Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

originally posted by: UKTruth
Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.

Terms of service is one thing. restaurants can refuse service to any individual..acting up, wearing crap clothes, etc...
That isn't the same as them not approving of who you sleep with at home, or if your brain chemistry favors a gender opposite of your sex, etc.

This is a complex argument of sorts, but it boils down to just that..terms of service. if you break their rules, then sure, no service, but how can a business tell you how to live your life outside of their business?

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: UKTruth
Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.

Terms of service is one thing. restaurants can refuse service to any individual..acting up, wearing crap clothes, etc...
That isn't the same as them not approving of who you sleep with at home, or if your brain chemistry favors a gender opposite of your sex, etc.

This is a complex argument of sorts, but it boils down to just that..terms of service. if you break their rules, then sure, no service, but how can a business tell you how to live your life outside of their business?

They can't, but when asked to contribute service to a practice they fundamentally disagree with (rightly or wrongly) then it's about more than what happens in the bedroom.

The bottom line is that the argument I responded to only holds up if you apply it equally. My personal views are a little more complex... I think people should shape the society they live in and if a shop/business implements practices that are deemed socially unacceptable then they will either go out of business or never grow to be of any importance - I have a problem with the govt trying to make such decisions and force them on society.

a reply to: UKTruth

That's a horrible analogy. Twitter isn't a public accommodation — it's more of a private club — but I digress, for the sake of argument, let's treat it as one.

In that case, Twitter would be acting like a restaurant booting an unruly patron. They didn't close Milo's account because he is a man, gay, white, Catholic, half-Jewish, in an interracial relationship, a Trump supporter or even an asshole — they didn't even close it for voicing his political opinions — they closed it because he was attacking other Twitter users with a gaggle of trolls.

That will get anyone banned from Twitter or ATS or any number of virtual or brick and mortar establishments.

Let me flip this back around on you since you're the one suggesting some sort of equivalence here and you seem upset about Milo having his Twitter account closed. If you're upset about Milo getting banned from Twitter for attacking other users, you must be absolutely beside yourself at the prospect of Milo being banned from Twitter, employment, schools, government contracts — even health care — because he's a man, white, gay or a self-identifying Christian? Right?

This is a no brainer.

It shouldn't even be a right/left political issue in this day and age. It's overtly wrong to deny people access to public accomodations. In the US we ended segregation 53 years ago. That's recent enough that it should be fresh on the public's mind but still distant enough that any rational person should readily and without hesitation, acknowledge the heinous wrong of segregation. And let's not kid ourselves, a segregation of sorts is the goal. You think the Christian Right would be supporting this garbage if Christians weren't the overwhelming majority group? Let's not bull# ourselves about what this really is.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: UKTruth

That's a horrible analogy. Twitter isn't a public accommodation — it's more of a private club — but I digress, for the sake of argument, let's treat it as one.

In that case, Twitter would be acting like a restaurant booting an unruly patron. They didn't close Milo's account because he is a man, gay, white, Catholic, half-Jewish, in an interracial relationship, a Trump supporter or even an asshole — they didn't even close it for voicing his political opinions — they closed it because he was attacking other Twitter users with a gaggle of trolls.

That will get anyone banned from Twitter or ATS or any number of virtual or brick and mortar establishments.

Let me flip this back around on you since you're the one suggesting some sort of equivalence here and you seem upset about Milo having his Twitter account closed. If you're upset about Milo getting banned from Twitter for attacking other users, you must be absolutely beside yourself at the prospect of Milo being banned from Twitter, employment, schools, government contracts — even health care — because he's a man, white, gay or a self-identifying Christian? Right?

This is a no brainer.

It shouldn't even be a right/left political issue in this day and age. It's overtly wrong to deny people access to public accomodations. In the US we ended segregation 53 years ago. That's recent enough that it should be fresh on the public's mind but still distant enough that any rational person should readily and without hesitation, acknowledge the heinous wrong of segregation. And let's not kid ourselves, a segregation of sorts is the goal. You think the Christian Right would be supporting this garbage if Christians weren't the overwhelming majority group? Let's not bull# ourselves about what this really is.

I see, so your argument is that only rules that YOU think are relevant apply and only the types of businesses that YOU think are public accommodations. That figures... always some form of categorisation to shield a flawed argument.

My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.

At least it's a step in the opposite direction of what Canada is doing by giving Islam a special privilege above every other religion and criminalizing any criticism of it. The PC movement is becoming pretty #in' draconian.

a reply to: UKTruth

My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.

Should people be able to stand on a public sidewalk and call people POS retards for patronizing a discriminating business?

Freedom of speech and all that....

originally posted by: Konduit
At least it's a step in the opposite direction of what Canada is doing by giving Islam a special privilege above every other religion and criminalizing any criticism of it. The PC movement is becoming pretty #in' draconian.

Other side of the crazy spectrum. Agreed in part. Find out who you aren't allowed to criticise in a society, because that is your master.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: UKTruth

My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.

Should people be able to stand on a public sidewalk and call people POS retards for patronizing a discriminating business?

Freedom of speech and all that....

Well..yeah..and they do.
And it almost always backfires and makes the autistic screeching people look like morons

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
a reply to: SaturnFX

Then you take your money and go to the next place. Problem?

With that attitude we'd still have whites only restaurants, bathrooms, and drinking fountains. You must have absolutely no education in even recent US history to make such an absurd statement.

a reply to: neo96

Gun control is unconstitutional.

No it isn't the SC has ruled that states have the right to make gun laws.

But THERE IS NOTHING you can do to stop their FREE EXERCISE OF.

