Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Right to deny service

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:12:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
With the recent veto of Arizona's SB 1062, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. What do people feel are legitimate reasons to deny service?

In 2006, Elaine Hudenin, a New Mexico photographer, refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. New Mexico law protects against this, so she was sued by the gay couple. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling in August 2013, despite gay marriage not even being legal at that point.

In early 2012 New Mexico hair stylist Antoio Darden made headlines for denying service to Governor Susana Martinez. The reason? He's gay, and she opposes gay marriage. There is no protection under New Mexico law against this type of discrimination.

So, the question to all of you is - should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not? Is it OK to ban businesses from rejecting catering to gay weddings, but allow homosexuals to reject people they don't like - such as Susana Martinez or the Westboro Baptist 'Church'?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:25:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A good reason why a sane and responsible federal government is so necessary. There's no limit on the bigotry, racial hate, homophobia, and the like that will be trotted out by the southern states and their hillbillies!

Simply put, there otta be a law that would prevent them from inter family marriges.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:00:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 3:25:17 PM, monty1 wrote:
A good reason why a sane and responsible federal government is so necessary. There's no limit on the bigotry, racial hate, homophobia, and the like that will be trotted out by the southern states and their hillbillies!

Simply put, there otta be a law that would prevent them from inter family marriges.

You seem to be the hateful one here. I don't recall Arizona ever having been considered a 'southern state', but I suppose you have the right to be ignorant.

I'm asking what is a reasonable restriction on the right to deny service - in other words, if it is wrong to deny service to gays solely because they are gay, is it wrong to deny service to anyone for any reason? Should the New Mexico hair stylist have the right to deny service to people solely because he disagrees with them politically?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 3:12:13 PM, TN05 wrote:
With the recent veto of Arizona's SB 1062, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. What do people feel are legitimate reasons to deny service?

Anything.
*sigh* whatever happened to those signs that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

In 2006, Elaine Hudenin, a New Mexico photographer, refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. New Mexico law protects against this, so she was sued by the gay couple. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling in August 2013, despite gay marriage not even being legal at that point.

If this is the case I think it is, the issue was a violation of contract.
The photographer said she would, then on the day services were to be rendered, backed out. The reason is inconsequential to me. At issue is the "damages", since it is not easy to find a photographer on such short notice.

In early 2012 New Mexico hair stylist Antoio Darden made headlines for denying service to Governor Susana Martinez. The reason? He's gay, and she opposes gay marriage. There is no protection under New Mexico law against this type of discrimination.

I once heard that OJ Simpson tried to sue a restaurant owner for denying service, on account he was black. Of course the owner denied this and said "I don't serve murderers".

So, the question to all of you is - should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not? Is it OK to ban businesses from rejecting catering to gay weddings, but allow homosexuals to reject people they don't like - such as Susana Martinez or the Westboro Baptist 'Church'?

Frankly, outside of essential services, I find that anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That being said, an employee doesn't have the right to refuse, only the owner, or the employee via owner's policies.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:11:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/3/2014 3:12:13 PM, TN05 wrote:
With the recent veto of Arizona's SB 1062, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. What do people feel are legitimate reasons to deny service?

Anything.
*sigh* whatever happened to those signs that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

Agreed.

In 2006, Elaine Hudenin, a New Mexico photographer, refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. New Mexico law protects against this, so she was sued by the gay couple. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling in August 2013, despite gay marriage not even being legal at that point.

If this is the case I think it is, the issue was a violation of contract.
The photographer said she would, then on the day services were to be rendered, backed out. The reason is inconsequential to me. At issue is the "damages", since it is not easy to find a photographer on such short notice.

If that's the case here, I haven't heard that anywhere. Just google "elaine huguenin" - even left-wing groups like Think Progress haven't noted this in their coverage. All that is said of the case is the lesbian couple asked for photos for an unofficial 'commitment ceremony' but Huguenin declined. Even though the couple were able to find another photographer, charging a cheaper price to boot, they still sued.

In early 2012 New Mexico hair stylist Antoio Darden made headlines for denying service to Governor Susana Martinez. The reason? He's gay, and she opposes gay marriage. There is no protection under New Mexico law against this type of discrimination.

I once heard that OJ Simpson tried to sue a restaurant owner for denying service, on account he was black. Of course the owner denied this and said "I don't serve murderers".

Hahaha!

So, the question to all of you is - should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not? Is it OK to ban businesses from rejecting catering to gay weddings, but allow homosexuals to reject people they don't like - such as Susana Martinez or the Westboro Baptist 'Church'?

