Politics

[ab2cmiller]

LOL at all these hypotheticals.

What if a vegetarian photographer is asked to photograph the wedding of a cow and a stalk of celery.

 

[pkt77242]

Should a catering company owned by Muslims be able to refuse a party/ event whose organizers request pork?

Yes. A catering company is allowed to dictate what food they serve. If you go to a catering company they have a list of food that they do make and you choose which food options from their list that you want. In this case, forcing the customer to choose from the provided list (or going to a different cater if they want something not on the list) which the cater provides is perfectly fine.

IMHO a company can choose what products to make/serve and what price to charge for them but it doesn't get to choose who to serve unless the person does something obscene such as screaming/cussing, being abusive/threatening, running around naked, etc.

 

[IrishLax]

Mom says special needs son at East High told to remove his varsity letter | KSN-TV

Interested to hear people's thoughts on this considering it's a sports board.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes. A catering company is allowed to dictate what food they serve. If you go to a catering company they have a list of food that they do make and you choose which food options from their list that you want. In this case, forcing the customer to choose from the provided list (or going to a different cater if they want something not on the list) which the cater provides is perfectly fine.

So the Christians are forced to oblige at every corner and Muslims can refuse whenever they so choose...got it.

 

[wizards8507]

So here is a twist. Those of you that think business should be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs... what about race?

For instance. A man of middle eastern descent comes into a bakery. Should the owner be able to racially profile him as a muslim and refuse service?

That's a garbage analogy. There's a HUGE difference between denying service to a gay person and denying service for a gay wedding. It's like... you can't deny service to white people but you could refuse to cater a neo-Nazi picnic.

Under your guise of religious freedom he would be doing nothing wrong, correct?

There's a difference between wrong and illegal. It would be plenty "wrong". Whether it should be legal or not is a separate issue. The problem with making things illegal based on a standard of "right and wrong" is that some arbiter (the government) gets to DEFINE write and wrong. "Harm" is a much better standard, though still imperfect.

 

[wizards8507]

Mom says special needs son at East High told to remove his varsity letter | KSN-TV

Interested to hear people's thoughts on this considering it's a sports board.

This is bizarre. It sounds like this kid's mother went out and bought him a jacket and a letter and then the school forbade him from wearing it. I can't figure out how they justify that one. If they don't want to issue him an "official" varsity letter, that's one thing. But if he goes out and buys his own?

 

[pkt77242]

So the Christians are forced to oblige at every corner and Muslims can refuse whenever they so choose...got it.

Nope. That isn't what I said but as usual you only see what you want to see.

A Seventh Day Adventist cater wouldn't have to serve pork either as long as he/she doesn't have it on the menu from which customers choose their food.

A Christian restaurant would not be required to serve alcohol if it is asked for as long as it wasn't on the menu.

To think that it only applies to Muslims shows that you have no interest in having an intelligent conversation.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Nope. That isn't what I said but as usual you only see what you want to see.

A Seventh Day Adventist cater wouldn't have to serve pork either as long as he/she doesn't have it on the menu from which customers choose their food.

A Christian restaurant would not be required to serve alcohol if it is asked for as long as it wasn't on the menu.

To think that it only applies to Muslims shows that you have no interest in having an intelligent conversation.

Just checking...for equal protection under the law. Earlier examples/ hypotheticals you noted suggested this was going to be a one way street.

 

[Buster Bluth]

There's a nuance here that you need to acknowledge before you go throwing everyone in favor of religious freedom protections in the same camp.

Some people believe that Christian enterprises should discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Others (including myself) believe that Christian enterprises should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Separately, you're making a huge false equivalency between associating with sinners and being complicit in their sin. Jesus ministered to prostitutes but he didn't HELP them do their prostituting. Refusing to sell a gay man a bagel for breakfast is way different than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Here's is where we differ. The businesses aren't people. If you don't want to be friends with a gay person, or let them into your home, go for it. I don't have any problem with that.

But the moment you sign up for an LLC, an agreement with society (via our government) to form a business in exchange for deferred liability and other benefits, you make an agreement not to discriminate with your business on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. That's just how I see it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Do you think that a wedding cake baker (who is Christian) should be able to turn down a Muslim couple?

Absolutely. I don't care who they are or how heinous their beliefs. A gay painter who believes that the Catholic Church is an evil oppressive institution should be able to refuse to create a Christian mural. A black musician who believes that white people are literally devils should be free to refuse compose a song for a Caucasian patron. Forcing any artist to create something that violates his or her sincerely held beliefs is tyranny, plain and simple.