Where have people been denied their exercise of religion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
When is it fair to say give this one person the right to do what they want, even if the majority doesn't want them to do so?

As long as what that person wants isn't harming anyone else, then their right to do what they want trumps the majority's opinion every time.

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not harming anyone by walking into a pre-school, grabbing a chair and sitting down...am I? How about entering someone's house and taking a seat in the bathroom while the "woman of the house is showering"? Am I allowed to walk through the gate of a military establishment and wonder around?

There are things you are allowed to do and things you are not allowed to do. A room with a sign that says "Ladies Room" for example, means the room is for women to use only. Males are not permitted and the only determining factor for a woman or a man is their biological sex. That can't be changed by a disguise...no matter how complete.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: UKTruth
Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.

Terms of service is one thing. restaurants can refuse service to any individual..acting up, wearing crap clothes, etc...
That isn't the same as them not approving of who you sleep with at home, or if your brain chemistry favors a gender opposite of your sex, etc.

This is a complex argument of sorts, but it boils down to just that..terms of service. if you break their rules, then sure, no service, but how can a business tell you how to live your life outside of their business?

You are correct! And if the restaurant has two doors...one labeled "Women" and one labeled "Men", everyone knows the intent is that the rule is females in the "Women's" room and males in the "Men's" room. And if you break their rules, you can be denied service and told to leave.

If the individual does not understand the difference between male and female, or decides to break the rules...they are in the wrong. Kind of like if the can says trash...you aren't supposed to take a crap in it. Understanding intent is part of the equation.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: UKTruth

My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.

Should people be able to stand on a public sidewalk and call people POS retards for patronizing a discriminating business?

Freedom of speech and all that....

Yep. of they want.
That was kind of my point. If society does not want racism, sexism, whateverism, then those things will naturally be marginalised and/or disappear.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not harming anyone by walking into a pre-school, grabbing a chair and sitting down...am I? How about entering someone's house and taking a seat in the bathroom while the "woman of the house is showering"? Am I allowed to walk through the gate of a military establishment and wonder around?

Harm is more than just physical. Invading someone's privacy or trespassing is still harm.

There are things you are allowed to do and things you are not allowed to do. A room with a sign that says "Ladies Room" for example, means the room is for women to use only. Males are not permitted and the only determining factor for a woman or a man is their biological sex. That can't be changed by a disguise...no matter how complete.

So signs on bathroom walls dictate science then?

Well no. The signs represent nature.

a reply to: olaru12

“religious freedom”

I see a double edged sword here. From a christian perspective, you got nothing to worry about cause things would remain as they are now. / turn the other cheek.

But what about Islam's religious freedom to behead unbelievers? or satanic sacrifices?

I sense Pandora's box opening.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft


Change is only good if it's pissing on historical traditions and customs and labeling everyone an intolerant racist as they go.

That's why this 'draft to change sh!t' will not be accepted by radical lib extremists - Jesus looks good.

Agreed...

Yep, Jesus would be real proud.

Matthew 25:40

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not harming anyone by walking into a pre-school, grabbing a chair and sitting down...am I? How about entering someone's house and taking a seat in the bathroom while the "woman of the house is showering"? Am I allowed to walk through the gate of a military establishment and wonder around?

Harm is more than just physical. Invading someone's privacy or trespassing is still harm.

There are things you are allowed to do and things you are not allowed to do. A room with a sign that says "Ladies Room" for example, means the room is for women to use only. Males are not permitted and the only determining factor for a woman or a man is their biological sex. That can't be changed by a disguise...no matter how complete.

So signs on bathroom walls dictate science then?

Answering your two questions. So invading someone's privacy doesn't include a male using the women's room? That sure sounds unfair...doesn't it?

Yes...bathroom signs indicate your born sex. That is the whole point isn't it? It has nothing to do with how you dress or what cosmetic surgery you have...it is what you are.

You're not really that stupid are you?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Answering your two questions. So invading someone's privacy doesn't include a male using the women's room? That sure sounds unfair...doesn't it?

I don't know about the bathrooms you frequent, but the ones I go into have stalls in them that allow you to do whatever you want in complete privacy even IF others are standing in the bathroom.

Yes...bathroom signs indicate your born sex. That is the whole point isn't it? It has nothing to do with how you dress or what cosmetic surgery you have...it is what you are.

You're not really that stupid are you?

You misunderstood my question. But in any case, you are still wrong you aren't the ultimate authority on what gender is. Science is still up in arms about it. So pretending like signs on a wall are gospel is stupid.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Answering your two questions. So invading someone's privacy doesn't include a male using the women's room? That sure sounds unfair...doesn't it?

I don't know about the bathrooms you frequent, but the ones I go into have stalls in them that allow you to do whatever you want in complete privacy even IF others are standing in the bathroom.

Yes...bathroom signs indicate your born sex. That is the whole point isn't it? It has nothing to do with how you dress or what cosmetic surgery you have...it is what you are.

You're not really that stupid are you?

You misunderstood my question. But in any case, you are still wrong you aren't the ultimate authority on what gender is. Science is still up in arms about it. So pretending like signs on a wall are gospel is stupid.

You're just being silly. I have read your posts and don't always disagree with you. You aren't stupid. There are males and females and except for rarities...that is it. You are biologically one or the other. The majority of woman and men prefer to be separated by that biological difference in bathrooms when asked. It isn't a question of if you are wearing a dress or not...if you wear makeup or not...it is your biological sex which can not ever be changed. You are what you were born.

If you want to discuss gender identity...that is different. And just because an extreme minority of the population wants to occupy a different bathroom, doesn't override the original intent or the desire of the majority.