Frankly, outside of essential services, I find that anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That being said, an employee doesn't have the right to refuse, only the owner, or the employee via owner's policies.

Agreed 100% here, the only issue is defining what an 'essential service' is. Public polling has shown overwhelming support for allowing Christian photographers to skip gay weddings (http://m.rasmussenreports.com...), its just radical LGBT 'activists' that oppose the right to refuse such a service.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:34:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 3:12:13 PM, TN05 wrote:
With the recent veto of Arizona's SB 1062, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. What do people feel are legitimate reasons to deny service?

People who have refused to pay for service before could reasonably be denied service. Parents who bring their unruly children to restaurants could reasonably be denied service, in defense of other patrons. Teenagers who refuse to order a main course and instead gorge themselves on bread could be reasonably be denied service. Customers who are hostile with other customers could be reasonably be denied service. And the list goes on...

In 2006, Elaine Hudenin, a New Mexico photographer, refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. New Mexico law protects against this, so she was sued by the gay couple. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling in August 2013, despite gay marriage not even being legal at that point.

The New Mexico Photographer should have been sued, and damages should have been awarded. Discrimination based on race, gender or sexual identity, under any circumstance, is unacceptable and ought to be punishable under the law.

In early 2012 New Mexico hair stylist Antoio Darden made headlines for denying service to Governor Susana Martinez. The reason? He's gay, and she opposes gay marriage. There is no protection under New Mexico law against this type of discrimination.

That is not discrimination based on an immutable characteristic, but discrimination based on political beliefs. It's not the kind of thing that a responsible businessperson would practice, but it's less wrong than discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, I think that the stylist was myopic and stupid for refusing to cut the governor's hair. He should have used that as an opportunity to change her mind, and given her the best haircut of her life.

So, the question to all of you is - should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not? Is it OK to ban businesses from rejecting catering to gay weddings, but allow homosexuals to reject people they don't like - such as Susana Martinez or the Westboro Baptist 'Church'?

I've outlined some situations and responses above. The fact remains that all businesses can discriminate against gay people, whether doing so is legally protected or not. If a business makes a choice to discriminate and break the law, it must accept the consequences of doing so. We'll see just how valuable their principles are, when their politics cost them their enterprise. So, as a gay man who knows that there are plenty of people who would love to deny me service in all kinds of capacities all I can say is... bring it on, fvckers. Go ahead. Make my day.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 3:12:13 PM, TN05 wrote:
With the recent veto of Arizona's SB 1062, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. What do people feel are legitimate reasons to deny service?

People who have refused to pay for service before could reasonably be denied service. Parents who bring their unruly children to restaurants could reasonably be denied service, in defense of other patrons. Teenagers who refuse to order a main course and instead gorge themselves on bread could be reasonably be denied service. Customers who are hostile with other customers could be reasonably be denied service. And the list goes on...

So you can kick people out for actions, but not inherent characteristics? What would an inherent characteristic be, then? For example, a gay couple kissing in a bar and being kicked out would obviously be an action, but I doubt you would want that to be legal because it is also discrimination.

In 2006, Elaine Hudenin, a New Mexico photographer, refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. New Mexico law protects against this, so she was sued by the gay couple. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling in August 2013, despite gay marriage not even being legal at that point.

The New Mexico Photographer should have been sued, and damages should have been awarded. Discrimination based on race, gender or sexual identity, under any circumstance, is unacceptable and ought to be punishable under the law.

But the photographer argues she doesn't deny service based on sexual orientation - she denied it because of the event. She views her pictures as art, and does not want to make art that violates her religious beliefs. They wanted wedding pictures and she declined, due to her beliefs on marriage - this would be roughly similar to a Jewish sandwich store owner be able to reject a customer demanding a ham sandwich, on the basis that it violates their religion.

Think of it another way - would a semi-professional gay football team have the right to reject a bisexual or straight player joining their team, on the basis that they don't fit their definition of 'gay'? Would a gay bar be able to reject a group of straight patrons from using their party room on the basis that they aren't gay? Would a gay photographer be able to refuse to take pictures at the annual 'God Hates F*gs' party at the Westboro Baptist 'Church'? Would a black photographer be able to refuse to take pictures at a Ku Klux Klan rally?

In early 2012 New Mexico hair stylist Antoio Darden made headlines for denying service to Governor Susana Martinez. The reason? He's gay, and she opposes gay marriage. There is no protection under New Mexico law against this type of discrimination.

