Is This Intolerance? (NOT Tolerant)

Posted by: MakeSensePeopleDont

After fighting for tolerance and understanding and getting it, is it intolerant for the LGBT community to demand religious establishments and people to go against their beliefs in terms of gay weddings in churches and providing products and services for gay weddings?

Vote
9 Total Votes
1

It is hilariously intolerant. Hypocritical too.

They are trying to get the government to abrogate freedom of speech, religion, and property rights, just so they can be accommodated, regardless of what the person owning the business wants. News flash: We reserve the right to refuse service to an... yone   more
6 votes
2 comments
2

Coexist....Geez

Everybody just stop fighting and respect each other. Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and thinking and just do you. At the end of the day, LGBT identifiers have to face whatever God is or is not out there and answer for their choi... ces, and bigots will have to do the same. It's not for us to judge but simply to understand and respect each other; after all, every religion says "God(s) made us in his (or their) image." so our faults are faults of his anyway. That means if we cant accept each other, there is no way we can accept him (them) when the time comes that we meet   more
3 votes
2 comments
3

It is INTOLERANT.

They respect your choices and beliefs, you should respect theirs
0 votes
0 comments
4

I'm selfish. It is TOLERANT

Who cares what you want as long as I get what I want!!!
0 votes
0 comments
5

I'm a new age stereotypical Democrat.

That means everyone who doesn't agree with me MUST give me everything I want and I give nothing back.
0 votes
0 comments
6

I'm a stereotypical Republican, repeal gay marriage, THE END.

