Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Isle of Coast]

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...

This ^^^ I read their post and I just can't wrap my head around what the bugger they are spewing out thier mouth hole.

[Geilinor]

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

This ^^^ I read their post and I just can't wrap my head around what the bugger they are spewing out thier mouth hole.

It's simple. The poster was asking whether Kefka just supports the freedom of others to discriminate or would do it himself.

[Mavorpen]

Good for the couple.

[Orham]

Well, no, because the state should be permitted to burden religious beliefs when it is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling governmental interest.

Establishing that public accommodations may not deny equal access to their services, full and equal services, equivalent terms and privileges, and so forth on the grounds of membership in a protected class is not an undue burden on individuals' religious beliefs. In fact, it's no burden on individuals' religious beliefs at all. It's a burden on the nature of individuals' business practices so long as they continue to (voluntarily, I might add) operate a public accommodation, but it is in no way a burden on their individual religious beliefs.

Can you seriously tell me, with a straight face, that these two sentences are equivalent in meaning:

(a) You are not allowed to deny homosexuals the ability to purchase cakes from your bakery so long as your bakery continues to offer its services to the general public.

(b) You are not allowed to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Seriously, if it is that important to the baker (or you, for that matter) that homosexuals not receive any of the cakes produced by that bakery, all that has to happen is the bakery has to be operated such that it is not a public accommodation. There's no religious discrimination happening here, and there's no example of the state overstepping its bounds and placing an undue burden on individuals' religious beliefs. You're tilting at windmills, Don.

[Reichsland]

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.

I stand corrected.

[Orham]

I stand corrected.

As I have had to say and shall have to say again, I assure you. It was just your turn this time.

[God Kefka]

This ^^^ I read their post and I just can't wrap my head around what the bugger they are spewing out thier mouth hole.

It's simple. The poster was asking whether Kefka just supports the freedom of others to discriminate or would do it himself.

and what relevance does this have to anything of substance?

Should I ask him what color of shoes he wears to work?

Of better yet...

''Are you a homosexual who would actually partake in such pointless lawsuits and confrontational antics such as the ones in the OP or do you just like supporting people's rights to behave like jerks?''

[Skeckoa]

Boycotts don't work.

I'll try hard not to laugh.

[Menassa]

I stand corrected.

As I have had to say and shall have to say again, I assure you. It was just your turn this time.

Yet you never seem to act in reciprocation.

Coincidence? I think not.

[Orham]

]Yet you never seem to act in reciprocation.

Coincidence? I think not.

I'll bite. Go on. But as you do, please bear this edit in mind:

EDIT: A recent example of my admitting having made a mistake.

An older example of me admitting I had misread a post.

I clearly reciprocate, Menassa. But if you still feel you've a legitimate criticism of me, you just might have noticed something I haven't.

[Gauthier]

Boycotts don't work.

I'll try hard not to laugh.

Try not to choke.

Chick-fil-A Has 'Record-Setting' Sales on Appreciation Day

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

The baker attempted to sabotage the American economy just to achieve a political goal. That is terrorism. Personally I agree with the couple but I don't think the situation was handled well as there is a terrorist walking free in America.

[Skeckoa]

I'll try hard not to laugh.

Try not to choke.Chick-fil-A Has 'Record-Setting' Sales on Appreciation Day

I tried my best.

[Empire of Symphonia]

The baker attempted to sabotage the American economy just to achieve a political goal. That is terrorism. Personally I agree with the couple but I don't think the situation was handled well as there is a terrorist walking free in America.

[The Republic of Llamas]

So long as the baker was not forced to attend the ceremony, it's perfectly fine.

[God Kefka]

I expect the shop owners will want to take extra-judicial retaliation now... seeing as how unjust the law is...

Winning a lawsuit doesn't always mean winning the big game at the very end.

I bet the shop owners know some people who owe them small favors...

If I were making a movie this would be how it proceeds...

The gays walk up to the store owners in the middle of a business hour and in front of every single customer gloatingly demands their cake. Expecting the shop owners to be extremely pissed off and humiliated, they are shocked instead to find the shop owners smiling calmly.