That is not discrimination based on an immutable characteristic, but discrimination based on political beliefs. It's not the kind of thing that a responsible businessperson would practice, but it's less wrong than discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, I think that the stylist was myopic and stupid for refusing to cut the governor's hair. He should have used that as an opportunity to change her mind, and given her the best haircut of her life.

Why is that discrimination acceptable? Isn't it wrong and intolerant to treat people differently just because they believe differently than you? Why is it acceptable for a gay hairstylist to be 'stupid' and decline the service of a woman who holds different views than her, but when a Christian hairstylist does the same thing everyone loses their minds?

So, the question to all of you is - should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not? Is it OK to ban businesses from rejecting catering to gay weddings, but allow homosexuals to reject people they don't like - such as Susana Martinez or the Westboro Baptist 'Church'?

I've outlined some situations and responses above. The fact remains that all businesses can discriminate against gay people, whether doing so is legally protected or not. If a business makes a choice to discriminate and break the law, it must accept the consequences of doing so. We'll see just how valuable their principles are, when their politics cost them their enterprise. So, as a gay man who knows that there are plenty of people who would love to deny me service in all kinds of capacities all I can say is... bring it on, fvckers. Go ahead. Make my day.

The problem here is that the gay community is requesting special rights (namely, the right to not be able to be refused service) that they won't afford to everyone else. To many of us who oppose gay marriage (even people that support civil unions like myself), this simply doesn't seem that fair because the whole selling point of gay marriage has been 'it won't affect you', which is a pretty solid argument. But now that the polling has slid in the favor of gay marriage, this tone has shifted to 'celebrate with us or else'.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:01:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We could let the free market decide this issue and you could go somewhere else to conduct your business, but no, we have to force people who oppose gay marriage to attend gay weddings and take pictures or face financial devastation. Don't you just love the idea of freedom of association, unless they are gay then you have no choice. What a free country we live in. I have such high hopes for the future with, Gays gov't and lawyers being the official moral compass of the nation.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:03:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:51:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 3:12:13 PM, TN05 wrote:
With the recent veto of Arizona's SB 1062, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. What do people feel are legitimate reasons to deny service?

People who have refused to pay for service before could reasonably be denied service. Parents who bring their unruly children to restaurants could reasonably be denied service, in defense of other patrons. Teenagers who refuse to order a main course and instead gorge themselves on bread could be reasonably be denied service. Customers who are hostile with other customers could be reasonably be denied service. And the list goes on...

So you can kick people out for actions, but not inherent characteristics?

That is what I said -although the phrase I would use would be "immutable attributes."

What would an inherent characteristic be, then?

Race, gender, sexual oreintation... duh.

For example, a gay couple kissing in a bar and being kicked out would obviously be an action, but I doubt you would want that to be legal because it is also discrimination.

It depends. I'd have to know more about the situation, but I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection.

In 2006, Elaine Hudenin, a New Mexico photographer, refused to take pictures at a gay wedding. New Mexico law protects against this, so she was sued by the gay couple. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling in August 2013, despite gay marriage not even being legal at that point.

The New Mexico Photographer should have been sued, and damages should have been awarded. Discrimination based on race, gender or sexual identity, under any circumstance, is unacceptable and ought to be punishable under the law.

But the photographer argues she doesn't deny service based on sexual orientation - she denied it because of the event. She views her pictures as art, and does not want to make art that violates her religious beliefs.

I don't care. She denied service to a gay couple on the basis of their being gay. Religion is not license to discriminate, but she could have still refused to be the photographer. She would likely get sued, but that would be the cost of her standing by her principles -which I'm perfectly fine with.

They wanted wedding pictures and she declined, due to her beliefs on marriage - this would be roughly similar to a Jewish sandwich store owner be able to reject a customer demanding a ham sandwich, on the basis that it violates their religion.

Not really. The desire to eat ham isn't at all like sexual orientation.

Think of it another way - would a semi-professional gay football team have the right to reject a bisexual or straight player joining their team, on the basis that they don't fit their definition of 'gay'?

Hypothetically, I'm reluctant to opine -but in principle, there is a fundamental difference between denying membership to a private organization and a public enterprise denying service to a customer on an unlawfully discriminatory basis.

Would a gay bar be able to reject a group of straight patrons from using their party room on the basis that they aren't gay?

They shouldn't, and if they did, I'd be ok with the gay bar being sued.

Would a gay photographer be able to refuse to take pictures at the annual 'God Hates F*gs' party at the Westboro Baptist 'Church'? Would a black photographer be able to refuse to take pictures at a Ku Klux Klan rally?