Your argument is much stronger when it comes to mundane commercial businesses. The owner of a hardware store, for example, would have a much harder time arguing that he's somehow complicit in what his clients choose to build with his wares. But for artists, it's an easy call.

 

[IrishLax]

This is bizarre. It sounds like this kid's mother went out and bought him a jacket and a letter and then the school forbade him from wearing it. I can't figure out how they justify that one. If they don't want to issue him an "official" varsity letter, that's one thing. But if he goes out and buys his own?

Yeah, it's a crazy situation. I have two completely irreconcilable thoughts:
1) I can't understand what kind of person sees a kid with Down syndrome wearing a letter jacket and goes "hey, you shouldn't be wearing that, I'm going to complain." Fuck them.
2) On a macro scale, I can totally understand a school having a rule that only people who earn varsity letters can wear letter jackets. And then why have a rule if...

 

[wizards8507]

Here's is where we differ. The businesses aren't people. If you don't want to be friends with a gay person, or let them into your home, go for it. I don't have any problem with that.

But the moment you sign up for an LLC, an agreement with society (via our government) to form a business in exchange for deferred liability and other benefits, you make an agreement not to discriminate with your business on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. That's just how I see it.

Over 70 percent of United States businesses are sole proprietorships, taxed via IRS form 1040, just like you and I are. Business income is personal income, and business liability is personal liability.

 

[IrishLax]

Here's is where we differ. The businesses aren't people. If you don't want to be friends with a gay person, or let them into your home, go for it. I don't have any problem with that.

But the moment you sign up for an LLC, an agreement with society (via our government) to form a business in exchange for deferred liability and other benefits, you make an agreement not to discriminate with your business on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. That's just how I see it.

Except... and this is where everything goes to shit... sexual orientation is not a federally protected class.

Currently, it's illegal to discriminate on race, color, nation of origin, citizenship, religion, age, sex, pregnancy, familial status (i.e. having kids), disability, genetics, or veteran status.

Everything else is technically fair game... unless, obviously, your state has additional anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Over 70 percent of United States businesses are sole proprietorships, taxed via IRS form 1040, just like you and I are. Business income is personal income, and business liability is personal liability.

 

[pkt77242]

Absolutely. I don't care who they are or how heinous their beliefs. A gay painter who believes that the Catholic Church is an evil oppressive institution should be able to refuse to create a Christian mural. A black musician who believes that white people are literally devils should be free to refuse compose a song for a Caucasian patron. Forcing any artist to create something that violates his or her sincerely held beliefs is tyranny, plain and simple.

Your argument is much stronger when it comes to mundane commercial businesses. The owner of a hardware store, for example, would have a much harder time arguing that he's somehow complicit in what his clients choose to build with his wares. But for artists, it's an easy call.

Ok while I disagree I can appreciate your point but the problem is it doesn't work that way. A person can not discriminate based on religion (or race, etc) but they can discriminate based on sexual orientation (possible in some states) well that is what these states are driving at whether it holds up in court is a different point. What is so upsetting to the gay rights advocates is that states are trying to treat gays as lesser people that can be discriminated against (and generally in many states they still can be fired for being gay) where as the religious people who are trying to pass the laws can not be discriminated against due to federal and state law.

 

[wizards8507]

Except... and this is where everything goes to shit... sexual orientation is not a federally protected class.

Currently, it's illegal to discriminate on race, color, nation of origin, citizenship, religion, age, sex, pregnancy, familial status (i.e. having kids), disability, genetics, or veteran status.

Everything else is technically fair game... unless, obviously, your state has additional anti-discrimination laws.

Yeah but that logic is akin to saying slavery was okay until 1865. I don't accept federal law prohibiting something as proof that it's bad, nor do I accept federal law allowing something as proof that it's good.

 

[wizards8507]

Ok while I disagree I can appreciate your point but the problem is it doesn't work that way. A person can not discriminate based on religion (or race, etc) but they can discriminate based on sexual orientation (possible in some states) well that is what these states are driving at whether it holds up in court is a different point. What is so upsetting to the gay rights advocates is that states are trying to treat gays as lesser people that can be discriminated against (and generally in many states they still can be fired for being gay) where as the religious people who are trying to pass the laws can not be discriminated against due to federal and state law.

