Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Gauthier]

That is separate.

And you're saying it's equal.

Separate But Equal.

What is it that you don't understand about those three words?

It's obvious you're trying to draw an analogy to the government-sponsored racial segregation of the 1950s. That analogy is inaccurate, because we are talking about a) private sector discrimination, not public sector discrimination, and b) only a small minority of business are engaged in such discrimination.

A café is public sector now?

[Norstal]

That is separate.

And you're saying it's equal.

Separate But Equal.

What is it that you don't understand about those three words?

It's obvious you're trying to draw an analogy to the government-sponsored racial segregation of the 1950s. That analogy is inaccurate, because we are talking about a) private sector discrimination, not public sector discrimination, and b) only a small minority of business are engaged in such discrimination.

A.) Irrelevant because there are now laws against it in the private sector as well (and even back then it exists in the private sector...). Even outside the laws, that doesn't justify how segregation is ethical.
B.) Irrelevant. That doesn't make it okay.

[Free Soviets]

That is separate.

And you're saying it's equal.

Separate But Equal.

What is it that you don't understand about those three words?

It's obvious you're trying to draw an analogy to the government-sponsored racial segregation of the 1950s. That analogy is inaccurate, because we are talking about a) private sector discrimination, not public sector discrimination, and b) only a small minority of business are engaged in such discrimination.

woolworth's lunch counters were run by the government?

and exactly how many discriminatory businesses do there need to be before we can outlaw their discriminatory practices?

[Galter Gulcher]

Because, maybe the baker has a political or religious belief against gay marriage.

His position on gay marriage is irrelevant when concerning his serving of cake.

Or prehaps he is a idiot who doesnt like making money.

If he was an idiot who didn't like making money, he wouldn't have opened up a business.

Well he semmed to exhibit being a idiot who does not like making money by refusing service to people.


And yes, it is relevant.

[Norstal]

You haven't read Bullshit 10:15 did you?

"Gays must never be allowed to have cake!" - Bullshit 10:15

"Gays must not try to fight discrimination!" - Bullshit 10:16

I also particularly like how people misconstrue not allowing to refuse gays on their businesses means having opinions on gay marriage is wrong.

The two just doesn't connect.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Chik-fil-a doesn't refuse chicken to gay people.
This small business was refusing cake to gay people.

And, I am not contesting that. I am just saying the smaller the scale, the different you have to think.

Not saying what he did was not wrong, in fact it was, but I am just saying, you have to understand the business model's perspective before trying to grasp why is it even wrong to begin with. And trust me, many small business owners are not happy with expansion or saturating markets.

[Geilinor]

Chik-fil-a doesn't refuse chicken to gay people.
This small business was refusing cake to gay people.

And, I am not contesting that. I am just saying the smaller the scale, the different you have to think.

Not saying what he did was not wrong, in fact it was, but I am just saying, you have to understand the business model's perspective before trying to grasp why is it even wrong to begin with. And trust me, many small business owners are not happy with expansion or saturating markets.

The standards both types of businesses are held to are still the same.

[Lost heros]

His position on gay marriage is irrelevant when concerning his serving of cake.

If he was an idiot who didn't like making money, he wouldn't have opened up a business.

1 - Again, his positions put him in a very precarious position. A Sole Ownership (which is what I am assuming this is) is not the same as a corporation. Most Sole Ownerships operate by providing user experiences in the community and in their business. If they feel like they don't want to cater to homosexual couples that's part of UX, but it still doesn't make it right or ethical.

2 - Again, why do you assume everyone is out there to grow into a multi-national corporation and saturate their markets?

1- The judge didn't say the man was forced to provide user experiences. The judge said they had to provide cake.

2- I don't. I assume he opened up a business to make money to pay off his bills, raise his family, and possibly provide monetary support to a group that doesn't want homosexuals to have rights.

[Lost heros]

His position on gay marriage is irrelevant when concerning his serving of cake.

If he was an idiot who didn't like making money, he wouldn't have opened up a business.

Well he semmed to exhibit being a idiot who does not like making money by refusing service to people.


And yes, it is relevant.

He could quite possibly not need their business.
How?

[Lost heros]

Chik-fil-a doesn't refuse chicken to gay people.
This small business was refusing cake to gay people.

And, I am not contesting that. I am just saying the smaller the scale, the different you have to think.

Not saying what he did was not wrong, in fact it was, but I am just saying, you have to understand the business model's perspective before trying to grasp why is it even wrong to begin with. And trust me, many small business owners are not happy with expansion or saturating markets.

I never said he had to saturate his market. I'm saying if he opens up a business and claims it to be open to the public, he should have to service the public.

[Condunum]

Good.

[Liriena]

Good.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1 - Again, his positions put him in a very precarious position. A Sole Ownership (which is what I am assuming this is) is not the same as a corporation. Most Sole Ownerships operate by providing user experiences in the community and in their business. If they feel like they don't want to cater to homosexual couples that's part of UX, but it still doesn't make it right or ethical.

2 - Again, why do you assume everyone is out there to grow into a multi-national corporation and saturate their markets?

1- The judge didn't say the man was forced to provide user experiences. The judge said they had to provide cake.

2- I don't. I assume he opened up a business to make money to pay off his bills, raise his family, and possibly provide monetary support to a group that doesn't want homosexuals to have rights.