Honestly, your hypotheticals are absurd.

In early 2012 New Mexico hair stylist Antoio Darden made headlines for denying service to Governor Susana Martinez. The reason? He's gay, and she opposes gay marriage. There is no protection under New Mexico law against this type of discrimination.

That is not discrimination based on an immutable characteristic, but discrimination based on political beliefs. It's not the kind of thing that a responsible businessperson would practice, but it's less wrong than discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, I think that the stylist was myopic and stupid for refusing to cut the governor's hair. He should have used that as an opportunity to change her mind, and given her the best haircut of her life.

Why is that discrimination acceptable?

I didn't say it was acceptable, I said it was less wrong.

Isn't it wrong and intolerant to treat people differently just because they believe differently than you?

Not in all circumstances, and realize the difference between discrimination based on immutable characteristics and discrimination based on political beliefs.

Why is it acceptable for a gay hairstylist to be 'stupid' and decline the service of a woman who holds different views than her, but when a Christian hairstylist does the same thing everyone loses their minds?

I didn't say that it was acceptable.

So, the question to all of you is - should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not? Is it OK to ban businesses from rejecting catering to gay weddings, but allow homosexuals to reject people they don't like - such as Susana Martinez or the Westboro Baptist 'Church'?

I've outlined some situations and responses above. The fact remains that all businesses can discriminate against gay people, whether doing so is legally protected or not. If a business makes a choice to discriminate and break the law, it must accept the consequences of doing so. We'll see just how valuable their principles are, when their politics cost them their enterprise. So, as a gay man who knows that there are plenty of people who would love to deny me service in all kinds of capacities all I can say is... bring it on, fvckers. Go ahead. Make my day.

The problem here is that the gay community is requesting special rights (namely, the right to not be able to be refused service) that they won't afford to everyone else.

That is absolutely not the case, and you're making a blanket generalization based not only on insufficient evidence -but based on no evidence. I'd suggest calming down before posting again.

To many of us who oppose gay marriage (even people that support civil unions like myself), this simply doesn't seem that fair because the whole selling point of gay marriage has been 'it won't affect you', which is a pretty solid argument.

That's not the argument. The argument is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently wrong, and therefore cannot be codified into law.

But now that the polling has slid in the favor of gay marriage, this tone has shifted to 'celebrate with us or else'.

I get tired of seeing people who oppose gay marriage perpetuate this idea of their being victimized. It's really not becoming.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:40:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:03:05 PM, YYW wrote:
That is what I said -although the phrase I would use would be "immutable attributes."

What would an inherent characteristic be, then?

Race, gender, sexual oreintation... duh.

Being predisposed to do something is not akin to actually doing it - in other words, there is a difference between being attracted to someone and actually having sex with or marrying them.

It depends. I'd have to know more about the situation, but I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection.

It's a hypothetical. Why does it matter what you are or aren't a fan of?

I don't care. She denied service to a gay couple on the basis of their being gay. Religion is not license to discriminate, but she could have still refused to be the photographer. She would likely get sued, but that would be the cost of her standing by her principles -which I'm perfectly fine with.

She did not deny them because they were gay, she denied them because of the event she would be required to cover. Big difference. It'd be the difference between, say, denying service to a atheist because they are an atheist and denying service to a atheist event because you don't agree with the event and don't want to endorse it.

Not really. The desire to eat ham isn't at all like sexual orientation.

But it is an aspect of many interpretations of the Jewish faith that ham is bad, just like it is an aspect of many interpretations of the Christian faith the homosexual marriage is wrong.

Hypothetically, I'm reluctant to opine -but in principle, there is a fundamental difference between denying membership to a private organization and a public enterprise denying service to a customer on an unlawfully discriminatory basis.

Hold on a minute. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation is bad and should be illegal, right? If you deny someone employment because they were gay, that'd be wrong, but you have to 'think about' if its wrong to deny them if they are bisexual or straight? You are using the Boy Scouts argument, but the Boy Scouts don't pay their members - this hypothetical gay team does compensate players, hence the term 'semi-pro'. They are denying employment on the basis of sexual orientation, and this has indeed happened before (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...).

They shouldn't, and if they did, I'd be ok with the gay bar being sued.

Fair enough.

Honestly, your hypotheticals are absurd.

It's not absurd. They are entirely realistic scenarios that could occur with someone trying to 'prove a point' - just as the gay hair stylist tried to prove his.

I didn't say it was acceptable, I said it was less wrong.