Again, you're missing the point that it's not discrimination against gay people, it's discrimination against gay events.

If I'm an evangelical baker and I have bagels and donuts for sale every day, nobody is suggesting that I should be able to refuse to sell a bagel to a gay man who comes in for breakfast.* That's completely different than baking a custom cake for a gay wedding, in which case I would be forced to participate in something I consider immoral.

Refusing to serve an individual because they're gay is not the same as refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

*I actually would argue that point, but I'm trying to please Whiskey by not living in my "libertarian Utopia."

 

[IrishLax]

Yeah but that logic is akin to saying slavery was okay until 1865. I don't accept federal law prohibiting something as proof that it's bad, nor do I accept federal law allowing something as proof that it's good.

Why are you talking with value statements like "good" or "bad"? Of course discrimination is "bad."* I was only talking about legality.

*Technically, you "discriminate" whenever you select one thing over another but I don't want to get into semantics... I also don't want to get into the subjective nature of good/bad and right/wrong. Waste of finger energy.

 

[EddytoNow]

As a baker, I only bake a certain type of cake: a cake for heterosexual weddings. I don't offer any other services. Which is really no different than a Jewish bakery opening up that only offers to bake cakes for bar mitzvahs.

A Jehovah's witness bakery opens up and they only celebrate successful medical procedures that didn't include blood transfusions.

A scientology bakery opens up that only sells cakes to crazy people.

How do you draw the line between niche product and discrimination?

As a business owner you can make and sell whatever you like. When you decide who can and cannot purchase the product based upon religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. you are discriminating. After you sell me the product, it is mine to do with as I wish. I can throw your cake on the ground, give it to someone else, eat the whole cake myself, or use it at a gay wedding. The cake is no longer yours. I have purchased it, and it is mine to do with as i wish.

Should you decide to refuse to sell me the cake because I'm black, gay, Muslim, or Catholic, you are discriminating.

This same battle was fought in the 1960's concerning the right of a black or Native American person to be served in a bar or restaurant. "No Blacks Allowed" and "No Indians Allowed" signs were prevalent. Such discrimination was wrong then, and it is wrong now. The only difference is the sign has changed to "No Gays Allowed".

Our conservative friends like to say this is our country love it or leave it. Our country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. Blacks, Irish, Native Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Muslims, women, and now gays have had to struggle to be included amongst "all men". We are headed in the right direction. We have no national religion, and that is as it should be. If Christian fanatics are not satisfied with a country that opens its heart and its arms to all, perhaps it is time for them to leave the country. My own Catholic education encouraged me to "treat my brother as I would have him treat me." That philosophy has served me very well over the course of my lifetime.

 

[wizards8507]

Why are you talking with value statements like "good" or "bad"? Of course discrimination is "bad."* I was only talking about legality.

Understood, but we're talking about proposed legislation so we have to leave the realm of what is and isn't legal and venture into what ought to be legal.

 

[pkt77242]

Again, you're missing the point that it's not discrimination against gay people, it's discrimination against gay events.

If I'm an evangelical baker and I have bagels and donuts for sale every day, nobody is suggesting that I should be able to refuse to sell a bagel to a gay man who comes in for breakfast.* That's completely different than baking a custom cake for a gay wedding, in which case I would be forced to participate in something I consider immoral.

Refusing to serve an individual because they're gay is not the same as refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

*I actually would argue that point, but I'm trying to please Whiskey by not living in my "libertarian Utopia."

What makes it a gay event? Oh, that's right the gay people. You are discriminating against the gay people/person. You only know it is a gay event because of the gay people. This idea that you are discriminating against the event not the person is just a way to try and make it more palatable.

 

[wizards8507]

What makes it a gay event? Oh, that's right the gay people. You are discriminating against the gay people/person. You only know it is a gay event because of the gay people. This idea that you are discriminating against the event not the person is just a way to try and make it more palatable.

Would you force a Jewish deli owner to cater a neo-Nazi event?

If not, please explain the difference.

 

[pkt77242]

Would you force a Jewish deli owner to cater a neo-Nazi event?

If not, please explain the difference.

I would say yes, as long as they weren't doing something obscene such as chanting "burn the fucking jews". You have a right to refuse service for people causing a scene. For example if the gay couple came into the baker's bakery and got naked and started making out, then refusal of service is allowed (or if they started chanting death to Christians).

 

[GoldenDome]

Would you force a Jewish deli owner to cater a neo-Nazi event?

