LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Freedom of Speech is not some cure all bandaid that's going to ride in on a silver horse and save us all.

You know why all these "legal loopholes" exist? Because sometimes it's for the best. I don't mind strip clubs, but I don't want them around my kids school.

I have absolutely no problem with any business that spurts hate being ran under a fine tooth comb before it is allowed to set up shop. No one here was saying it should be banned or even that it would be. They just want to be sure this is the right decision. And you want to blame them for taking their time when they have serious probable cause to suspect shit isn't kosher?

Chick-fil-la isn't even that big of a deal, but it's the final straw that is breaking a lot of backs, conservative and liberal. LGB Ts are sick of being treated like second class pets. Conservatives are tired of being lumped in with the Rick Santorums of the worlds. Christians are getting sick of being lumped in with the Michele Bauchmans of the world.

Most of the f'd up, crazy legstlation being proposed in the past two years have been proposed by -you guessed it!- crazy radicals like Sarah Palin who reek of hypocrisy and scream Christian persecution whenever people point out just how crazy they are.

We are in a recession we don't really have to be in right now. We are still in several wars we sure as hell don't need to be in. We are denying basic rights to a signifigant portion of our population for no other reason except some person's book doesn't like gays. We have some of the worst healthcare and education systems in the world.

People are exhausted. And that is why this issue, which in itself is trivial, but as a reflection of people's attitudes and exhaustion is important.

Guess what, it's those assholes that are making the laws you find so unconstitutional by being bought by big companies funding organizations that spread misinformation or just flat out lies with their millions. Organizations like Chick-fil-la participate in this system.

But then again, they have the right to hate. And they have the right of personage thanks to citizens united.

All this while LGB Ts don't even have the same right in inheritance.

So you wanna scream, that's fine. But scream at the right people. And if you want to defend corporate scumbags, go ahead. Because more sane liberal and conservative organizations and businesses alike are already being trashed and taken down regardless if you think it's right or not.

I'm not beating my head on this brick wall anymore. Let's move on.

I think this guy sums up the issue well, and has the added benefit of being gay and liberal and thus less open to accusations of hatefulness or bigotry.

Actually, you do. Bigotry is a violation of basic human rights. And you know what? I have zero issues with them being silenced. If you think the debating has worked, you're wrong. It goes so slowly that drastic measures, which were all legal, by the way, must be done. And I really don't care if they think they're being persecuted. Chick-A-Filla completely deserves it. They made the mistake of turning their entire franchise into pure Hate Speech, and frankly, they can shut up. That's a violation of human rights. Free Speech is like any right. If you abuse it, it can be taken away. And they got that for violating the meaning of it.

Free Speech does not give you the right to harass others verbally or physically. It does not give you the right to harm others. The point of it was to actually help people, not hurt them. Each of those constitutional laws/rules(whatever) were made to help lives in some way. To think they should be used to harm... is horrible, I won't lie. It's a perversion of their purpose.

I'll take basic human rights over "right to harm others" any day.

Well then frankly Irene, while I support your right to express your views, you should live in a different country if you want them enacted, because people like me will fight you for every inch of ground you try to take towards thought-police.

I hope that doesn't make you hate me, but if you truly hold those views then A) I don't want you anywhere near any government policy, and B) you are pitting yourself not only against Chick-Fil-A but against pretty much everyone else in the country across all political viewpoints.

When did anyone say "Dan Cathy shouldn't be allowed to be in business because he hates gays"?

Nobody did. However, since the Company does itself, there's a problem.

And that's exactly why they're not allowed in Chicago, besides other inhumane treatments.

@Irene Just pointing out your side's being accused of "thought-policing" (as if thoughts are what started this) for something you didn't say.

Irene expressed the view that it would be acceptable for the government to actively suppress people who express views Irene disagrees with. That is what I mean by "thought police": an attempt by the government to persecute people who hold certain views. Do you have a different meaning for that term?

Wait, so if that's the case, why aren't citizens allowed by your argument to vote against a business entering their area for political means? If people are allowed to go up to the government and outright say "These people shouldn't have the same rights as us" without giving a basis at all, why can't they say "This business should stay away from us" while giving a basis? o: I'm genuinely curious about the specifics of your argument here.

edited 3rd Aug '12 2:28:35 PM by DJay32

I have been watching this thread for a while. And I must say there are people being silly.