Let me rephrase - why should that discrimination be legal if all discrimination is bad? Why is it less wrong? You have not established any factual reasons for this distinction aside from your personal opinion.

Not in all circumstances, and realize the difference between discrimination based on immutable characteristics and discrimination based on political beliefs.

There is no difference. For many people, their views and beliefs are just as much or even more a part of who they are as their race, gender, or orientation. My beliefs and person are not predicated on me being a white male.

I didn't say that it was acceptable.

You said it should be legal.

That is absolutely not the case, and you're making a blanket generalization based not only on insufficient evidence -but based on no evidence. I'd suggest calming down before posting again.

You are saying it should be illegal to deny service to gays, but not to Christians. How is that not a special privilege?

That's not the argument. The argument is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently wrong, and therefore cannot be codified into law.

And discrimination against people who disagree with you isn't inherently wrong?

I get tired of seeing people who oppose gay marriage perpetuate this idea of their being victimized. It's really not becoming.

So I see you can't respond here. Not only do you want marriage rights, you want to coerce people into participating in them. In other countries, such as Canada, 'anti-gay' speech can be punished as a 'hate crime'. This may seem fine to you, but to those of us who disagree with you on gay marriage, it seems like an intrusion on our rights and an attempt to silence all dissent - something that is flat-out hypocritical given how vehemently the gay community has opposed Russia's harsh and immoral ban on 'gay propoganda'.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:55:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:40:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:03:05 PM, YYW wrote:
That is what I said -although the phrase I would use would be "immutable attributes."

What would an inherent characteristic be, then?

Race, gender, sexual oreintation... duh.

Being predisposed to do something is not akin to actually doing it - in other words, there is a difference between being attracted to someone and actually having sex with or marrying them.

That doesn't change the fact that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still immoral. In other words, you're getting off topic.

It depends. I'd have to know more about the situation, but I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection.

It's a hypothetical. Why does it matter what you are or aren't a fan of?

I don't like hypotheticals or ostentatious displays of affection. A peck on the cheek or even a french kiss isn't a big deal, but if any couple were outlandishly making a scene in a public place.... it's just not polite.

I don't care. She denied service to a gay couple on the basis of their being gay. Religion is not license to discriminate, but she could have still refused to be the photographer. She would likely get sued, but that would be the cost of her standing by her principles -which I'm perfectly fine with.

She did not deny them because they were gay, she denied them because of the event she would be required to cover. Big difference. It'd be the difference between, say, denying service to a atheist because they are an atheist and denying service to a atheist event because you don't agree with the event and don't want to endorse it.

You're basically saying that X is not X because it's X -oh, and there is also X, Y and Z that also relate to X, but are not relevant to X.

Religion is not an immutable characteristic.

Not really. The desire to eat ham isn't at all like sexual orientation.

But it is an aspect of many interpretations of the Jewish faith that ham is bad, just like it is an aspect of many interpretations of the Christian faith the homosexual marriage is wrong.

Religion is not an immutable characteristic.

Hypothetically, I'm reluctant to opine -but in principle, there is a fundamental difference between denying membership to a private organization and a public enterprise denying service to a customer on an unlawfully discriminatory basis.

Hold on a minute. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation* is bad and should be illegal, right?

*in a public business setting

Yes.

If you deny someone employment because they were gay, that'd be wrong,

Yes.

but you have to 'think about' if its wrong to deny them if they are bisexual or straight?

No. The example you used was about membership in a private organization, not employment at a public business. Realize the difference.

You are using the Boy Scouts argument, but the Boy Scouts don't pay their members - this hypothetical gay team does compensate players, hence the term 'semi-pro'.

No, I'm not. By the way, if the Boy Scouts want to discriminate as a private organization that is their right. It is shameful, but they can withhold membership for whatever reason they like. Membership in a private organization is different from employment.

They are denying employment on the basis of sexual orientation, and this has indeed happened before (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...).

Ok. That probably wasn't the right thing to do, then.

They shouldn't, and if they did, I'd be ok with the gay bar being sued.

Fair enough.

Honestly, your hypotheticals are absurd.

It's not absurd. They are entirely realistic scenarios that could occur with someone trying to 'prove a point' - just as the gay hair stylist tried to prove his.

Your hypotheticals are as absurd as the hair dresser's behavior was stupid, juvenile and myopic.

I didn't say it was acceptable, I said it was less wrong.

Let me rephrase - why should that discrimination be legal if all discrimination is bad? Why is it less wrong? You have not established any factual reasons for this distinction aside from your personal opinion.

