It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should gay people fight for the right for anti-gay businesses to take their money or just boycott?

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

All data shows, FOR A FACT, that the young are more inclined to support equality and rights for all, in contrast to what the Republican party wants, or what the Christian right wing wants.



Not true. If they were inclined to support equality and rights for ALL, then ALL would be included in their list of people with those rights. It appears that Christians are increasingly being singled out to lose their "rights", whereas gay folk have already been granted their "rights" (whether those are actual rights or not is the subject of another discussion, but I would argue that NO state issued privileges can legitimately be called "rights"). This leads to an untenable situation when "equality" has a hierarchy of "rights", a pyramid of who has more "rights" than whom.

Do gay folks have a right to marriage? Of course. Do they have a right to a state issued license? Of course. They have the same rights as anyone. Do they have the right to force another to work for them? No, although now they appear to have the privilege of forcing involuntary servitude on another. This means they now have more privilege than I do - I have no privilege to force involuntary servitude on another.




Ultimately, there is only one way this can all go. Public opinion is pushing for equality all over the USA, and this argument is a part of that. What you are seeing here is a desperate fight back from the right wing conservatives attempting to push through laws they know the public does not want, and now they're getting heat for it they are freaking out.



you appear to be confusing legal equality with social equality. "Public opinion" has nothing at all to do with legal equality until a law is written - until then, public opinion confines itself to social situations, and there is no legal penalty for those.




The Republican party is predominantly controlled by the Christian lobby, and that lobby will not be happy to see the party moving with the public on this issue. The Republican party is now in an impossible position. It cannot keep their Tea Party core happy unless they fight for exclusion and intolerance, and the public will not accept that - as seen by the public opinion working against Indiana.



An odd opinion - "exclusion and intolerance" of who? Gay folk or Christians? It's not real clear which you mean here, but you clearly mean to throw one under the busd and hold the other's fist in the air in a victory pump after the foe is vanquished.

That. of course, is in no way "equality" - equality does not involve vanquished foes. One does not attain equality by subjugating another - one attains "superiority" in that case rather than "equality".




Whatever your political views, no sane person can claim that this is not public opinion speaking. It's been loud, it's been clear, and it's been entirely without any "gay lobby" or "liberal mafia".



I can claim exactly that - but them it's been said that I'm not entirely sane I suppose. It is "A" public opinion, not "public opinion". The latter implies that it is a majority opinion, which it may or may not be. However, it could be fairly said that if it IS majority opinion, then these businesses will go out of business for lack of support, no laws of any sort required. Neither "loud" nor "clear", either alone or in combination, equal "majority" - they are just loud. Explosions are loud, but thank God they aren't the majority.




Some conservative will be along any moment now to claim that this is all the work of the gay mafia, because it's their go-to claim when public opinion is against their views,



Also incorrect, for they ARE a part of the pubic - therefore some part of "public opinion" will necessarily align with them. Progressives have no sort of claimable monopoly on "public opinion" - they are not the only segment of "the public". In fact, there IS no one, single "Public Opinion".




they cannot accept that most Americans are decent, moral people who don't like discrimination, they would prefer they were all rabid Bible-thumpers like them. Tough luck, the people are speaking and they are doing so loudly.


Amazing. In the same breath, you decry discrimination, then promote discrimination (as well as derogatory labels) against "bible-thumpers". That is one of the more amazing disconnects I've seen all week. SOME people are speaking, and doing so loudly (we've already covered "loud") - you should not make the mistake of thinking that everyone has had their say heard in the cacophony, however.




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu
Do gay folks have a right to marriage? Of course.



If they did then why is the Supreme Court having to rule on just that thing coming this summer???

What about all the Christian Pastors and leaders and even members who say regardless of what the Supreme Court rules they still will deny them their Right to Marry???



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


Having a business is a privilege not a right.


The US is not a feudalist monarchy. We recognize the natural rights of humans, which includes commerce and the right to engage in trade.


No one is putting a gun to their heads.


Abolish the executive branch of government and I would agree.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu
It appears that Christians are increasingly being singled out to lose their "rights", . . .


Christians are doing the discriminating.

Secular government.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

The US is not a feudalist monarchy. We recognize the natural rights of humans, which includes commerce and the right to engage in trade.



Could you please provide factual documentation on that.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

What people are not considering is that the rest of the world (or at least all the countries the US really wants to deal with) will not accept this either.



"The rest of the world" does not govern in the US - there is no particular reason we should care what "the rest of the world" will or will not accept unless we are in THIER country. It's a quaint notion, but once upon a time it was considered a good idea to let countries govern themselves - then the US came along and mucked that all up by invading everywhere until apparently the world - or some of the folk in it - got confused as to who could rule whom.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Because of that! And also your questions and statements have been answered many times by me and others. I'm tired of repeating.


No they haven't, you ignored my premises because you have no answer.

Just like the racist, authoritarians that wrote the Jim Crowe laws, you see fit to use government to force people to behave the way you want them to. You are the same as them, you aim to take away the individual's right to choose by turning non-criminal behavior into punishable offences by creating anti-discrimstion laws that don't need to exist.

You are a fascist.


What does communities have to do with business and law?


Business, culture, and community exist in a symbiotic relationship. Instead of taking a top-up approach to the formation of communities, you are taking a top-down approach by using the law to regulate your perception of immoral behavior. Just like Christians.

Have you considered not using law?
edit on 5-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
What I said is that if you can't discern a discriminatory reason for termination, then you have no case. And they do not have to give a reason, since it's at will employment. They can just say "we don't like you", but the reasons you stated can't be used.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't care enough to look it up. I just used it as an example.

