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

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nenothtu
Regulations are needed on any cooperative venture, but they can get out of hand and be taken to extremes. Complete unregulation is just the other end of the extreme. I think extremes are bad, in either direction.

So regulation of Big Business is Good but small business is Bad???

No, I don't think that's what I said, either. Why would I differentiate between the size of the business? Regulation is regulation - it should apply across the board... but there ought to be a lot less of it to apply. Only hit the high spots, the real problem spots (rather than the imaginary ones most of it addresses), y'know?

a reply to: nenothtu

A club is not a business. A club has the right to refuse anyone they do not want in their club.

Edit - I thought you were going to bed? LOL.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: nenothtu

A club is not a business. A club has the right to refuse anyone they do not want in their club.

Ah. I've not been clubbing in some years now. I usually just went to bars... except for certain "Exotic" clubs that only sold juice, because alcohol wasn't allowed in combination with buck nekkid wimmin. back then you could get thrown out of any of them, and they all made money - so the distinction to me was that one had a cover charge an the rest didn't.

Edit - I thought you were going to bed? LOL.

I am, I am! Don't rush me - I had to get caught up on the thread, and I'm an old guy, so I have to try and recall where the bed is, and there is the matter of having to go outside and smoke a pipe (I wear reading glasses, too, when I want to look particularly philosophical while smoking the pipe), and listen to the night for a bit.

Night y'all - I think I've got it all accomplished now. Next stop, a mattress.

a reply to: nenothtu

I am, I am! Don't rush me - I had to get caught up on the thread, and I'm an old guy, so I have to try and recall where the bed is

Night y'all - I think I've got it all accomplished now. Next stop, a mattress.

LOL don't worry we will continue this discussion later. We will have the unusual characters chime in anyway so plenty of things to discuss.

a reply to: nenothtu

You have no true understanding of Justice if you believe Jim Crow laws were Justice and Fairness/Equality don't matter.

Life is not fair, neither is the wild, that's the whole point of Law, to not act like wild beasts but to maintain Justice/Fairness/Equality.

Boycott them. It seems they both don't like each other, why push it any further. Find a place that condones whatever you're pushing and go there. Thin skins are going to destroy this nation. No one is taking the gays livelihood away but they want to do it to others. Guess what? You'll be next.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
No one is taking the gays livelihood away but they want to do it to others. Guess what? You'll be next.

That's how you define Equal Rights?

You did it! No, you did it! You did it first! No, you did!

originally posted by: nenothtu
Not true.

Yes, it is.

1976 - Ages 18-21 R-51 D-49
1980 - Ages 18-21 R-44 D-45
1984 - Ages 18-24 R-61 D-39
1988 - Ages 18-29 R-53 D-47
1992 - Ages 18-24 R-33 D-46
1996 - Ages 18-24 R-35 D-55
2000 - Ages 18-24 R-47 D-47
2004 - Ages 18-24 R-43 D-56
2008 - Ages 18-24 R-32 D-66
2012 - Ages 18-24 R-37 D-60

There is a clear change just in the first age group. And although there are undoubtedly hot-topic issues for each individual period impacting on voting, it's also a good example of how the Republican party is not keeping up with the times and not changing their views to evolve with society.

It is a fact that social change can be seen more clearly through the actions of the young, they are often the ones to force change in any society, through protest and revolution. In any country you care to look at over the last 15 years where social unrest has occurred, it has been started and led by the young, while the old (on the whole) sit at home and tut at the TV.

But by all means, refuse the reality and stick to the old fashioned nonsense of religious and moralistic preaching from the old Tea Party crowd, all it will do is diminish the power of the right wing in the US even more. That's a good thing for society on the whole and within the next ten years we can expect to see the Republican party break apart through internal petty squabbling as one group see the reality and wants to move forward while the extremists and Chrsitian fundies try to hold it back and prevent change.

And on your points about "discrimination" against Christians, please detail how Christians are being discriminated against in any way in the USA. Really, I would love to hear this. And no, being told you cannot abuse others is not discrimination, being prevented from attacking people is not discrimination. Discrimination is being treated unfairly in society, having laws applied to you unfairly, being abused by others based on a facet of your being.

It is not discrimination to be prevented from abusing others.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
No one is taking the gays livelihood away but they want to do it to others. Guess what? You'll be next.

Oh, another lie from the right wing.

The 29 States Where You Can Still Be Fired For Being Gay

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: nenothtu

You have no true understanding of Justice if you believe Jim Crow laws were Justice and Fairness/Equality don't matter.

Life is not fair, neither is the wild, that's the whole point of Law, to not act like wild beasts but to maintain Justice/Fairness/Equality.

How do you define "Justice" to get around the law, then?

Where did even I mention Fairness or Equality, much less say that they don't matter? What does Justice have to do with either of those?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: nenothtu
Not true.

Yes, it is.

