"Tolerance Works Both Ways"

Lol, it's humourous to me that people get "I hate gay people; God told me to." when hearing these surrounding stories.

All I hear is "I'm not gay! I swear I'm not gay! Nobody in my family is gay! Nothing gay about me! Look how not-gay I am!?"

I'm for anti-discrimination laws because I'm against grown-ass human beings acting like infants when they have employees who rely on them to act like adults.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm just trying to get the point across that it doesn't always work out how you hope. Chic-fil-a isn't hurting despite its religious stance. Clearly, there aren't enough people conflicted by it to make a difference.

Let's get Chic-fil-A straight.

The owner - - not the corp board - - donated thousands of dollars to Family Value groups.

The corp board did not. They were trying to expand the company and were not happy with what the owner did.

They spanked his hand hard - - he stopped donating, mostly. Corp/Money won - - not religion.

a reply to: Annee

Ok, maybe it isn't the best of examples. Though keep in mind, I brought up my personal boycott of Wal-Mart. I'm not the only one who boycotts Wal-Mart out of principle, but Wal-Mart does as fine as ever. Especially in small towns.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Ok, maybe it isn't the best of examples. Though keep in mind, I brought up my personal boycott of Wal-Mart. I'm not the only one who boycotts Wal-Mart out of principle, but Wal-Mart does as fine as ever. Especially in small towns.

Guess someone else should have thought of being open 24 hours and have everything.

Friends drop by at midnight and you want to have a BBQ? Walmart can supply.

a reply to: Annee

I'm not faulting them on their business model. It obviously works, but it works too well. It allows them to get away with a lot of questionable behavior. If hypothetically, Wal-Mart took advantage of this law in Indiana to discriminate against gays, do you think that they'd lose business to the point that they'd go out of business there?

ETA: But by no means am I arguing to change anything here. Just trying to get a point across.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

I'm not faulting them on their business model. It obviously works, but it works too well. It allows them to get away with a lot of questionable behavior. If hypothetically, Wal-Mart took advantage of this law in Indiana to discriminate against gays, do you think that they'd lose business to the point that they'd go out of business there?

ETA: But by no means am I arguing to change anything here. Just trying to get a point across.

Hey! I fought it for years. Tried to use local businesses.

I can't help it - - I love having everything in one place.

a reply to: Astrocyte
I really have no idea what you are saying. Why so many words to say nothing? Everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Discriminating against Gay people is impossible. Being Gay is not like being black. You can't hide being black. Why would anyone even know that you were Gay? How am I as a business owner to know that you are Gay?

Are you having Gay sex in front of my store? No. Most likely you are wanting me to do something relating to a Gay theme. So you are saying I can't disagree with certain themes and ideas just because YOU think they are right?

a reply to: your105thcousin

Being Gay is not like being black. You can't hide being black. Why would anyone even know that you were Gay? How am I as a business owner to know that you are Gay?

Whispers.......

People don't live and work in a vacuum. There's no reason whatsoever that a gay person should have to hide their identity for fear of being "outed" and thus possibly fired from their job or refused service, possibly in mixed company at a lunch counter, or, alone and out of gas on the highway.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: your105thcousin

Being Gay is not like being black. You can't hide being black. Why would anyone even know that you were Gay? How am I as a business owner to know that you are Gay?

Whispers.......

People don't live and work in a vacuum. There's no reason whatsoever that a gay person should have to hide their identity for fear of being "outed" and thus possibly fired from their job or refused service, possibly in mixed company at a lunch counter, or, alone and out of gas on the highway.

Clear you totally missed the point of his post


All these pages and people still can't comprehend this bill will not allow for discrimination for employment or anything else. There are laws in place for that and this doesn't over rule them

Why am I not surprised that people w fingers in their ears refusing to listen to facts and screaming discrimination are too stupid to get it....

No seriously. This is all borderline a parody of itself

The ignorance and hypocrisy demonstrated in this thread highlights the progressive agenda perfectly

No wonder they are dumbing down our kids in school ........

You can't possibly be a progressive and have any common sense

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: your105thcousin

Being Gay is not like being black. You can't hide being black. Why would anyone even know that you were Gay? How am I as a business owner to know that you are Gay?

Whispers.......

People don't live and work in a vacuum. There's no reason whatsoever that a gay person should have to hide their identity for fear of being "outed" and thus possibly fired from their job or refused service, possibly in mixed company at a lunch counter, or, alone and out of gas on the highway.

. . . and people still can't comprehend this bill will not allow for discrimination for employment or anything else.

There are laws in place for that and this doesn't over rule them

What laws would that be?

Indiana

Housing laws: State does not prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Employment laws: State does not prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Public Accommodation laws: State does not prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Anti-Bullying law: State does not have a law that addresses harassment and/or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

School laws: State does not have a law that addresses discrimination against students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Are you kidding me? Have you read the bill?