I've already answered that question, and you asked for my opinion. I mean, dude... really. This is precipitously becoming an exercise in futility.

Not in all circumstances, and realize the difference between discrimination based on immutable characteristics and discrimination based on political beliefs.

There is no difference. For many people, their views and beliefs are just as much or even more a part of who they are as their race, gender, or orientation. My beliefs and person are not predicated on me being a white male.

The difference is that one kind is based on an immutable characteristic, and the other is not. I don't care if you're a white dude or not.

I didn't say that it was acceptable.

You said it should be legal.

I'm getting tired of you not reading things before you respond to them.

That is absolutely not the case, and you're making a blanket generalization based not only on insufficient evidence -but based on no evidence. I'd suggest calming down before posting again.

You are saying it should be illegal to deny service to gays, but not to Christians. How is that not a special privilege?

That is not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

That's not the argument. The argument is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently wrong, and therefore cannot be codified into law.

And discrimination against people who disagree with you isn't inherently wrong?

The premise of that question is not something I said, nor is it an implication of anything I have ever said on this forum. In fact, I have in principle argued for the opposite of that question's premise above, in reference to the gay hair stylist who denied service to the governor.

I get tired of seeing people who oppose gay marriage perpetuate this idea of their being victimized. It's really not becoming.

So I see you can't respond here.

I have literally responded to everything you've written.

Not only do you want marriage rights, you want to coerce people into participating in them.

Not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

In other countries, such as Canada, 'anti-gay' speech can be punished as a 'hate crime'.

Neat, but irrelevant to what we're talking about here.

This may seem fine to you, but to those of us who disagree with you on gay marriage, it seems like an intrusion on our rights and an attempt to silence all dissent - something that is flat-out hypocritical given how vehemently the gay community has opposed Russia's harsh and immoral ban on 'gay propoganda'.

You're making blanket generalizations again. Calm down, and then think before you type.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:16:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:55:38 PM, YYW wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still immoral. In other words, you're getting off topic.

You've failed to establish why it is more immoral than discriminating on basis of someone believing differently than you.

I don't like hypotheticals or ostentatious displays of affection. A peck on the cheek or even a french kiss isn't a big deal, but if any couple were outlandishly making a scene in a public place.... it's just not polite.

And this matters in relation to the law how?

She did not deny them because they were gay, she denied them because of the event she would be required to cover. Big difference. It'd be the difference between, say, denying service to a atheist because they are an atheist and denying service to a atheist event because you don't agree with the event and don't want to endorse it.

You're basically saying that X is not X because it's X -oh, and there is also X, Y and Z that also relate to X, but are not relevant to X.

You're basically ignoring the question. She did not deny them because they were gay - she denied them because she didn't agree with the ceremony and didn't want to endorse it. She didn't screen them beforehand and say "Are you gay? If so, GTFO". She denied a specific service.

Religion is not an immutable characteristic.

And you've failed to explain why discrimination against whatever you define as an "immutable characteristic" should be treated differently than discrimination because of belief.

*in a public business setting

A semi-pro gay sports team is indeed a public business, by virtue of them compensating players.

No. The example you used was about membership in a private organization, not employment at a public business. Realize the difference.

You've never heard of a semi-pro team, have you?

You are using the Boy Scouts argument, but the Boy Scouts don't pay their members - this hypothetical gay team does compensate players, hence the term 'semi-pro'.

No, I'm not. By the way, if the Boy Scouts want to discriminate as a private organization that is their right. It is shameful, but they can withhold membership for whatever reason they like. Membership in a private organization is different from employment.

So it would be shameful for the Boy Scouts to withhold gay people from joining, but not shameful for a gay sports team to reject bisexuals from joining?

Your hypotheticals are as absurd as the hair dresser's behavior was stupid, juvenile and myopic.

Way to deflect the argument there bud.

I've already answered that question, and you asked for my opinion. I mean, dude... really. This is precipitously becoming an exercise in futility.

I'm asking you to explain why 'immutable characteristics' should be illegal to discriminate against, but not personal belief. You have failed to do so, so the fact I have to repeat it is your own fault, not mine.

The difference is that one kind is based on an immutable characteristic, and the other is not. I don't care if you're a white dude or not.

And why is that difference important?

I'm getting tired of you not reading things before you respond to them.

That is not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

You said religion is not an 'immutable characteristic' and thus does not deserve legal protection. Ergo, you directly argued discrimination on basis of religion and belief should indeed be legal. Maybe you should read your own arguments before complaining about me 'not reading' yours.