1 - The environment, refusal of service, and treatment of said people is part of UX. The fact the judge said to provide cake or not is irrelevant.

2 - And again, you are assuming he cares about providing enough monetary support to where he would want to expand and saturate the market. You don't see it, but that's what you are implying.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I never said he had to saturate his market. I'm saying if he opens up a business and claims it to be open to the public, he should have to service the public.

And you are also assuming he means "everyone" when he means "the public". Newsflash: In business "the public" doesn't always mean "the public"; especially when dealing with a customer.

[Geilinor]

I never said he had to saturate his market. I'm saying if he opens up a business and claims it to be open to the public, he should have to service the public.

And you are also assuming he means "everyone" when he means "the public". Newsflash: In business "the public" doesn't always mean "the public"; especially when dealing with a customer.

Then we're back to the reasonable person test. The average person tends to assume that "the public" means "everyone" as that is how institutions tend to use the word.

[Rocopurr]

I like it, but I don't see why you'd want to get cake from homophobic douchebags.

[Reichsland]

All he has to do is make a dumpy cake for them if he doesn't like what the judge ordered him to do. Then they will not come back to his business again, so its a win-win situation for everybody. He doesn't have to worry about homosexuals ordering cake from him again and they will not do business with a bigot again.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

It must be nice being the only baker in Colorado.

Seriously though. I can understand why some people don't want gay rights. Some gays are upsetting alot of people with their actions. They are not exactly helping their cause.

Instead of lawsuits, try boycotts. Boycotts tend to engage the public, not piss the public off. Boycotts also have the capability of threatening the baker to change his ways or face finnancial ruin.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And you are also assuming he means "everyone" when he means "the public". Newsflash: In business "the public" doesn't always mean "the public"; especially when dealing with a customer.

Then we're back to the reasonable person test. The average person tends to assume that "the public" means "everyone" as that is how institutions tend to use the word.

Yes, but by saying "reasonable person" we're going back in circles as to what, exactly, does the company define as "public". Our definition of public sure means "everyone" to us, but to blatantly assume this from a person is highly stupid in business. It's like we say in business "the customers never know what they want" well, the same thing goes for business - especially sole ownerships - although in a very different form, which is why it's always better to be skeptical of a business before trusting them completely.

Again, I am not saying what he did was right, but I do find this very irking that everyone says "OH HE SHOULD CARE ONLY ABOUT THE MONEY!" - no he doesn't only have to care about producing or making any more money than what he thinks he should; it's what's so sophomorically obtuse about this argument.

A business is not compelled to produce produce produce, in fact, a business doesn't have to care about what you think; it has to care that its customer base is satisfied so they can keep on selling, because that's what drives the business.

A good job isn't enough if you are an asshole about rejecting a person to provide services for anybody on he grounds of something discriminatory and you risk to have a lot of flak about it, which is why the court did what it did, not because "he has to produce regardless" and they are whipping him to do so, which notion is so vapidly childish in nature as to actually believe that a company should actually care about their customers' opinions to maximize profits when they fucking know better what to do with it.

[Othelos]

It must be nice being the only baker in Colorado.

Seriously though. I can understand why some people don't want gay rights. Some gays are upsetting alot of people with their actions. They are not exactly helping their cause.

Instead of lawsuits, try boycotts. Boycotts tend to engage the public, not piss the public off. Boycotts also have the capability of threatening the baker to change his ways or face finnancial ruin.

How is stopping discrimination pissing the public off?

[Divair]

It must be nice being the only baker in Colorado.

Seriously though. I can understand why some people don't want gay rights. Some gays are upsetting alot of people with their actions. They are not exactly helping their cause.

Instead of lawsuits, try boycotts. Boycotts tend to engage the public, not piss the public off. Boycotts also have the capability of threatening the baker to change his ways or face finnancial ruin.

Boycotts don't work.

[Greed and Death]

It's obvious you're trying to draw an analogy to the government-sponsored racial segregation of the 1950s. That analogy is inaccurate, because we are talking about a) private sector discrimination, not public sector discrimination, and b) only a small minority of business are engaged in such discrimination.

A café is public sector now?

The supreme court ruling that struck down separate but equal did not effect the segregated lunch counters, that took the civil rights act. Congress must find a power such as a the commerce clause to regulate away discrimination.

[Wisconsin9]

Good.

[Orham]

No, I don't particularly believe that one's religious beliefs about members of the general public ought to serve as sufficient grounds to deny full and equal service from a public accommodation. As a consequence I support existing law concerning discrimination in provision of service from public accommodations in Colorado and oppose the baker in question.

All he has to do is make a dumpy cake for them if he doesn't like what the judge ordered him to do. Then they will not come back to his business again, so its a win-win situation for everybody. He doesn't have to worry about homosexuals ordering cake from him again and they will not do business with a bigot again.

BZZZT. Wrong. From the above link, with my emphasis:

Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation.

Boycotts don't work.

They can, but don't always. Broader public interest and sympathy is necessary for a boycott to prove effective. With that in mind, there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuals having legal avenues through which to redress their grievances against discriminatory public accommodations. Nothing at all.

EDIT: Resolved double post.

[God Kefka]

it's anti-freedom to say to a business...

''You shall serve Person X or pay a fine.''

Because segregation and discrimination always work out so nicely right?

Would you be one of the people banning certain people from coming in or are you just campaigning for those people's freedom to discriminate?

i don't follow what you're getting at...