This bill, as it stands right now, legalizes discrimination in Indiana against LGBT individuals. It makes an individual or a business' closely held religious beliefs a legal defense against discrimination in the courts.

Please explain to me the safeguards that in place that prove me wrong.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: your105thcousin

Being Gay is not like being black. You can't hide being black. Why would anyone even know that you were Gay? How am I as a business owner to know that you are Gay?

Whispers.......

People don't live and work in a vacuum. There's no reason whatsoever that a gay person should have to hide their identity for fear of being "outed" and thus possibly fired from their job or refused service, possibly in mixed company at a lunch counter, or, alone and out of gas on the highway.

Who says a LGBT person has to hide their identity? They could be satisfied with not using their private lives as a political football. I wouldn't choose to prostitute my personal way of life simply to score a few points ideologically.

originally posted by: your105thcousin

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: your105thcousin

Being Gay is not like being black. You can't hide being black. Why would anyone even know that you were Gay? How am I as a business owner to know that you are Gay?

Whispers.......

People don't live and work in a vacuum. There's no reason whatsoever that a gay person should have to hide their identity for fear of being "outed" and thus possibly fired from their job or refused service, possibly in mixed company at a lunch counter, or, alone and out of gas on the highway.

Who says a LGBT person has to hide their identity? They could be satisfied with not using their private lives as a political football. I wouldn't choose to prostitute my personal way of life simply to score a few points ideologically.

I don't think LGBT have any issue keeping their private lives private.

They aren't the ones making an issue of it.

a reply to: your105thcousin

So, what you're saying is, then, as long as you don't know about their private lives, you won't discriminate. But if a man happens to mention his "husband", he can be turned away for using his personal life like a political football......got it!

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: Pinke
Thanks for your reply.

Hiya, and thanks

The Wiccan business I was envisioning was something like, Womyn be Yourself Healing Magic Spa, where the ambiance was supposed to be a certain way and thus they were seeking a certain type seen working there.

I don't see that as being discriminatory, anymore than a gay bar choosing a young urban gay bartender over an old fat redneck

I think this is where we can get tied up in binary judgement. Just because some judgements or reasonings are unacceptable it doesn't mean that all judgements or reasonings are unacceptable. It's about business interest. If the person was slim and trendy but happened to wear a reasonably sized religious hat, the onus would be on the owner to prove that this negatively impacts the interests of the business. They would also be up against legislation that protects that class. The owner's personal values are very little to do with it if it's listed as a public accomodation rather than a private or religious organization. Good example of legitimate discrimination would be a tattooist's preference to hire someone with tattoos, or Apple's preference to hire trendy people. Another example is an all female gym which is justified (agree or disagree) by comfort and saftey concerns.

Both private or religious orgs have restrictions on where they can be, what they can do, the tax breaks they get, and the amount of business they can carry out in most (probably all) states. (You probably already know this :/ sorry for too many words)

Businesses hire people based on them being a good fit with the image they are trying project, which may be religious or anything else.

It specifically can't be religious if it's a public accomodation. Need a private club or religious classification for that generally. There is a huge pile of legal literature about when religious demands become too much or are not being accomodated appropriately. Is dry reading but taught me a lot about America's legal system.

That's why its really important that other businesses are given the option to decline, when going along with some one else's values is contrary to their own.

Only if those values impact the goal of the public business.

For instance I like those chocolate bars that give to endangered species because that company is in line with my values, I think we should protect endangered species. So I vote with my dollars for the values I like.

I don't believe businesses and people are equal. Businesses should not be 'voting' on what they think of people (more below).

The need the right to refuse business that's not in line with their values.

They already have this in America and it is why businesses are treated as separate entities. The businesses decisions are dictated by its purpose on its creation. If you're a clothes store, there is clear reasoning that buying fabric from a sweat shop would run contrary to the interests of the business and alienate clients. Refusing to sell clothes to Christians and gay people on the other hand would be discrimination due to religion being protected by law and it not being in the interests of the entity. There are very few reasons to refuse a private sale. Crime is one of them.

Public accomodations, by their very nature, are designed to serve the public. It's only in very recent history that allowing public accomodations to have these 'rights' wouldn't cripple someone somewhere in America.

Essentially though big business wants you to believe that they should have these rights and that this means 'freedom,' because essentially you will be handing yourself (and what little power you have) over to them. I'll openly admit it's a messy imprecise system though, I don't support everything done in the name of it, but I guess its one of those 'we all have to get along' things?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, Chick-Fil-A has not committed 'atrocities' in the past. They asserted their right as a company--they still hire homosexual people (I know this for a fact), and they don't refuse to serve anyone because of any type of sexual orientation. Just because you seem to choose to read between lines that don't really exist in order to form a narrative (or you just conform to the protest chant of the moment without thinking about what's actually happening) does not mean that what you perceive as happening is factual.

