US to support gay rights abroad

That iself is already a controversial law, because at its basics, I'm free to decide with which person I go into a legal contract and can essentially say "I'm not going to sell you this because I don't like the way your nose looks".

I imagine the reason it's forbidden is only because it's kind of detrimental to society as a whole if people can just decide to not do business with you based on prejudice.

However, religion is another thing, because nobody is dependent on it. You can argue that people shouldn't be discriminated against in business situations because they are, if only to a small degree, dependent on making business, so it would tremendously suck for them if people could just refuse them. This isn't the case with religion. Not only that, telling religious people what they should do is controversial itself. I mean, as long as they aren't breaking any laws, who the fuck cares. It's faith. If they don't want you among their ceremonies/rituals/whatever, then that's their choice. That's like telling jews they aren't allowed to limit their religious stuff to peers who are also of jewish faith. (Don't they have, like, a belief that you're "born" a jew and can't really "join" them? That would further my point.)

Murrl LustFatM

Why does it matter if people are dependent or not on the service? Discrimination is discrimination, it does not matter who is discriminating against minorities, they are still wrong for doing so. Remember the Kentucky church which banned interracial couples? That's racist, yeah? So why would you let them get away with shit like that?

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.

No. It's just really difficult to convert.

I think a better question would be if it's okay for a Mosque to make women pray in the back/up on a balcony or if Orthodox Jewish services should be separated by sex.

edited 8th Dec '11 2:59:10 PM by ohsointocats

Because (as much as I myself find discrimination absolutely disgusting...) people have a right to their own opinions and to act on them unless they interfere with the rights of others.

edited 8th Dec '11 2:59:17 PM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

@Yeah Because not letting them get away from that will prove them right all along. I believe in a world were people are truly free, then we can call out people on the bullshit they spew and thus enlighten many would be racists.

Neo-Nazism is popular in countries that ban it and not popular at all in countries that don't ban it. Notice a pattern? If a government censors something then we know they are hiding something. Even something as vile as nazism should have free-speech and association.

edited 8th Dec '11 2:59:09 PM by PinkHeartChainsaw

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

Because it's their right to decide to do that, Yeah. It's stupid, but it's their right. And if they consider it a religious belief, the state has no right to intervene. It's not the same as a business, where not getting hired can cause you to end up in the poor house and closes off other employment opportunities. You don't end up unable to feed yourself if the church doesn't let you have a wedding.

In any case, the social consequences are getting worse for churches that don't allow interracial marriages, and are likely to end up so for same sex marriages as well.

Also, we are way, way off topic now. /derail

Because forcing people to acceptance isn't nice. Why should you be forced to go into business with someone you don't want to?

Prohibiting discrimination has its place in everything government-related. Private business is already controversial (it's fucking private, stop telling people with whom to make business). Taking this to religion is just going too far, in my opinion.

Murrl LustFatM

People should not be entirely free and neither should institutions. That is a bit too close to libertarianism than is good for anyone. There're laws for reasons, some more valid than others.

Why should private businesses be free from discrimination laws? It is design to prevent the unfair treatment of minorities, what is wrong with doing that? And if private business should not be exempt, why should religions?

edited 8th Dec '11 3:04:59 PM by YeahBro

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.

Okay, here's a discussion. In Islam, women pray in the back so that men do not get lustful thoughts about women praying in front of them while they're staring at their backsides while they're bending over. (apparently women are incapable of the same sort of lustful thoughts...). In Orthodox Judaism, men and women are separated by a screen for prayer for pretty much the same reason (though they acknowledge that women can have lustful thoughts.)

Is this fair for homosexuals?

Saying an organization that people are entirely free to join and leave at any time should be forced to do something is a little too close to authoritarianism to me. This is America, where we generally have the right to choose what we will and won't do, so long as it doesn't bring physical harm to someone. That includes the right to make offensive decisions.

@Yeah, Laws do exist for a reason. However they rarely do what they are intended to do.

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

Isn't it better to have them there rather than to have minorities being discriminated against and people being murdered without consequence?

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.

People shouldn't be forced to act "fair" in situations where they are supposed to be free to do what they want.

