TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Go To

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4201: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:16:01 AM

@Vericrat: So, you're not okay with the KKK not being allowed to adopt a street in Missouri?

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:17:40 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
occono from Ireland. Since: Apr, 2009
#4202: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:18:17 AM

The cities haven't blocked Chick-Fil-A yet. Some mayors made some statements that overreacted and gave too much attention to Cathy's statements, but Boston has not said "You can't come here because of your opinion". That would not stand, regardless of a mayor's opinion. There could be a case against them for violating the law: if the lawsuits are all still pending, then that probably won't work, but it means they had some rationale. Chick-Fil-A are not yet getting an cruelly unfair treatment because of their opinions, they've just faced some bueracracy.

Dumbo
Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#4203: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:20:02 AM

So, you're not okay with the KKK not being allowed to adopt a street in Missouri?

Is that denial based on the organization's many violent crimes against black people?

If yes, I'm okay with it. If no, then I'm not. Just like if Chik-Fil-A has violated laws, I've said I'm okay with them being denied their right to get a business license.

Edit: I don't think Chik-Fil-A has been treated unfairly. I think the backlash is less than they deserve. I simply don't want the government deciding to penalize people for their political, moral, ideological, or any other kind of views, completely regardless of the fact that I disagree with them.

[down]I love you. Wanna get married?

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:25:46 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#4204: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:24:49 AM

I don't like the thought pattern that it's OK for Chick-Fil-A to be denied business licenses for their legal beliefs, and I'm not sure it's a precedent we want to set, because there are certainly plenty of places that would love to deny gay-friendly businesses permission to operate without the effort of coming up with bullshit but plausible reasons to do so.

It doesn't sit right with me, no matter how repulsive I find their policies.

A brighter future for a darker age.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#4205: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:28:43 AM

EDIT: Let me take this to P Ms.

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:31:11 AM by KingZeal

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#4206: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:28:54 AM

Personally, I agree with Starship on this. Boycotting them is all good, and stuff, but blocking them from being able to open a store in a city just doesn't sit right, with me. Plus, it's a small step from, "You can't open your business here because you're anti-gay marriage" to "You can't open your business here because you're pro-gay marriage"...

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4207: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:30:26 AM

@Morven: Well, the problem is that it already happens like that, and it's already perfectly legal to do so.

As Gabrael mentioned earlier in the thread, she lives in a community that rallies together to protest incoming businesses they disagree with, and as such, the municipal government denies them the permit. Even around here, if enough citizens get together to protest a business, the city will deny them the permit.

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:30:36 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#4208: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:32:51 AM

Good point, DG: all this would change is their need to come up with a bullshit excuse instead of being able to state their discrimination directly.

A brighter future for a darker age.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#4209: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:34:13 AM

[up][up] ...So your argument is that the other side does it too, so it's ok for us to do it? Using that logic, it would be ok to use child soldiers against Kony. The other side using an immoral tactic doesn't make it "fair game," or something, it just makes the other side worse.

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:34:27 AM by deathpigeon

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4210: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:35:23 AM

@Morven: Not even. It already happens like that. There's a city a bit north of us that's notoriously conservative, and it does occasionally block businesses with obvious liberal policies with the reason of "It doesn't fit our community's values".

@deathpigeon: Last I looked, using child soldiers isn't legal in the US. Blocking businesses based off of whether or not the community wants them is legal in the US, and widely used. It's only now coming under scrutiny because of the Chick-fil-A incident.

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:37:29 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#4211: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:36:39 AM

[up]Just for the record, I think that's illegal too.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4212: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:38:12 AM

[up] Nope. It's perfectly legal for a community to decide what businesses they want operating in their area.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#4213: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:41:04 AM

[up]Why do you continue to Strawman me? I'm not saying communities don't have that right. I'm saying there are certain criteria they may not use to make that decision. For instance, it would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act if a business was denied a license because it "just has too many black workers for our community's tastes." Likewise, I believe it in violation of the First Amendment for a community to deny a business license "because we don't agree with their opinions."

And saying, "it happens" is not the same as saying "it's legal."

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:41:21 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#4214: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:42:08 AM

@DG: Legality is not the same thing as morality. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#4215: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:45:14 AM

Vericrat: So is what you're saying that the law insufficiently protects the business in this case?

[up]At the very least, pidgeon is definitely saying as much.

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:45:46 AM by KingZeal

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4216: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:46:06 AM

@Vericrat: I'm not strawmanning you, I'm just saying you're wrong. According to the municipal government, it is perfectly legal, and will remain so until it gets challenged in court. Also, for the record, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only covers race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, not political affiliation, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

@deathpigeon: Eh, I'm not arguing morality here. I'm arguing legality.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#4217: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:46:11 AM

@Zeal: I'm not really certain what you mean. Can you explain?