The premise of that question is not something I said, nor is it an implication of anything I have ever said on this forum. In fact, I have in principle argued for the opposite of that question's premise above, in reference to the gay hair stylist who denied service to the governor.

You specifically argued that discrimination on basis of belief is less wrong, and that it shouldn't be illegal. You also argued gay marriage should be legal because discrimination is wrong and should be illegal, and that discrimination on basis of race, gender and sexual orientation are wrong, and should be illegal. Do you not see the contradiction here?

I have literally responded to everything you've written.

You certainly haven't rebutted the 'celebrate or else' mantra.

Not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

Yes, it is. You want businesses to be forced to work on gay weddings at asked, even if they disagree with it. That is most certainly participating in them.

Neat, but irrelevant to what we're talking about here.

It's entirely relevant to the 'celebrate or else' mantra.

You're making blanket generalizations again. Calm down, and then think before you type.

It's not a blanket generalization - it's simply how many of us feel. When gay advocates are indeed pushing, and have successfully pushed for suppression of speech they don't like, but act outraged when their own speech is suppressed, it seems hypocritical.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 6:16:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:55:38 PM, YYW wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still immoral. In other words, you're getting off topic.

You've failed to establish why it is more immoral than discriminating on basis of someone believing differently than you.

Discrimination based on an immutable characteristic implies a judgement of another person on the basis of something they could not change about themselves. Discrimination based on politics, while still bad, is only discrimination based on something that someone could change, if they wanted too. But again, discrimination is all bad.

I don't like hypotheticals or ostentatious displays of affection. A peck on the cheek or even a french kiss isn't a big deal, but if any couple were outlandishly making a scene in a public place.... it's just not polite.

And this matters in relation to the law how?

You weren't asking about the law. You were asking if businesses should be able to deny service to patrons. What the law says about kinds of discrimination as we're talking here carries by state.

She did not deny them because they were gay, she denied them because of the event she would be required to cover. Big difference. It'd be the difference between, say, denying service to a atheist because they are an atheist and denying service to a atheist event because you don't agree with the event and don't want to endorse it.

You're basically saying that X is not X because it's X -oh, and there is also X, Y and Z that also relate to X, but are not relevant to X.

You're basically ignoring the question. She did not deny them because they were gay - she denied them because she didn't agree with the ceremony and didn't want to endorse it. She didn't screen them beforehand and say "Are you gay? If so, GTFO". She denied a specific service.

I'm not ignoring the question, I'm saying that your question is illogical.

Religion is not an immutable characteristic.

And you've failed to explain why discrimination against whatever you define as an "immutable characteristic" should be treated differently than discrimination because of belief.

Well, actually it's not just me that's saying that discrimination based on "immutable characteristics" is bad... that's the principle behind US non-discrimination laws. You're free to disagree with that, but I really don't care.

*in a public business setting

A semi-pro gay sports team is indeed a public business, by virtue of them compensating players.

Whatever. I don't think that such a team should have not allowed a straight guy or bisexual guy to be on the team.

No. The example you used was about membership in a private organization, not employment at a public business. Realize the difference.

You've never heard of a semi-pro team, have you?

Again, what constitutes a "semi-pro" team wasn't clear, earlier, until you posted the link. But now, you have, and I've responded.

You are using the Boy Scouts argument, but the Boy Scouts don't pay their members - this hypothetical gay team does compensate players, hence the term 'semi-pro'.

No, I'm not. By the way, if the Boy Scouts want to discriminate as a private organization that is their right. It is shameful, but they can withhold membership for whatever reason they like. Membership in a private organization is different from employment.

So it would be shameful for the Boy Scouts to withhold gay people from joining, but not shameful for a gay sports team to reject bisexuals from joining?

That is not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

Your hypotheticals are as absurd as the hair dresser's behavior was stupid, juvenile and myopic.

Way to deflect the argument there bud.

You're not making an argument. You're asking a bunch of questions that I can't answer because I don't have enough information about a given situation to have an informed opinion of it. Either ask well thought out questions about detailed hypotheticals, or continue to expect me to not give you answers to incoherent questions.

I've already answered that question, and you asked for my opinion. I mean, dude... really. This is precipitously becoming an exercise in futility.

I'm asking you to explain why 'immutable characteristics' should be illegal to discriminate against, but not personal belief. You have failed to do so, so the fact I have to repeat it is your own fault, not mine.

You actually just did in this post, and I explained above.

The difference is that one kind is based on an immutable characteristic, and the other is not. I don't care if you're a white dude or not.

And why is that difference important?

You can change your politics. You can't change being a black, or a woman or a queer.