1976 - Ages 18-21 R-51 D-49
1980 - Ages 18-21 R-44 D-45
1984 - Ages 18-24 R-61 D-39
1988 - Ages 18-29 R-53 D-47
1992 - Ages 18-24 R-33 D-46
1996 - Ages 18-24 R-35 D-55
2000 - Ages 18-24 R-47 D-47
2004 - Ages 18-24 R-43 D-56
2008 - Ages 18-24 R-32 D-66
2012 - Ages 18-24 R-37 D-60

No, it isn't. Posting a bunch of political statistics does absolutely nothing to address you initial claim that:

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.

Listing a bunch of "D" or "R" does not even touch the claims about "equality" and "rights", much less the claim that one or the other parties supports any such "for all". They do not. Neither party does. Any such claims betray only a partisan bias, not any reflection upon "fact" at all. As a prime example, let's just stare at the spectacle of the Democrats running full steam ahead to disenfranchise and remove "rights" form an entire segment of the community in this very case. They are NO better than the Republicans. Not a single damned bit. If you think otherwise, you should perhaps have your partisan blinders looked at.

As a matter of fact, we can clearly see in your very own words just whom you would disenfranchise, exactly WHOSE "rights" you would have removed. That. sir, is most certainly not a cry for "equality and rights for all".

There is a clear change just in the first age group. And although there are undoubtedly hot-topic issues for each individual period impacting on voting, it's also a good example of how the Republican party is not keeping up with the times and not changing their views to evolve with society.

The Republican party has slid far too far to the left after the Neocon takeover, in their blatant attempt to kiss leftist ass. They will not survive. I am surprised the Republican party still carries an independent name. They and the Democrat party are but two sides to the same page of sheet music. One has to take a look at both of them without the partisan blinders to see that, though... which I guess is why the Republican party still breaths at all - they have made themselves redundant, a mere echo chamber.

It is a fact that social change can be seen more clearly through the actions of the young, they are often the ones to force change in any society, through protest and revolution. In any country you care to look at over the last 15 years where social unrest has occurred, it has been started and led by the young, while the old (on the whole) sit at home and tut at the TV.

On that we can agree. What we DON'T agree upon apparently is the notion that all "social changes" are GOOD things. I do not believe they are, after what I've seen in my life. It actually extends far back further than the recent "15 years". The Russian Revolution of 1917 was youth-driven. The Maoist revolution in China was youth driven. The Cuban, Nicaraguan, and El Salvadoran revolutions were all youth-driven, and were replacing right wing revolutions before them that were also youth-driven.

"Social change" merely for the sake of change, just to swap in a new set of Masters, is not always a good thing. Old farts like me understand that, even in countries where there are no TVs. We have been around to see the wanton death and destruction they bring. Youth apparently do not care about death and destruction, wanton or not.

But by all means, refuse the reality and stick to the old fashioned nonsense of religious and moralistic preaching from the old Tea Party crowd, all it will do is diminish the power of the right wing in the US even more. That's a good thing for society on the whole and within the next ten years we can expect to see the Republican party break apart through internal petty squabbling as one group see the reality and wants to move forward while the extremists and Chrsitian fundies try to hold it back and prevent change.

I don't care to trade partisan insults with you, mostly because I don't really have a set of my own to throw. I might consider it if you can show me where I've mentioned morals, a "Tea Party", or used a Christian argument in support of my contentions. All in all, you are barking at shadows here, screaming at things that are not here to be screamed at. that's another function of looking at the world through partisan filters - you can't comprehend that there is nothing here to scream at beyond your hallucinations of "us" and "them" boiled down along party lines.

And on your points about "discrimination" against Christians, please detail how Christians are being discriminated against in any way in the USA. Really, I would love to hear this. And no, being told you cannot abuse others is not discrimination, being prevented from attacking people is not discrimination. Discrimination is being treated unfairly in society, having laws applied to you unfairly, being abused by others based on a facet of your being.

Well, considering that you appear to believe that the US Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper (wasn't it George Bush who said that originally? Is he some kind of hero to you?) and that in particular the First Amendment thereof should evidently be done away with in your haste to simply trash the Christians, I don't suppose you can see any discrimination here. After all, it ain't YOUR boys being discriminated against, so what does it matter to you?

No one has been able to point out any "abuse" - other than the abuse of religious freedom of ALL religions - don't think that just because you hate the christians, that this will be limited to them - so that point you attempt is entirely moot to you.

let's examine one of you phrases more deeply, however:

Discrimination is being treated unfairly in society, having laws applied to you unfairly, being abused by others based on a facet of your being.

How do you suppose these other phrases, also YOURS, apply to that? -

... while the old (on the whole) sit at home and tut at the TV.

.. nonsense of religious and moralistic preaching from the old Tea Party crowd, ...

... the extremists and Chrsitian fundies try to hold it back and prevent change

Which of these is NOT a group under the gun you are aiming, which are you NOT treating unfairly socially or abusing based upon a facet of their being? This is called "hypocrisy" in English.

It is not discrimination to be prevented from abusing others.

Then I'm sure you would have no trouble at all supporting the KKK in their efforts against the carpenter in my previous example, right?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
No one is taking the gays livelihood away but they want to do it to others. Guess what? You'll be next.

Oh, another lie from the right wing.