This means I'm not compromising on anything, don't come to me with your gay marriage junk.
0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-15T02:48:47.0925495-05:00
Let me start by saying I think this is INTOLERANT. Now to my point for comment: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" (should be finished with: for any reason) is actually NOT legal and is NOT a law in any way; it's a myth. You MUST provide valid and LEGAL reason for refusing service to a potential customer.
Forthelulz says2015-07-15T03:00:09.7646622-05:00
It's still a good guideline to follow. If I don't like someone and refuse them service, fine, they can take their business elsewhere. If a monopoly's in effect, then check for protectionism in the legislative body.
TBR says2015-07-15T08:34:02.7143283-05:00
Who is forcing Churches to perform weddings? As for businesses breaking the law, thats a matter of law, not your strawman argument.
neoryan1 says2015-07-15T10:05:33.0271723-05:00
@Forthelulz Society will never advance if we cannot be accepting of the beliefs of others. If you want to refuse service because you don't like a person, fine. If you refuse service because you don't like their religious/political beliefs, it's rather immature.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-15T14:15:09.1699131-05:00
On the contrary, I dont think you need to provide a reason for refusing service at all. Its when you provide the wrong reason that things get hairy. If you just keep your mouth shut about whatever your reason is, and keep them guessing, thats perfectly fine. Just dont give them ammunition to use against you. You can indeed refuse service for whatever reason you want if you arent in some type of government run business or utility type service.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-15T16:42:44.4507065-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Actually it is a myth to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There is no law on any book that allows the refusal of business, neither in the private sector nor the public sector. You MUST provide valid reason, otherwise the consumer you just pushed out the door can file suit for many violations including harassment and discrimination. Why is this the case? Simple, think about this: a gay couple walks into the bakery, the baker states "Please leave, I am exercising my right to serve you.". As they walk out, another, straight, couple comes in and gets served. At this point there are grounds for suit for discrimination based on sexual preference. Without the requirement of an explanation for denial of service, the individual denied service has the ability to file discrimination and harassment charges based on any subject matter that differs between themselves and the next person that IS served. This means anything from subject matter present on their shirt, accessories they are wearing, sexuality, gender, being too perky, being too sad, the car you are driving, literally anything the denied consumer can conjure up. Thing about it is the denying business would have NO ability to defend themselves. The reason this is NOT a legal explanation for denial of service is NOT truly to protect the consumer from the provider, but instead is more to protect the provider from themselves.
TBR says2015-07-15T18:26:52.7203998-05:00
^^^ Yup. Signs on cash registers are meaningless.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-15T18:44:11.9314092-05:00
@TBR Yeah, they actually are. I laugh every time I see them. In fact, I just brought this point up a couple days ago to a large company to remain nameless while reading through some paperwork I had to sign. The company read it, chuckled and responded "Yeah, we know we can't actually do that, its just a standard line companies have had in their paperwork for decades and nobody has taken the time to remove it." I even brought it up to my lawyer while filling out paperwork for him about nine months ago and he responded "Do you notice everything? Nobody ever actually reads these things, they just sign them." Those signs at the register are useless.
Haroush says2015-07-15T21:42:56.2164340-05:00
TBR claims everyone makes strawman arguments from the opposing side of his spectrum.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-16T00:08:19.6081811-05:00
I know, I've been "straw-manned" about a billion times now LOL.
Krampus says2015-07-16T08:11:42.0758282-05:00
@makesense: It is not a myth to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It is a right called freedom of association. It is protected by the first amendment since the Supreme court ruling of NAACP vs Alabama. Businesses do not have to disclose why they refuse service to anyone. All business transactions are voluntary, consensual agreements between all participating parties, typically in the form of 1 party will provide a good or service in exchange for the other parties money. If EITHER party doesn't agree with all aspects of the deal, then there is no transaction. For example, I go in for a haircut, the barber says "yes I provide haircuts, and I trade will trade one to you for $500". I wouldn't agree to that transaction and would not have to pay the $500 for a haircut. Likewise, I could walk in to get a haircut and say "I would like a haircut, and I am willing to trade $2 for it". The barber doesn't have to agree to it and isn't required to perform the service even though in both cases we both agree that we are willing to trade haircuts for money. Now, if you bring the government with you and the government says that the barber MUST give you a haircut for $2 or face fines or go to jail, then this is no longer a voluntary transaction, it is an involuntary transaction even though the barber is providing the service and getting paid for it. Involuntary business transactions are illegal because of anti-slavery laws and anti-blackmailing laws. If you believe that you have the right to demand service from someone who doesn't want to serve you and you can bring the government with you to enforce that demand, then you are a fascist. This translates easily to religious freedom. The first amendment protects the practice of religion. If you don't agree with someone, you do not have to do business with them, go somewhere else. There are plenty of places that are willing to take your money. But if you feel that you have the right to sue them, or force what you want from them through the force of government, you are a fascist. Welcome to freedom, where people are allowed to see things differently from you without being punished by law. I would rather people that I don't agree with who own private property (this includes private businesses) to conduct their lives/businesses however they want, as long as they aren't infringing other's rights, than to have a fascist government that has they ability to force you to violate your belief system over someone else's feelings because it is not politically correct. (I am using politically correct in its original sense, created by Mao Zedong who coined it as meaning correctly in line with what the government dictates). You wouldn't force a muslim or jewish owned restaurant to serve pork just because you want bacon. Why is it ok to force christians to support gay weddings, or threaten churches non-profit status if they don't support gay weddings? I thought the argument was that marriage wasn't a religious institution and you just wanted people who loved each other to receive the same state benefits. If this is the case, why are you going to a church to get married or to a christian owned bakery in the first place. I would rather live in a world where someone is allowed to discriminate (because the market would solve that problem), than live in a world where the government can routinely coerce you to do things against you will just because they claim that they are the moral authority and dictate what is right and wrong.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-16T11:17:33.9459890-05:00