Your "fyi" to me was lacking actual information--Dan Cathy's 'crusade' for the 'biblical definition of marriage' is absolutely his right to do, and it in no way demonstrates a hatred of or toward gay and lesbian couples who are in love. Sure, I agree that the notion that marriage is only reserved for man-woman relationships is an archaic one, but it's one's right to believe in that and to support that notion. It's absolutely absurd to claim that having that belief automatically makes one homophobic or an 'atrocity committer.'

Like I said, they aren't intolerant to homosexuals, they just hold a belief based on a religion--a belief that is constitutionally protected. To claim homophobia, or hatred, or intolerance because of the belief is the cart pulling the horse. They never have refused to hire gay people, and they never refuse service to gay people.

I really don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but I just get tired of inflammatory ignorance like this that gets used as examples to try a prove a point. I think that Chick-Fil-A still is thriving because people could see through the thinly veiled attempt to portray them as extreme homophobes who commit atrocities toward gay people.

I chose not to shop at Chick-fil-a when it became obvious that funds were flowing through that company to hate organizations.

They changed their policies based on the public outcry (regardless of what reactionary revisionists like to claim.)

The company stopped supporting causes that want to make me a second-class American; I buy their horribly awesome little sandwiches again.

Standing up for what is right some times does have an effect.

Between 2010 and 2011, Chick-fil-A’s corporate foundations increased their grants to anti-LGBT groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation and the National Christian Foundation, from $1.9 million to more than $3.6 million. Neither of these organizations received a penny in 2012, according to the foundations’ 2012 Form 990s, publicly available tax documents filed by non-profit organizations. The foundations’ overall spending was roughly even, meaning more of its efforts were focused on its own programs. But the drop from $3,623,938 to $25,390 in anti-LGBT donations represented a reduction of more than 99.2 percent.

Source (warning, article also includes a photo of two people of the same sex sharing a smooch)

I have a scenario for supporters of Indiana's law:

A Muslim goes into the Christian bakery and orders a (non-lard-based icing) cake.

The Muslim would like the cake to read "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet."

The Christian refuses based on their religion based on Indiana RFRA.

The Muslim sues for religious discrimination based on Indiana RFRA.

How do the courts resolve the issue? Decide which "religion" has higher standing?

This law has implications that far outweigh merely discriminating against LGBT folks.

originally posted by: Astrocyte

Tolerance in a liberal society means 'tolerating'. Is this toleration of a gay clientele painful for conservatives? Or is it the notion - the after-the-fact reflection of 'hey, we just served a gay couple', what irks them? Part of the issue with this bill is the sheer superfluity of even inquiring into other peoples sexual status. What does it matter? Barring inappropriate public sexual behaviors (which can be regulated by places of business) how two people feel about each other - for this to even be something for a business owner to make an issue of, wreaks, absolutely stinks, of chauvinistic pretensions to power. If someone is minding their business - and in addition, has offered you their interest in your service - the proper and more enlightened response in such a situation is not "are you gay?', "but, hey thanks, how can I help you?"

Most of the better know cases have to do with situations that go to the core of the question or the conscience. No one is asking about sexuality when one goes into the supermarket ect and about 99% of other daily exchanges. The better known cases seem to center around marriage service providers.

As far as "chauvinistic pretentions of power".......it may be impossible for offended gays to ever understand why someone would refuse to make a cake or take pictures related to gay unions. To say what a proper and enlightened response would be is really rather presumptuous which frankly is a predictable attitude considering the nature of many gay folks pathology.

Like there are 20 photographers in town and let one refuse to provide services out of their own conscience. The enlightened response would be to respect that and go to another provider. That would really be the mark of a tolerant society. But rather what we have is a total attack with disregard to the other persons rights and conscience. What we see here is a total lack of respect for another's conscience in the wake of what is promoted as a new enlightened era of tolerance.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight'

Only if you ask the person to somehow participate in your marriage.

In the florist case, she had been serving the gay customer for years. What she objected to was participating in the wedding by arranging the flowers which she felt was her endorsing the participating in the ceremony which she felt was sacrilegious.

It's not about someone being gay. It's about asking us to take part in something we don't believe in that we feel violated our beliefs and then asking us to accept payment for it. "Here sin for me and then take payment for sinning."

If I was having a 'pretend' celebratory open marriage affair and the same florist was against my choice of lifestyle, that of being an adulterer, and she refused to supply her wares and if she also explained to me her deep religious belief as to her refusal, quite honestly, I really would let it roll off my back and find another florist, because I would know that this deep belief would be beyond my control or influence to change.

You keep bringing up open marriage.






You guys down for a cook out?

(J/K)

Hmmm, was I projecting again?