According to the municipal government, it is perfectly legal, and will remain so until it gets challenged in court.

Uh...no. If a municipal government says, "It's legal to hunt black people," it's still illegal, even before it gets challenged in court. The municipal government can't override state law, regardless of what it does. Likewise, states/municipalities can't override federal law.

Also, for the record, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only covers race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, not political affiliation, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

For the love of...I was making a comparison. See, "too many black workers" is to Civil Rights Act as "Political Affiliation/Opinion" is to 1st amendment. I never said the Civil Rights Act applied to any of those things.

Vericrat: For instance, it would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act if a business was denied a license because it "just has too many black workers for our community's tastes." Likewise, I believe it in violation of the First Amendment for a community to deny a business license "because we don't agree with their opinions."

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:50:19 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#4218: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:49:26 AM

Vericrat: Are you defending what's legal, or what's moral?

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#4219: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:51:49 AM

It's legal here, and it happens. My state also has what is on the books as a Sin Tax against tabacco and liquor. Most states have this extra tax but it is labeled as a Vice Tax, not a sin. But then again, my state is very messed up in so many levels.

We have had liquor chains attempt to sue for discrimination. It's always ruled against them. They just set up shop in an adjoining county that's wet. It's more profitable and it keeps their drunk driving problems down. Ours goes up because we all have to travel so far.

As much as the ideal is otherwise, it is completely foolish to say religion and politics are seperate in America. I wish they were. But they're not. We need to keep pushing for it. As soon as we can legalize gay marriage and equate civil rights across the board, that's a big push in the right direction. But we're not there yet.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4220: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:56:50 AM

@Vericrat:

Uh...no. If a municipal government says, "It's legal to hunt black people, " it's still illegal, even before it gets challenged in court. The municipal government can't override state law, regardless of what it does. Likewise, states/municipalities can't override federal law.

I can't seem to find anything (on a federal level) saying that political statements made by corporations is protected the same as political statements made by individuals. I do know that commercial speech is not protected the same, but I'm not sure if Chick-fil-A's statements could be construed as commercial speech or not.

For the love of...I was making a comparison. See, "too many black workers" is to Civil Rights Act as "Political Affiliation/Opinion" is to 1st amendment. I never said the Civil Rights Act applied to any of those things.

Ah, then I misread. Sorry about that.

edited 2nd Aug '12 8:57:02 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#4221: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:57:11 AM

@Zeal: Thanks. Well, they are not automatically one and the same (and often aren't), but I believe in this case I am arguing for both.

Legally, I believe the 1st amendment prohibits municipalities from denying business licenses based on personal views. Even if it does happen, that just means that the law was not enforced, not that it was legal. Just like if murder happens and nobody goes to jail, it doesn't mean that it was legal, only that justice was not done.

Morally, I believe that everyone thinks they're right. And everyone has certain axioms that they build from. And everyone's opinions aren't the same. Therefore, it would be hypocritical of me to say, "I can set up my GLBT approving business in a conservative area" while not allowing someone else to say the same about their GLBT-disapproving business (that does not discriminate or harass GLBT individuals).

Now, it is possible that the Supreme Court disagrees with my interpretation of the 1st amendment in this case, though I've found no evidence of that. If so, I'd be making a moral argument for amending the Constitution to read my way. Until then, however, I would concede the legal point and get some hypocritical pleasure in the denial of business rights to organizations that don't agree with me.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#4222: Aug 2nd 2012 at 8:58:35 AM

They can't do it on personal views. They can do it based on corporate policies. And that is legal and widely held to be so.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#4224: Aug 2nd 2012 at 9:02:27 AM

I think part of the problem here is that until fairly recently, companies and corporations didn't make open political statements like this, and the laws haven't caught up yet.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#4225: Aug 2nd 2012 at 9:05:21 AM

@Zeal: I'm saying that blocking a business because the business expresses some belief doesn't sit right with me, regardless of it's legality. Businesses shouldn't be blocked for expressing anti- or pro-gay sentiments. Now, the boycott is perfectly reasonable, and something I support completely. In fact, the only reason I'm not boycotting myself is because I don't eat at Chick-Fil-A, and I don't think that there even is a Chick-Fil-A near where I live.

Also, there is no d in pigeon.

@DG: I was never arguing whether or not it's legal. To me, that isn't as important as whether or not it's moral.


Total posts: 21,560
Top