@Krampus Annotations 12 -- Amendment I of the constitution is both defined and accompanied by legal representation via documentation of the cases you are referencing can be found here: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html This Annotation does NOT in anyway allow discrimination against customers. This Annotation is to protect membership dispersal as well as to protect the group from being forced without proper reasoning to produce their membership lists to the government or court systems; this is the NAACP case flurry you refer to. Please read the Annotation and understand it. If for some reason you believe there is a section in their that does give businesses the right to refuse services to anyone for any reason provide the text and I will be more than happy to correctly decipher it for you. The closest this Annotation comes to allowing businesses to refuse[...] is by allowing private sector CLUBS requiring MEMBERSHIP to join which are also not affiliated or directly contributing to the sustaining and/or growth of an attached business to refuse membership to any applicant to said club or organization for any reason without explanation. Furthermore, no business transaction is voluntary on behalf of the business, it is only voluntary on behalf of the consumer as you can go into an establishment, grab a product, walk it to the register, then say "I don't want this any longer." and leave without recourse. Conversely, the cashier cannot say "I refuse to sell this product to you that is publicly available for purchase by any potential patron of this establishment; except for you." Your example of the $500 barber is also incorrect. The barber may raise or lower his prices at will whether for every consumer or for special cases like the guy that hasn't gotten a haircut in 85 years which would increase workload, chair time, man hours, disposal costs, etc. by an amount beyond reasonable in relation to the averages. For the converse where the patron attempts to haggle a lower price with the barber, the barber does reserve the right to lower the price via haggle agreement, however this does not actually lower the cost of service, the barber or business is instead agreeing to foot the difference in cost on your behalf; comparatively, this is the same as you being a few dollars short on a bill and the guy behind you stepping up, being a generous and friendly person and providing you the monetary currency required to complete payment of your bill. The barber may not agree with being donated the remainder of the cost, but he is unable to refuse this transaction (with exceptions such as the barber witnessing the helpful man earning the cash in a way that is deemed illegal such as a drug deal outside of his establishment. However, in these cases, the barber is REQUIRED by law to deny acceptance of this tender as he would knowingly be participating in illicit and illegal activity after the fact; think of "accepting stolen property" laws. In these exceptions, the barber does NOT posses the legal ability to choose whether or not to accept said illegally obtained money). Next, your exampling of Jewish and Muslim owned businesses being forced to serve pork is ludicrous. You don't go to Pizza Hut and demand they serve you a burger and fries and expect to receive it. Why? Because Pizza Hut is an establishment servicing the needs of consumers in the market for pizza, not consumers in the market for burgers. This argument has no place in this discussion at all so let's mentally delete that. Although I do NOT agree with bakers being forced to bake for gay weddings when their beliefs are against such union, the fact is they are a bakery, for wedding cakes, in the private market (private is confusing in this discussion as private means it is open to the PUBLIC in its entirety) meaning any individual on the planet can legally enter said bakery without requirement of membership and present proper tender for product and service. This means refusal to serve specific individuals creates a line of discrimination (separation) based on some factor the private establishment has defined whether it was publicly defined or not; hence discriminatory and illegal. The reason establishments such as religious establishments are exempt from this (membership required establishments addressed at the start of this comment) is because freedom of the practice of religion is DIRECTLY protected within Amendment I and as long as religious establishments maintain all requirements to be deemed a 501(c) tax-exempt group (among other nuances meant for specific cases) they will remain protected.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-16T11:21:37.4568565-05:00
Footnote: MAN I'M GOOD
Krampus says2015-07-16T14:05:37.6287693-05:00
@make sense: I find your hubris distasteful and there is no room for that in a mature discussion. My barber example is not wrong, you proved it so. All business transactions ARE voluntary. It is just that the voluntary side of the business is implied because they are the ones making the initial offer to sell something for some price and actually putting it out there. They can voluntarily change/haggle the price as they see fit, and they don't care if someone else gives you the money as long as they are compensated by your side of the voluntary transaction. There is no involuntary compulsion of what the price must be. Also, like I said, the voluntary transaction must be agreed upon by BOTH parties or it doesn't take place. That means the deal can be different for different people, i.e. someone else footing the bill or haggling the price. This is why your example of walking up to a register and then not buying something goes unpunished. The business voluntarily listed that item at that price, but you didn't hold up YOUR end of the voluntary transaction to pay the set price for it, therefore, no transaction happened. You are right in that the supreme court case cited that it is possible to interpret that to not apply to businesses, and I'll even concede the point about the jewish/muslim owned restaraunt (they were only listed for illustrative purposes to point out how it could be seen as stomping on religious freedoms); however, religious freedom does exist and is specifically stated. That is the reason that religious