Starship...WTF? You have moved the goalpost so many times it's no surprise you're not on the same field. I can't help but think you're arguing for the sake of arguing now, especially since .

Everything Gabrael has said is true. And what she said about the system is true. So what is the problem?

And for the love of god: NO ONE ON THIS TREAD CALLED FOR THEM TO BE BANNED!

Now. Can we move on?

On a happy note, I came home with four children instead of three. I have three biological siblings, two boys and a girl. I was able to secure adopting my youngest son's best friend as well. All of the kids are still in a bit of shock. The oldest doesn't trust me yet. The youngest boys are teaching each other English since they were too young to get it at school. But we are all in the process of packing so we can move across country to my girlfriend's base.

I managed to secure employment at a private counselling firm. It's not as fun as the hospital, but the pay is far better and with college coming up for my eldest, that's more important.

Except they weren't illegally banned over there and you know it. You know for a fact that any city can deny a business for any means as long as it's not discrimination(and guess what, Chicago is doing the opposite of discrimination, it's fighting against it).

And no, they do not have the right to harm others and they never did.

You say they have the right to say hateful stuff to others? Then the police or other people in power have the right to kick them out/throw them in jail(depends the situation) for directly harming another and for disturbing the peace.

You can't get away with what you think you can.

And yes, hanging signs out to say "We disapprove of gays" is quite literally not treating their customers right. At all. Many of them feel uncomfortable because they have no idea what'll happen if they go in.

There's a difference between thought policing and not allowing discrimination.

And congrats, man.

edited 3rd Aug '12 2:42:30 PM by Hydronix

I sort of agree with both sides.

On one hand there's "Look at what they're doing! We can't just stand idly by. We have to show them that we do not condone that behavior."

On the other hand we have "Just because what they're doing is wrong doesn't make it right for us to stamp on their rights. It sets a bad precedent that could come back to haunt us."

The problem is that each hand sees the other as saying something else.

"LOOK! They said something we don't like! LET'S STEAL THEIR STUFF AND KICK THEM IN THE KNEE!"

And

"DON'T THOUGHT POLICE! We can say anything we like, donate to anything we like. Even if it's hateful and hurtful!"

Respectively.

Wait, what? When did this happen?

No personal attacks, please. If he moved the goalposts, explain how.

And this, right here, is where my respect for the First Amendment ends. If bigotry is a right, it's a right that should be violated.

edited 3rd Aug '12 2:42:29 PM by KingZeal

@Starship: I see. So the point that you are vocally against is things like Chicago not allowing businesses in, not necessarily the people who are against them. To sum it up, "You can say whatever you want, but you can't act upon just any belief?" I can and do agree with that view, then. But the way this thread's been going, you have given an accidental sense of just plain being against the naysayers, period. There's been a lot of obfuscation in this argument, speaking as an outsider.

Though I don't think the other side of the argument is actually arguing against that.

No it doesn't. That's assuming that privileges and rights can't exist without bigotry.

edited 3rd Aug '12 2:53:05 PM by KingZeal

Starship, people have the legal right to block Chick-fil-la or any other business for whatever reason they want.

You may not agree with these laws. Gabrael gave the dry county as an example of how religious views shape secular laws regardless of the constitution. Shivaspawn pointed out the legal compromise that the law was willing to allow to satisfy both parties and Chick-fil-la didn't want to play back.

Just because something is unjust doesn't mean it's not legal. My not being allowed to marry is in my opinion a violation of my constitutional rights. But it is still legal to keep me from signing that paper and being a wife.

Legal does not equal moral either. I think you are confusing this. Just because it is legal for heteros to marry and I can't isn't saying it's moral.

Please, chill it out. You are not a constitutional scholar. There are legal experts who are challenging all forms of laws one side or the other considers immoral. But what Gabrael says is right, regardless of how popular or unpopular a law is or its morality, it is still a law until the court system strikes it down.

Instead of getting heated with people just pointing out the system doesn't work that way now and shrugging people off as "assholes" as your only excuse, just relax and realize no one is advocating for the status quo.

There is seriously nothing to be arguing about.

But you can't say whatever you want. You can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre. You can't incite violence. You can't spread lies without getting charged with libel. Free speech has limits.

Oh sure, I will obey the law as it exists. However, if I find said law insufficient, I will have it changed. Or, if it refuses to change, I will civilly disobey.

This is also part of my rights.