The cake is brought before them but it turns out to be a cake of the very worst quality imaginable. The gays are annoyed and leave, threatening to launch yet another lawsuit over this. Shop owners say nothing but just keep on smiling calmly.

The gays talk to their lawyer again.

Here's the catch though... they never make it to launch the next lawsuit...

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I expect the shop owners will want to take extra-judicial retaliation now... seeing as how unjust the law is...

Winning a lawsuit doesn't always mean winning the big game at the very end.

I bet the shop owners know some people who owe them small favors...

So since they couldn't commit economic terrorism they should just go all out and commit physical terrorism? The far-right at it's finest.

[Orham]

I expect the shop owners will want to take extra-judicial retaliation now... seeing as how unjust the law is...

How is the law unjust?

Winning a lawsuit doesn't always mean winning the big game at the very end.

I bet the shop owners know some people who owe them small favors...

If the shop owners engaged in that sort of behavior, they could end up with a much, much worse situation on their hands. We could be talking prison time depending upon what you're proposing they might do.

[Menassa]

]Yet you never seem to act in reciprocation.

Coincidence? I think not.

I'll bite. Go on. But as you do, please bear this edit in mind:

EDIT: A recent example of my admitting having made a mistake.

An older example of me admitting I had misread a post.

I clearly reciprocate, Menassa. But if you still feel you've a legitimate criticism of me, you just might have noticed something I haven't.

I meant for there to be a smiley, why was their no smiley?

[Orham]

I meant for there to be a smiley, why was their no smiley?

And here I was worried I'd done something wrong. It's alright, no smiley needed.

[Tekania]

it's their business...

You can't force the white kids to play with the gay kids in the playground if they don't wan to.

Yes it's their business, by license of the municipality and state and under regulations. Contrary to your beliefs, businesses which are licensed to engage in public commerce are NOT free to do what ever the hell they want to. If they want to provide commerce in public, they will abide by regulations or spend a lot of money in fines and subjecting them therefore to exorbitant operating costs, and potential closure.

[Tekania]

I expect the shop owners will want to take extra-judicial retaliation now... seeing as how unjust the law is...

Winning a lawsuit doesn't always mean winning the big game at the very end.

I bet the shop owners know some people who owe them small favors...

If I were making a movie this would be how it proceeds...

The gays walk up to the store owners in the middle of a business hour and in front of every single customer gloatingly demands their cake. Expecting the shop owners to be extremely pissed off and humiliated, they are shocked instead to find the shop owners smiling calmly.

The cake is brought before them but it turns out to be a cake of the very worst quality imaginable. The gays are annoyed and leave, threatening to launch yet another lawsuit over this. Shop owners say nothing but just keep on smiling calmly.

The gays talk to their lawyer again.

Here's the catch though... they never make it to launch the next lawsuit...

That would be a felony. They will be looking a lot more than a fine on that.

[Dyakovo]

So you support criminal activity as long as it targets people that you don't like?

Did I say that? Gasp...

Yes. You did.

[Conservative Conservationists]

It is tricky because there are many competing issues including

1) Religious freedom - Should people be forced to provide supplies for an event their faith is against? If so, its a drastic choice between surrendering your career or going against your religion

2) Business choice - Theoretically both business and customer should be able to choose whom they do business with. I would find it ridiculous to refuse to serve a gay couple a standard meal at a pub which already has a fixed price menu. However if it is a price that can be changed/negotiated, it will be near impossible to prove that you did not get a better price because you are homosexual. In that sense, its easy to discriminate by higher prices.

3) Manner in which refusal is performed - There is a clear difference between a polite and rude refusal. The mental anguish on a certain method of refusal could be a legal case in itself.

Overall I am against the action being forced, because it was a special event for a wedding in which people should have their own freedom to believe in or not. If this same gay couple wanted a cake for a birthday, there would be no real reason to refuse on religious grounds so I would support a forced sale.

Yet what really gets me is why the couple wanted to take it this far. Was there no other baker?

[Dyakovo]

It is tricky because there are many competing issues including

It really isn't.