rights to their property?

Well good for you. Some people don’t want to nor should they have too

Therefore the Levitt brothers the founders of the first suburb Levittown having a policy of “no one not of the Caucasian race will ever be allowed to own a home in this community” is perfectly acceptable? Shouldn’t people have the freedom to shop and reside where they choose?

I’m all for the government providing housing. It would mean lower rents

I don’t give a damn what they want. If a ten minute drive on the freeway for things they don’t need is too much for them, then too bad.

It’s not that I find it acceptable, it’s that I find it unacceptable to force people to rent out or sell what’s theirs. And sure, as long as the people who own those things consent to that.

[San Lumen]

Well good for you. Some people don’t want to nor should they have too

Therefore the Levitt brothers the founders of the first suburb Levittown having a policy of “no one not of the Caucasian race will ever be allowed to own a home in this community” is perfectly acceptable? Shouldn’t people have the freedom to shop and reside where they choose?

I’m all for the government providing housing. It would mean lower rents

I don’t give a damn what they want. If a ten minute drive on the freeway for things they don’t need is too much for them, then too bad.

It’s not that I find it acceptable, it’s that I find it unacceptable to force people to rent out or sell what’s theirs. And sure, as long as the people who own those things consent to that.

In addition to the civil rights act the Fair housing act should be repealed to?

[Ors Might]

I don’t give a damn what they want. If a ten minute drive on the freeway for things they don’t need is too much for them, then too bad.

It’s not that I find it acceptable, it’s that I find it unacceptable to force people to rent out or sell what’s theirs. And sure, as long as the people who own those things consent to that.

In addition to the civil rights act the Fair housing act should be repealed to?

If either act violates the rights I’ve been defending this entire time, save for the exceptions I listed, yeah.

[San Lumen]

In addition to the civil rights act the Fair housing act should be repealed to?

If either act violates the rights I’ve been defending this entire time, save for the exceptions I listed, yeah.

Redlining should be allowed to retain then because muh rights?

If you dont know what that is here is a comprehensive look.

[Des-Bal]

Redlining should be allowed to retain then because muh rights?

If you dont know what that is here is a comprehensive look.

1. It's hilarious to see someone say "muh rights" as though to suggest a person has rights is whining
2. Are you going to ask about every individual discriminatory practice and law? You keep asking the same basic questions, he just gave you the criteria, extrapolate.

[San Lumen]

Redlining should be allowed to retain then because muh rights?

If you dont know what that is here is a comprehensive look.

1. It's hilarious to see someone say "muh rights" as though to suggest a person has rights is whining
2. Are you going to ask about every individual discriminatory practice and law? You keep asking the same basic questions, he just gave you the criteria, extrapolate.

I guess that means yes it should be allowed to return

[Des-Bal]

I guess that means yes it should be allowed to return

I guess this means you are going to list every single individual discriminatory practice instead of extrapolating.

I think it's as acceptable to force a person to give a loan they don't want to a it is to force someone to take a loan they don't want to.

[Ors Might]

If either act violates the rights I’ve been defending this entire time, save for the exceptions I listed, yeah.

Redlining should be allowed to retain then because muh rights?

If you dont know what that is here is a comprehensive look.

Are you seriously going to suggest that one should be forced to give loans to those that can’t pay them back?

[San Lumen]

I guess that means yes it should be allowed to return

I guess this means you are going to list every single individual discriminatory practice instead of extrapolating.

I think it's as acceptable to force a person to give a loan they don't want to a it is to force someone to take a loan they don't want to.

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

Redlining should be allowed to retain then because muh rights?

If you dont know what that is here is a comprehensive look.

Are you seriously going to suggest that one should be forced to give loans to those that can’t pay them back?

No I am not

Here is a comprehensive look at redlining; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

[Des-Bal]

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

I didn't say it was acceptable I said it should be legal and discriminatory isn't a synonym for illegal.

[San Lumen]

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

I didn't say it was acceptable I said it should be legal and discriminatory isn't a synonym for illegal.

Discrimination ought to be ok because muh rights got it. Anyone whose denied a loan or service in a store should just say ok and walk out.