establishments tend to have exclusions from laws like this. People should be able to practice their religion as they see fit so long as they are not infringing the rights of others. My contention is that you do not have a right to go into any business and demand something from them with the force of govt at your back. I would rather live in a society that has the ability of discriminate, than in a fascist society where the govt dictates what is right and wrong. The truth is that most people do not discriminate, because in a capitalistic society, the only color that matters is green. Until recently, all businesses were legally allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but almost no one does. Turns out, most business owners like money more than they hate certain groups of people. If someone does want to discriminate, the market would fix it. People would boycott them, or the people who are being discriminated against can open up a store that competes with them because they will have that market cornered. Also, side note, not catering a gay wedding is not discriminating against gay people, the bakery in question actually served the gay couple on numerous occasions and even offered a list of competitors that would do the wedding. Getting married is not what makes someone gay. They were refusing to participate in the event. If they had refused to cater a KKK rally, you wouldn't be saying that they are discriminating against white people. Having the government become fascist and forcing people to do things against their will is way more of a scary prospect than the fact that there might be a few idiots who would rather discriminate than make money.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-16T16:20:28.0845952-05:00
@Krampus Hubris-Excessive pride or self-confidence. Stating a fact does not constitute hubris; However, if it really bothers you like that I sincerely apologize for my actions and will be more considerate moving forward. I simply recognized through review of this site that not many members of the community take the time to positively reinforce knowledge and impressive posts; since no one is gonna bring it down low two times, I may as well pat myself on the back every now and then. Now, down to business: As "hubris-filled" as this will sound, I mean it educationally; your reading comprehension here is a bit lacking. The discussion at hand is in regards to the direct interaction between a single business and a single consumer; more specifically the myth of right to refuse service[..] which by definition moves in a single direction, business to consumer. Breakdown: the barber negotiating a lower price with a SINGLE consumer means the barber or owner is donating the funds you are missing directly from their own personal wallets, NOT from the business. They are donating to you as if your were that homeless guy on the freeway exit. Conversely, if the funds for the SINGLE consumer come from the business; practice walking down windowless cement hallways with your shoulder on the wall and hands behind your back then shred your business license because you just committed fraud. If the money comes from the business, you would be required to offer the same pricing to all potential consumers which is called a "Sale like 40% off sale". Next, if have the privilege of attending advanced business economics courses you will find that pricing in a capitalist society with anti-monopoly laws in place is NOT voluntary, it is based on the economic climate of the region which consists of TONS of variables. Businesses change their prices to remain competitive in the industry or to increase their profit margins inline with the industry so they aren't hit with antitrust suits which include VERY real threat of bankruptcy through judicial and FTC reviews and punishments. So the market determines the prices, not the business; hence not voluntary (and just so you don't try to use your grocery store selling Poweraide for $0.80 and Target selling at $0.94; this is done due to the decreased wholesale pricing for stores that keep higher inventory rates of the product due to differing markets again, involuntary). In the private sector, speaking of businesses not requiring membership, if you have two equivalent consumers standing in front of you, purchasing the same item and you deny service to one citing "refusal to server any person at any time[...] and serve the other, this is ILLEGAL and discriminatory and very possibly harassment. It CANNOT be done. Therefore, this is NOT a voluntary transaction on both sides. Private sector businesses do NOT posses voluntary ability to arbitrarily deny and approve service to whomever they want whenever they want. Knowing you will STILL push back on this; I would urge you to review the progression of litigation over Arizona's short lived dream of pushing SB 1062 into law. This was heavily debated from local courts to the Supreme Court as well as beat to death along with the horse followed by it being beat even further WITH the dead horse by the national media. One of the arguments at the heart of these proceedings was the legality of the signs in question at the registers. Time after time, attorney after attorney, judge after judge stated the lack of legal standing these signs have in the real world even though no official law was ever created to prevent them. The reasoning given to their lack of legality was first and foremost Civil Rights. Moving forward from these Rights as they are indisputable, each level went onto discuss Business Law which only allows denial of service to a patron if their presence or actions violate laws, health and safety regulations (no shirt no shoes no service), FDA regulations, endanger the business of losing licenses and certifications, etc. Each went on with full agreement from legal standpoint to state these signs are misleading and do NOT provide protections for arbitrary denial of service. Next: Religious freedoms don't come into play with types of products and services a company offers; these are determined by the business model and nothing ANYONE says can EVER force a business to alter their offerings (outside of prohibition of items like Cuban Cigars until recently or health and safety risks newly discovered such as lead paint and asbestos in cases). No private sector business was recently able to deny service based on sexual orientation; see SB 1062 progression and court readings of Business Laws. That baker and many others were ordered by the courts to make the cakes for those weddings. Here is one of them: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ Finally, the government is not forcing any business owner to do ANYTHING against their will. Remember, it is NOT a RIGHT to own and operate a business in the U.S., it is a PRIVILEGE. This is why businesses must have proper licensing in order to exist and operate and why said licenses can be revoked. It's the same for legally being able to drive, you need a license and it can be revoked denying the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle. Licenses come with agreement to follow all laws, rules, regulations, etc. enforced by MANY entities including the government.
