LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Those activists have got to check their fire, so to speak. They've just shot their entire cause (as well as the business of uninvolved people) in the foot. Now the other side can just point to this as a sign that progressives are crazy.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Screw them, they were saying that anyway. Some people who support equality are idiots, but that just means even idiots believe in equality. What's the other side's excuse?

Just what are the differences between Indiana's law and the federal Freedom of Religion Restoration Act? An article in The Economist suggests they are similar, but what I read on blogs is very different.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

Now or before they altered it? Now it's pretty much the same, before it would allow business to turn away gay people on the grounds of religious freedom.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Here's a good overview.

The Centennial Institute has returned a $250 booth registration fee the Log Cabin Republicans had sent in to secure a booth at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver saying they "...draw the line at a formal relationship between two organizations with diametrically opposed policy beliefs."

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/25/sweet-cakes-christian-owned-bakery-gofundme-drive-/?

I am not sure. Even though it's discrimination, I don't like the idea of small businesses going out of business.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.

The religious freedom in businesses thing still bugs me about LGBT activism. I still think that people should be able to marry who they want and wear what they want, but shaming a small company into obscurity for not baking a cake seems so wrong.

...shaming a pizza place that isn't even guilty of discrimination is even worse.

edited 25th Apr '15 10:55:34 PM by Keybreak

, Are you against using social pressure to produce change from businesses, or are you just opposed to the targets it's being used against? Because if discrimination is wrong when a large corporation does it, how is it ok for a small business to discriminate in the same way? Either the discrimination is wrong, or the boycotts are, regardless of target.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

At the same time, the bakery broke the law. Their Go Fund Me campaign was removed because they violated the To S by attempting to profit from illegal activity. Their case is a bit more clear cut.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

It's the size of the target mainly. The gay couple had other options, and they could had spent their money elsewhere. Weddings (in the USA especially) are expensive so I also think the bakery was stupid for refusing the extra business.

It's also an optional non-necessary service. If it was, for example, (non-elective) healthcare-related, I'd side with the gay couple mostly.

The way it looks like right now - the pro-gay marriage side look like bullies (to me). To a point, that I feel relieved that the small businesses can attract enough donations from the anti-gay marriage side, in order to survive.

As mentioned, this sort of situation confuses me. Am pro-gay marriage, but I also do not like the idea of small businesses going out of business because they don't want to cater gay weddings.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.

So you feel that small businesses should be allowed to discriminate? Do you include other protected classes along with sexuality as as an allowed target of discrimination? Race, political affiliation, religion and such?

Thing is the law's the law, discrimination is illegal for very good reasons and I don't see why being a small business should allow you to get away with breaking the law.

I'm personally a big fan of law breaking businesses shutting down, but maybe I'm weird.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

So ... it's okay to be a bigot as long as you don't answer to stockholders? Are you serious? I'm sure they actually did spend their money elsewhere - that doesn't magically make the bakery owners not bigots. They're raising money to pay the legal fine for breaking the law. You're saying it's just fine to run a Kick Starter to keep your restaurant running when you enforce the "No Blacks Allowed" sign behind the counter, as long as it's a small business and not a franchise.

No, no a thousand times fuck no.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

As I said, my issue is basically that it's a "small" business. Disproportionate punishment for breaking a law is commonplace.

It's also over baking a cake or making pizzas for a social event. I'm having a lot of difficulty comparing it to making black people ride at the back of the bus.

Then again, I suppose I could compare it to putting (small-time) pet stores out of business. Or (small-time) creators creating sexist/racist media getting boycotted. If I use that frame of reference, my sympathy simply shrivels up.

Yeah... I forgot. Bakeries and pizza places tend to make people consume needless calories.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.

Boycotts are fine. People are allowed to not buy anything they can get elsewhere or don't need.

But bullying a small business for its practices is...circumstantial. I suppose whenever you open yourself up to the public you become bound by public rules, so if there was a certain clientele you wanted you'd probably have to offer memberships or something. :p

Probably wouldn't be good for profits though.

Thing is it's not bullying, it's applying a reasonable law to someone who broke it.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Which was why I used the example of a sign that used to be found at lunch counters and cafeterias. But you appear to understand our objection to that line of thinking, so let's move on.

I can sympathize with the difficulties faced by small businesses, but my sympathy stops when the start treating their customer base in a bigoted manner.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I dislike the implication that the small store is the "victim" here. Its not. The people here *chose* to deny services to someone who they considered inacceptable. That is textbook discrimination.

Claiming they are the victim because the blowback is significant is like someone going into a bar, punches a patron and then complains when the entire bar gets pissed.

I'm not saying anyone here did it, I just see the potential to use it as defense for their actions.

edited 26th Apr '15 6:11:55 AM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"

The store has an easy way to stay in business: stop being dicks to LGBT people.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

There is a genuine difference, not between small businesses and big corporations, but between privately and publicly (id est stockholder-run) companies. The former can apply their own ideas to how they run the company even if it harms their business, while the latter is obliged to maximise shareholder value (and their shareholders will include every type of citizen and all shades of opinion, who they should represent).

Still doesn't justify discrimination, but I could support small family businesses refusing some clients on personal grounds.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

Keybreak: So if I owned a restaurant and refused to serve black people you're saying it's okay?

I agree with your idea in theory provided the client is actually causing a problem. Not serving a Neo-Nazi if you have minority clients would be acceptable because the former is a threat to the latter. Gay people don't threaten anyone just by existing.

edited 26th Apr '15 6:48:08 AM by Kostya

There are valid reasons to refuse customers. They could be naked. They could be offensively odoriferous. They could be extremely intoxicated. They could be violent. They could use harassing language to the staff or other customers. In fact, I could deny you service at my (hypothetical) business because you insist on bringing a "Kill all Gays" sign inside and preach at everyone.

However, I cannot deny you service because you are gay, or Christian, or female, or handicapped, or black, because those are protected classes. It doesn't matter whether I'm running a roadside fruit stand or a Fortune 500 company.

edited 26th Apr '15 6:51:35 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The difference is not between publicly owned or privately owned but if its open to the public or not.

If it is, you can't pick which parts of the public its open to unless you have specific causes.

edited 26th Apr '15 6:53:57 AM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"

@Kostya Not a BIG one. If it was like a restaurant you made out of your house and you just served to friends then it'd be...

Still not okay, but probably legally permissible.

Legally permissible does not mean moral. Tons of things that used to be legal are immoral. I also think that very few of these cases involve such a situation.

edited 26th Apr '15 6:56:50 AM by Kostya