I was just saying it could avoid a lot of needless trouble to just say you're already overbooked, instead of using the reason that will obviously ignite controversy. I can't believe my other post is a whole page back already. Guaranteed, they will ask the Presidential candidates to clarify their position on wedding cakes. Like it really matters. This is so remotely against any religion. What ever happened to treating your neighbor as yourself? Make an excuse without insulting the customer, because that's the real issue here. They were insulted, they were told that they were undesirable customers, because of something that they believe is no fault of their own.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu
It appears that Christians are increasingly being singled out to lose their "rights", . . .


Christians are doing the discriminating.

Secular government.


Exactly.

Secular government.

Discrimination occurs in private all the time. What people are wanting to do now is institutionalize it, create a legal framework promoting legal discrimination.

Government is supposed to not be allowed to discriminate - but that is exactly what people appear to want now - for the government to discriminate against the religious types.

last time I checked, there was a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom specified, but no guarantee of sexual orientation freedom specified. Implied, perhaps, but not specified as the religious guarantee was. Now we are to ignore that, and discriminate against those religious folk. We are to throw away a guarantee on an implication.

Interesting times we live in.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

The US is not a feudalist monarchy. We recognize the natural rights of humans, which includes commerce and the right to engage in trade.



Could you please provide factual documentation on that.


In the discussion of rights vs. privileges, and our right to engage in commerce, what constitutes factual documentation?

I only ask because all issues of jurisprudence are philosophical notions. What makes a philosophical notion more factual than any other, other than plain logic?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



No they haven't, you ignored my premises because you have no answer.


Yes they have in various threads. They have shown that your suggestion will not work. Ok I'll give you a minor answer (I do not feel like repeating - you'll have to read through few threads) - your solution will work for some areas but not all as some businesses will not go out of business in certain areas.



You are a fascist.


Ooooh yes I am a fascist. Seig Heil! *facepalms*



Have you considered not using law?


What makes you think we didn't consider that?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nenothtu
Do gay folks have a right to marriage? Of course.



If they did then why is the Supreme Court having to rule on just that thing coming this summer???


You appear to be confusing "rights" with state issued "privileges". They have the right to be with whomever they like, and always have had that right - what's up for grabs is the privilege of having a state issued license. Since the state issues licenses to others, by rights is should issue them to gays as well - they have that "right", but the Supreme Court is ruling whether they have that "privilege", which is what state organizations determine.




What about all the Christian Pastors and leaders and even members who say regardless of what the Supreme Court rules they still will deny them their Right to Marry???



They cannot deny them that right - it's a logical impossibility. Christian pastors, leaders, or members do not issue rights to begin with, and therefore do not have authority to revoke them. All they can do is deny them the privilege of performing the ceremony themselves, or holding the wedding in their church. That does not negate their rights to marry, it just requires they do that somewhere else.

I would suggest that since the State is issuing the licensing for the marriage, that it be performed by a JP in a court house. They can't refuse if they are the ones issuing the licenses.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu



Now we are to ignore that, and discriminate against those religious folk.


We are not trying to discriminate against them. What we want is equality. Huge difference.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Religious Freedom doesn't give the Religious the Freedom to do anything they want.

If it did we'd have Multiple partner marriage for Mormons. Legal Beheadings for Islam. Public stoning for Christians and who knows what for Scientologists. Just to name a few examples.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolRozenberg
a reply to: Annee
What I said is that if you can't discern a discriminatory reason for termination, then you have no case. And they do not have to give a reason, since it's at will employment. They can just say "we don't like you", but the reasons you stated can't be used.



OK, I just wasn't sure.

I do know, you can be legally creative in business/employment etc. I worked in Human Resources a bit. Eliminating a non-key position works pretty good.

Reminds me (kinda left field) the Christian baker in CO (I think) who refused to do gay weddings, but did dog weddings, divorce cakes, etc. He kinda stuck his "pastry" foot in that one.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

The US is not a feudalist monarchy. We recognize the natural rights of humans, which includes commerce and the right to engage in trade.



Could you please provide factual documentation on that.


How much factual documentation on it are you willing to read?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

The US is not a feudalist monarchy. We recognize the natural rights of humans, which includes commerce and the right to engage in trade.



Could you please provide factual documentation on that.


In the discussion of rights vs. privileges, and our right to engage in commerce, what constitutes factual documentation?

I only ask because all issues of jurisprudence are philosophical notions. What makes a philosophical notion more factual than any other, other than plain logic?


I was researching Natural Law vs secular law.

Was curious if you could back up your position.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

The US is not a feudalist monarchy. We recognize the natural rights of humans, which includes commerce and the right to engage in trade.



Could you please provide factual documentation on that.


How much factual documentation on it are you willing to read?



Just a link I could read would be fine.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


your solution will work for some areas but not all as some businesses will not go out of business in certain areas.


That was exactly my point and precisely what I meant when I said society would be re-organized according to the nature of any given community.

That works just fine, but fascists want control over the behavior of others. Just like the people that supported Jim Crowe laws, you want every aspect of society to follow your subjective feelings regarding individual morality.

I don't think you read my post, either you didn't read it or you failed at comprehending it. I can't dumb my words down anymore.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu
It appears that Christians are increasingly being singled out to lose their "rights", . . .


Christians are doing the discriminating.

Secular government.


Exactly.

Secular government.

Discrimination occurs in private all the time.


This isn't about private.


Government is supposed to not be allowed to discriminate - but that is exactly what people appear to want now - for the government to discriminate against the religious types.


No. A business is secular. All customers must be allowed the same services offered.


last time I checked, there was a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, . . .


Yes, you have the right to believe whatever you want.


but no guarantee of sexual orientation freedom specified.


Currently depends on state. Federal probably soon.

There's also the 14th amendment.


. . . discriminate against those religious folk.


No one is discriminating against a belief - - any belief.

Using that belief to discriminate is the issue.
edit on 5-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join