Krampus says2015-07-17T08:40:24.9423926-05:00
@Makesense: First I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the effort/work you are putting in your posts and I appreciate your maturity in discussion. Hopefully I can address all of your points in this post without being too verbose. First, you haggle a lower price, that is not the business donating funds to you out of their personal pocket. When you pay for something, you are not simply paying the cost of the materials/labor, you are paying for those plus a markup for profit. If the seller accepts a lower amount for the service, they are still being covered for the mats/labor, they are just choosing to take in less profit for said item. If they give it to you for free, they are just eating the cost of it, they are not taking money from themselves, and then giving it to them selves, they are just deciding to just eat the cost of the item to them. Second, Yes, the market does decide the price; however, a business can choose to charge more or less than the market price. They will still voluntarily choose to sell it at the price that they believe will bring the most profit. The competition of people offering different prices is one of the factors leading to the market changing their prices until there becomes an average market price. It may not be a wise business decision to sell something for more/less, but they can still do so if they wish depending on their situation. There is no government compulsion on price on private businesses. Third, as to the point you made where you "CANNOT" ever discriminate against equivalent consumers standing in front of you because it is illegal, that's not true. Business transactions are still voluntary (i.E. No government compulsion), it is just that the business's consent is implied because they are the ones putting the offer out there (much like a credit card company sending you an already signed contract, all you have to do is agree to it and sign it yourself), but they can still back out of their end in certain situations. The laws only protect discrimination against race, sex, religion, and recently sexual orientation, so those are the only situations where it is illegal to discriminate. You can still discriminate with things such as (as you mentioned) health code violations (no shirt/shoes,etc), behavior (such as being belligerent or hostile), state of inebriation (can't sell beer to a drunk person), and age (minors cannot buy alcohol/cigarettes). I understand that it is illegal to discriminate based on the qualifiers that the government dictates, that's not my argument. My argument is that that is not the role of the government because these kinds of problems (which actually very rarely occur) can be solved with the market. There is no need for government compulsion. People in a free market have many tools to dissuade businesses from participating in bad ethics or practices ranging from boycotting to opening competitive businesses. I'm saying it should be left to the market so these issues can be corrected constantly, even as society changes, so you don't have to have a new law/supreme court ruling every time someone feels discriminated against for a reason other than the ones explicitly listed by the govt. Fourth, religious freedom does come into play here, and you are right that no one should force a business to change it's offerings to violate their religion. In this case though, the Oregon bakery offers wedding cakes. (Side note, the following is a weak point to which I actually don't agree, but it's important to see thing from their perspective. Welcome to freedom, where its ok that you don't agree with people). In their religion, marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, they only believe that one man and one woman can have a marriage. They only bake wedding cakes for weddings. Since they do not believe in gay marriage, they do not believe in gay weddings. Since gay weddings are not legitimate, they don't really exist, so gay wedding cakes aren't legitimate and shouldn't exist. To bake a gay wedding cake, you are legitimizing an event that you believe is sinful and you can actually face repercussions for it. That is why they don't offer it. Fifth, There definitely is government forcing people to do things against their will, this particular Oregon bakery was successfully sued and has to pay the lesbian couple $135k for discriminating even though the civil rights law did not include sexual orientation yet. If someone says do this and if you don't, you will get fined into oblivion or put in jail, that is coercion. That is what the government did to this bakery owner. Sixth, you are right that owning a business is a privilege. It's a privilege that you voluntarily choose to take part in an accept the rules. My point again is that the government compulsion to enforce those rules is a net negative. Especially when the market can solve the problems with no extra tax or bureaucracy. In every aspect of life government has ever entered, the government has always just grown and increased it's power over that aspect. It get more and more to the point where the govt is cracking down on people for not acting in the way that the govt dictates is moral. What happens when the govt changes it's mind and now considers something you consider moral to be immoral and now it has the power to compel you to do something against your will? The role of govt is supposed to be to protect our rights ONLY, not compel us to act morally. That is what society is for and that is why social capital is so important. But we are taking our social capital away by investing it into the government to tell us what to do and that is a scary thought. That is why I say that I would rather live in a world where people are free to discriminate, rather than have the government punish people for doing what it considers is immoral. Those problems should be fixed by social capital and the market, not govt compulsion. Freedoms are rarely taken away by governments in one fell swoop, they are handed over to the govt little by little by the people.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-17T12:19:31.0272628-05:00
@Krampus I am about 3/4 the way through responding to your comment but I need to take a break for a bit and probably get some sleep since I have been awake for just under 90 hours straight reviewing business law, FTC regulations, judicial reviews, court judgments, etc.. Making sure what I am saying is up-to-date and correct in addition to studying a couple coding languages and deciphering a massive poem for a business that had a poem permanently plastered to their wall that they have touted to all their consumers for 60 years without being able to explain it to them.../Facepalm For now, I would highly suggest you study the life of Arizona SB 1062 and the court rulings for it. It really does address all of this directly and concisely all the way through the Supreme Court. By the way...Do you understand now why I am so good? (meant to make you laugh.....And think about it)

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.