Imagine this:

A and B want to buy the same object from me for the same price.
A asked first, but I said "nope" because A is black
I then sold it to B
A runs to the government and complains about being discriminated against
Government forces me to do business with someone I don't want to

Not okay. Discrimination sucks, yes, but forcing people to decisions they don't like sucks too. That almost borders on "thoughtcrime".

My freedom ends where yours begins. Not wanting to do business with you for personal reasons isn't an attack on your freedom. You aren't magically entitled to obtain what I sell against my will.

Like I said, I recognize that what I'm essentially defending here can also be detrimental to society as a whole. That's why I said, it does depend on whether or not you are dependent on business or religion. In private business situations, you're infringing on their collective freedom for good reason, for example, that situations don't arise where everyone refuses to do business with a minority group and said group suffers some bad times because of it. In that sense, it's "for the greater good" that people aren't able to do what I'm defending and I can accept that.

Religion is something else entirely because there are no negative consequences for discrimination that only goes as far as not letting them partake in religious events.

You know what the equivalent of this is? The teacher forcing kid A and B to play with kid C against their will in gradeschool.

edited 8th Dec '11 3:16:07 PM by Excelion

Murrl LustFatM

How about if it was a hospital refusing admission to gay people or a school preventing blacks from joining. Both of those should deliver a service without discrimination, so why should a business or church not. (Also, why has everyone here got such a fixation on 1984, yet they all use tropespeak)

I am entitled to receive equal and fair treatment by any business regardless of the minority group I belong to, and I can't imagine why anyone would argue against that.

How exactly is that a bad thing?

edited 8th Dec '11 3:36:58 PM by YeahBro

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.

I say we should reach a compromise. Small businesses that most people don't need get to discriminate and big businesses and necessities can't.

edited 8th Dec '11 3:39:27 PM by PinkHeartChainsaw

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

Since when has compromise when it comes to discrimination been a good thing? Civil unions, segregated bathrooms, etc. All of that was people saying, they should have the same rights and services, just not my rights and services. Equal but different is a terrible idea and letting any group get away with discrimination is equally terrible.

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.

I agree with you completely. However I just don't think the government is competent enough to combat all forms of discrimination. I think the best way to fight discrimination is to use educational programs that teaches the history of other nations and try to empathize with each other.

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

Hospitals and schools should be government issued and not private facilities owned by corporations (Here, schools are basically supervised by the government, it's in the Grundgesetz; I don't know how it is with hospitals but I know we have far less private hospitals than America).

You can argue that you have a basic right for hospital treatment and education, but I can't recall when the ability to make business with strangers became a right you can insist on. It's private business. The government has nothing to do with it. It's two people making a private transaction. Nothing else.

It's a bad thing because you are infringing on the freedom of two people just so little Timmy won't feel left out.

Murrl LustFatM

But that's exactly what schools do for Little Timmy, because other wise Little Timmy will grow up to be Big Timmy and shoot up his workplace.

That's not the problem of the other kids, is it? (Nor is it their fault).

I suppose I'm just too libertarian for peoples tastes. I do realize that giving people this much freedom of action has some negative consequences, but I don't think restricting peoples freedom is okay, either. I also have a natural dislike for legal obligations. I view many of these actions as remaining neutral (not wanting to play with someone/go into business with someone isn't a malicious action, it's not wanting to do something and that should be neutral by definition) and I don't like it if remaining neutral is demonized.

edited 8th Dec '11 4:43:00 PM by Excelion

Murrl LustFatM

As much as I'd like to agree with Excelion on this one, we can at least all say that people shouldn't be tortured or executed for having gay sex, right?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Yes, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can just kill people you don't agree with.

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

Well it becomes their problem when they're the ones shot and killed, and they might have done well to be nice to Little Timmy once in a while.

edited 8th Dec '11 5:00:33 PM by ohsointocats

Thread Hop

@OP: I'd be more impressed by this if we'd already solved all the gay rights issues at home. For example, if the homosexual population were not second-class citizens as far as marriage is concerned.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

That point has already been dealt with: they're trying to combat criminalization of homosexuality abroad, not lack of access to marriage. Different things. One substantially more urgent, though no less rooted in equality concerns, than the other.