The 29 States Where You Can Still Be Fired For Being Gay

I must question the honesty of that link. I know for fact that in at least 4 of those states, which I have lived in, one may be fired for ANYTHING or even NOTHING, and that it's not limited to "being gay".

That would be discriminatory, wouldn't it?

Personally I feel they should start their own business which specializes in catering to the Alternate lifestyle. Thinking about it myself as their is money to be made. I don't believe in discrimination but if someone doesn't want my money then why fight to give it to them instead take it to a business who gladly accepts all green money. Sooner or later a business will fail or thrive so boycotts are stupid instead support a business who willingly takes my money.

originally posted by: DJMSN
Personally I feel they should start their own business which specializes in catering to the Alternate lifestyle.

First learn the difference between Lifestyle and Orientation.

Get up in the morning, take a shower, brush your teeth, have some coffee, check e-mails, read the news, get ready for work, go to office.

^^^^ that is a lifestyle. Is that gay or straight?

a reply to: Annee

Hey I am a gay guy and was attempting to use the politically correct terms without offending anyone. I say they as in the activist who are attempting to thrust their sexuality onto anyone who doesn't like it and this is what they are doing mostly to gain attention. I do not want anyone to make my cake that doesn't like me nor would I want someone else to force them to do so so I know the difference between lifestyle and orientation. I don't think of it as an orientation either it is just who I am and people can like it or not...it doesn't matter to me. I don't want special treatment from someone because of who I am.

If I was a devil worshiper and no offense to any who are I wouldn't expect a Christian church to rent their building out to me for a service so why as a gay man would I expect someone who considers themselves to be die hard Christians to embrace my marriage ? I would much rather support a gay or lesbian business and teach the Christian establishment the rules of capitalism.

Its nobody elses business whom I go to bed with or even whom I marry and I certainly don't need or want a blessing in the form of a ceremony from someone who thinks I am going to hell because of my sexuality. So I know the difference, I just do not buy into the activism that has taken root which is a choice and in some cases is a lifestyle for some as they seek out trouble and stir it up.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Annee

Hey I am a gay guy and was attempting to use the politically correct terms without offending anyone. I say they as in the activist who are attempting to thrust their sexuality onto anyone who doesn't like it and this is what they are doing mostly to gain attention. I do not want anyone to make my cake that doesn't like me nor would I want someone else to force them to do so so I know the difference between lifestyle and orientation. I don't think of it as an orientation either it is just who I am and people can like it or not...it doesn't matter to me. I don't want special treatment from someone because of who I am.

First off - - YES! LGBT are NOT a group think. You are individuals, with independent thoughts/ideas/opinions.

Are you young?

I ask that because it is past generations that Fight the Fight - - - so the next generation is free to be who they are.

This happened with the Women's Right movement. The new generation of females have no clue how tough it was in the past generation.

-------------------------------------

But, as I've stated elsewhere, my mom was disabled in the 50s before the Disability Act. She was denied entry to many businesses because of it. I grew up with her being treated this way. So, discrimination is a personal fight for me. No matter who or what group is being discriminated against.

a reply to: Annee

I understand what you are saying....I am older so perhaps use to the way things have been. I think you are mistaken that this generation is the one to enjoy life without discrimination as they are the ones leading towards more openness than I even imagined but its just not something I need or want for me. I am happy being who I am without making everyone else conform.

As for discrimination against the disabled...it still takes place today but of course is much better so happy the disabled are able to go where they need to go and have a law to back up that need....but its not a need for me to have a wedding cake or preacher marry me....if it comes down to it I would much rather bake my own cake or simply go to the next baker as there are plenty out there who would willingly take my money and do an outstanding job with it.

Your family did not have that opportunity as almost all buildings and business were not accessible before the law was enacted...its a shame it took so long for that to happen and it was needed but no law is needed to force someone else to bake me a cake or to force a preacher to marry me...simply find someone who will and there a tons of people ready willingly and able to do so.

With that said do I wish that the LGBT community was an accepted part of the community as a whole ? Of course but I realize that its not going to happen just as America and many parts of the world still suffer with racial discrimination and political discrimination and discrimination of all types. This is human nature and will take generations to change but I can say proudly that big changes have come to pass and the LGBT community enjoyies more today than yesterday but there is no reason to force people to comply as its just not a need.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Annee

I understand what you are saying....I am older so perhaps use to the way things have been. I think you are mistaken that this generation is the one to enjoy life without discrimination as they are the ones leading towards more openness than I even imagined but its just not something I need or want for me. I am happy being who I am without making everyone else conform.

When I say past generations, just know I'm almost 70.

It was only in 1973 homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness.

Anyway, you can't change people's thinking - - you can't make them accept anything they refuse to accept.

I do support law that legally forces equality - - but, I do not support pushing the issue on a personal level. If you feel uncomfortable in a place, you should just leave.

I had a good laugh reading this article:

10 Situations Where Christian Bakers Should Refuse To Bake Wedding Cakes

a reply to: Deaf Alien

This is probably where we'll be headed if it becomes legal to discriminate against The LGBT Community, unfortunately.

"Liberty and Justice for all" means equality (otherwise it wouldn't really be for all).