I'm getting tired of you not reading things before you respond to them.

That is not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

You said religion is not an 'immutable characteristic' and thus does not deserve legal protection.

No, I didn't. I said that discrimination based on religion is less bad than discrimination based on an immutable characteristic. You really need to learn not to put words in other people's mouths.

Ergo, you directly argued discrimination on basis of religion and belief should indeed be legal. Maybe you should read your own arguments before complaining about me 'not reading' yours.

Ergo, you've drawn a conclusion based on what you erroneously thought was an implication of what I said, and are now refuting something which I didn't say. If only there were a name for that, lol...

The premise of that question is not something I said, nor is it an implication of anything I have ever said on this forum. In fact, I have in principle argued for the opposite of that question's premise above, in reference to the gay hair stylist who denied service to the governor.

You specifically argued that discrimination on basis of belief is less wrong, and that it shouldn't be illegal.

I did say it was less wrong, but not that it shouldn't be illegal. Damnit, kid. READ!

You also argued gay marriage should be legal because discrimination is wrong and should be illegal, and that discrimination on basis of race, gender and sexual orientation are wrong, and should be illegal. Do you not see the contradiction here?

There is no contradiction, because you're thinking I said things I didn't say. Again, kid... READ!

I have literally responded to everything you've written.

You certainly haven't rebutted the 'celebrate or else' mantra.

lol... the problem is that you're rebutting things that I haven't said as if somehow that proves me wrong. So, either stop doing that, or, expect me to continue to make snide remarks whenever you fail to address what I've said, or straw man what I've said.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 7:08:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 6:33:30 PM, YYW wrote:
Discrimination based on an immutable characteristic implies a judgement of another person on the basis of something they could not change about themselves. Discrimination based on politics, while still bad, is only discrimination based on something that someone could change, if they wanted too. But again, discrimination is all bad.

OK, but what seems more important to me is that you are still discriminating in the present. I don't agree with the distinction here - discrimination is bad.

I don't like hypotheticals or ostentatious displays of affection. A peck on the cheek or even a french kiss isn't a big deal, but if any couple were outlandishly making a scene in a public place.... it's just not polite.

And this matters in relation to the law how?

You weren't asking about the law. You were asking if businesses should be able to deny service to patrons. What the law says about kinds of discrimination as we're talking here carries by state.

My initial question does indeed question the law - I asked "should businesses be obligated to serve everyone, should they be free to reject everyone, or should certain groups be protected while others are not".

I'm not ignoring the question, I'm saying that your question is illogical.

How is it illogical? I'm sure she would have been just fine with photographing a wedding of two bisexuals, provided they were of opposite gender.

Well, actually it's not just me that's saying that discrimination based on "immutable characteristics" is bad... that's the principle behind US non-discrimination laws. You're free to disagree with that, but I really don't care.

This topic isn't about current law, it is about what the law should or should not be.

Whatever. I don't think that such a team should have not allowed a straight guy or bisexual guy to be on the team.

Fair enough.

Again, what constitutes a "semi-pro" team wasn't clear, earlier, until you posted the link. But now, you have, and I've responded.

Fair enough.

That is not what I said, nor is it an implication of what I said.

Fair enough.

You're not making an argument. You're asking a bunch of questions that I can't answer because I don't have enough information about a given situation to have an informed opinion of it. Either ask well thought out questions about detailed hypotheticals, or continue to expect me to not give you answers to incoherent questions.

They seem coherent enough that you've responded to them.

You actually just did in this post, and I explained above.

?

You can change your politics. You can't change being a black, or a woman or a queer.

Depends on what you define 'being a queer' as... and isn't it a bit transphobic to say you can't change 'being a woman'?

No, I didn't. I said that discrimination based on religion is less bad than discrimination based on an immutable characteristic. You really need to learn not to put words in other people's mouths.

Well, your argument didn't come off that way.

Ergo, you've drawn a conclusion based on what you erroneously thought was an implication of what I said, and are now refuting something which I didn't say. If only there were a name for that, lol...

Read above.

You specifically argued that discrimination on basis of belief is less wrong, and that it shouldn't be illegal.

Read above above.

I did say it was less wrong, but not that it shouldn't be illegal. Damnit, kid. READ!

There is no contradiction, because you're thinking I said things I didn't say. Again, kid... READ!

Read above above above.

lol... the problem is that you're rebutting things that I haven't said as if somehow that proves me wrong. So, either stop doing that, or, expect me to continue to make snide remarks whenever you fail to address what I've said, or straw man what I've said.