If not, please explain the difference.

Why would a neo Nazi give business to a Jewish deli in the first place? This argument has zero merit.

 

[IrishLax]

Why would a neo Nazi give business to a Jewish deli in the first place? This argument has zero merit.

How does it not have merit?

Look, I'm as critical of Wizards as anyone when I think he's off base but he's actually making a number of very rational points. I don't think people should just dismiss the hypotheticals he's providing... because the counter (i.e. something like "why would a gay couple want to hire an outspokenly anti-gay Muslim photographer for their wedding if they know he doesn't want to be there?") can follow incredibly similar logic.

 

[ACamp1900]

To me, I've been to places in LA, Compton, Gardena, that clearly aren't pleased a white dude just walked in... I've even had a guy put his hands on me and ask what I was doing in a 'black' restaurant...

For me? I just don't give them my business, there are other places to eat or to get your cakes made... Pretty simple,... obviously others take different actions and that's fine, but a lot of stuff like this that hits the news feels more like an ax to grind than fighting discrimination and the like...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Ok while I disagree I can appreciate your point but the problem is it doesn't work that way.

Have you given this much thought? Because forcing speech upon others, regardless of how much you might personally agree with it, is an incredibly illiberal and dangerous thing to do.

This same battle was fought in the 1960's concerning the right of a black or Native American person to be served in a bar or restaurant. "No Blacks Allowed" and "No Indians Allowed" signs were prevalent. Such discrimination was wrong then, and it is wrong now. The only difference is the sign has changed to "No Gays Allowed".

Not even close. The issue then wasn't just Freedom of Association, but real scarcity. Blacks had no market alternatives for many basic accommodations under Jim Crow. Furthermore, Jim Crow was backed by a campaign of racist terrorism against blacks.

Conversely, it's trivial for a gay couple to find a different baker or photographer who's more than willing to serve them. And there's literally no comparison between what blacks faced under Jim Crow and the discrimination that LGBT (etc) groups have intermittently faced in the US. It's just a very poor analogy, but it gets trotted out all the time because it shuts down debate and gives one side a bully pulpit over the other. Which has caused many gay rights advocates to go into full-blown witch hunting mode.

I think there's lots of room for productive compromise on this issue (see Utah's recent religious freedom bill for a good example). America has been a religiously diverse nation for a long time, and yet you don't see Christians, Jews, Muslims and Wiccans suing each other over lack of accommodation for religious idiosyncrasies. A willingness to tolerate those with whom you disagree is a basic requirement in a liberal democracy; comparing those who seek religious exemptions to the KKK is no less divisive and unfair than comparing one's political opponents to Nazis. If you're tempted to associate your opponents with the greatest evils of the 20th century, you probably need to reexamine your argument.

 

[GoldenDome]

How does it not have merit?

Look, I'm as critical of Wizards as anyone when I think he's off base but he's actually making a number of very rational points. I don't think people should just dismiss the hypotheticals he's providing... because the counter (i.e. something like "why would a gay couple want to hire an outspokenly anti-gay Muslim photographer for their wedding if they know he doesn't want to be there?") can follow incredibly similar logic.

Because it is unlikely to happen just as your case. If I am having my wedding, why would a gay couple solicit an OUTSPOKEN anti-gay Muslim photographer on one of the most cherished days of my life.

The scenario hardly holds little weight. Both are cases that are too extreme and impractical for arguments sake. Perhaps a better take would be hold more validity.

It is like saying John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to have a RNC at Obama's house. Very unlikely scenario.

 

[GoldenDome]

To me, I've been to places in LA, Compton, Gardena, that clearly aren't pleased a white dude just walked in... I've even had a guy put his hands on me and ask what I was doing in a 'black' restaurant...

For me? I just don't give them my business, there are other places to eat or to get your cakes made... Pretty simple,... obviously others take different actions and that's fine, but a lot of stuff like this that hits the news feels more like an ax to grind than fighting discrimination and the like...

Which places? You can PM me them if you don't want to make it public.

 

[ACamp1900]

Which places? You can PM me them if you don't want to make it public.

Just family owned restaurants and a corner store or two... The hand on incident was in Gardena at a soul food spot, idk know if its still there, this was around 2000 or 2001... Walked in with my friends, all black, and the greeter at the door of all things grabbed my shoulder and asked where I was going? My friends talked him down, we sat for a few tense minutes and then left... Obviously never been back.