LGBTQ+ Rights and America

It's an issue of methodology. And yeah, without the first amendment, America would SUCK. Epicly.

Though, they COULD legislate that people aren't allowed to use the word epic wily nily so it wouldn't be all bad.

Refusing to do business with someone because your constituency doesn't like them or they won't comply with your area's laws is not government repression. It's also not thought control. It's the politician doing their job.

@DS: No, not really. Expressing hurtful opinions can get you in trouble. Expressing non-hurtful ones can't.

Freedom of Speech does not protect everything you say and never did. It protects against some things, of course. And you know what, their bigotry actually caused them a lot of heat. They got a lot of consequences for the wrong they tried to cause.

Chicago? They only got good publicity, that they cared about full rights to everyone.

Chicago still won overall. The horrible people can set up their company, but not without hatred for what they do.

Saying only good things and non-hurtful things just doesn't get you in trouble. There's a reason for that.

Agreed. It'd be even better if abuse of that amendment was punished. Sadly, not always the case.

Yep.

edited 3rd Aug '12 7:33:24 PM by Hydronix

@Drunk: I reiterate my previous idea about it being a plan to bring in homophobic customers at the expense of LGBT activist customers.

Good way to put it.

There's this old saw about power and responsibility that occurs to me here...

EDIT:

@Ultrayellow: if they think that's a viable business strategy, they are welcome to try it. Again I say; they'd be better off just keeping their cakeholes shut and serving chicken to whomever's got the money and the want for it.

edited 3rd Aug '12 7:40:06 PM by drunkscriblerian

Horrible way to put it, actually.

Spreading hurtful opinions and lies is extremely different from existing.

No, the denial of business there is because they want to specifically avoid controversy and to keep Chicago the way it is, Pro-Gay Rights.

Denying it because they're black is purely racist.

Don't even compare those. They are nothing alike.

What Vericrat said. I'd much rather be harassed by bullies or jerks who hate my ideology, while the government protects both of us and keeps us from coming to blows, than have those jerks and bullies vote in their government and order it to suppress me.

Race is a protected class, Vericrat, for various reasons other than not being able to open up businesses. Some dude who says he doesn't like gay marriage is not. Also highly unlikely to ever be. What's-his-name is doing his job, as I said before.

In the end, I think this is a tempest in a teapot and that Chicago will continue on without Chic-Fil-A and Chic-Fil-A will go on without Chicago.

@Irene: Vericrat's actually on the money here. Yes, homosexuals deserve equality. You believe that, I believe that...and our job is to convince the people who don't believe that, rather than simply slapping a muzzle on them because that's more convenient.

Speech is also protected, Ace. For even more reasons than race is.

@Irene: No. They're nothing alike to you. But that's your opinion, and since you can't prove an opinion correct, the government protects everybody.

But they're not even attacking his right to say something. They simply don't want his business to expand there. Nothing in that action prevents the man from continuing to say he doesn't like the idea of gay marriage.

Yeah, I could have sworn we had some protection for people who say unpopular things. Oh yeah.

Yeah, people wanting stopping controversy - especially in the form of a political debate - is exactly why we have the freedom of speech. Trying to keep a place of a specific political stance...that has to be the crowning jewel of reasons to have a 1st amendment.

Edit: I swear, it's like you're not even reading anything I say. Let me point you back to something I said earlier in the conversation

Moreover, if I got thrown into jail every night when I expressed my opinion that gays have the right to get married, the government isn't stopping me from saying anything. Is my freedom of speech being violated? Yes. Yes it is.

edited 3rd Aug '12 7:50:19 PM by Vericrat

"You have the right to speak your mind, but the government will punish you if you do" is no different from "you do not have the right to speak your mind" for all practical purposes.

Although really, isn't this thread about gay rights, not the first amendment? Should we split it into a First Amendment thread?

edited 3rd Aug '12 7:51:29 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

I made a thread about it, just waiting for mod approval.

Vericrat, there's a difference between harmful opinions and opinions that help others.

Stop acting like they're the same whatsoever.

Helpful opinions do not have bad consequences. Harmful opinions may. Even if they're both protected, they are not the same thing.

Damn it, I did the same thing. I guess we'll see which one the mods like better.

EDIT: @Irene: stop applying value judgments where they don't belong. You're doing all of us a disservice by indulging in such self-righteous behavior.

edited 3rd Aug '12 7:55:16 PM by drunkscriblerian

@DS: the thing is..I dont think theytre convinceable. I think we'll just have to hope they eventually die out. People like that dont change. They hate until the day they die.

Uh, apparently the mods didn't like my example. Okay. Let me make a different one that they might see as less inflammatory.

Okay, so if a rural city doesn't like people who promote gay marriage, it's just the politician doing his job to deny a business license to a person who has promoted gay marriage, right, Ace Of Spades?

Again, they are not preventing him from saying anything. Cities turn down businesses all the time for a variety of reasons. A business does not have the right to expand somewhere without permission. It is not a protected right the way free speech is. The majority of the people want Chicago to remain pro gay rights, and they feel Chic-Fil-A violates that. And it doesn't even prevent the guys that don't want gay marriage from saying that at all in any place whatsoever. This is not a punishment. This is the government of Chicago doing what the people essentially voted for when they decided they wanted to be pro gay rights.

And yes, I read every fucking thing, don't tell me I'm not. You have not at any point put up anything that says a politician can't block a business. Because that happens all the damn time. This isn't government punishment. This is government of a city doing what the people of the city want it to. The owner of Chic-Fil-A remains free to say whatever shit he wants and is not otherwise restricted in unlawful ways.

edited 3rd Aug '12 7:57:51 PM by AceofSpades

@Midget: I choose to believe that they are, and that we have not yet hit upon a way to bring them to the table. I did not say that such would be simple or easy.

I second the notion that you just can't make certain people change. The only thing to do is to work as hard as possible to get the younger generation to accept gay marriage and such things more and wait for the antis to die off.

I know that might sound rude and cynical but I honestly can't think of any way to change a person who is 100% certain they are right.

So yeah, we agree there.

That's true. There are also reasons that they couldn't turn a business down. If, for instance, those businesses were run by Democrats, that would not be a legal reason to turn down a business. I have said this many times. I do not believe it has ever been addressed.

I say again, if the majority of Nashville wants to remain "Pro-family values" can they reject any business that donates to GLAAD? You didn't answer my question before on the same general subject.

It's a penalty. And as I said earlier

When you are penalized for your expressed opinion, that is a violation of the 1st amendment. I have yet to see anything refuting this. Just like my jail example.

Keeping the people from voting to penalize people for speaking is exactly the reason any democratic nation would have a freedom of speech.

@Kostya: You can't make people change, but you can give them a very good reason to and let them sort the matter out for themselves.

And honestly, I can't remember reading about a time in human history where changing the social status quo was a quick, painless or simple process.

But how do you get them to accept that reason? Mountains of evidence have been presented for issues such as climate change yet very few people are willing to alter their views.

The main thing I see with all the rights movements and advances of society is that it's caused primarily by young people. This is why I said you need to convince them rather than worrying about the older individuals that advocate these beliefs.

I never said it was easy, I just said the mentality that changing people's views after they're adults is flawed and won't work nearly as well as trying to change the way young people think.

edited 3rd Aug '12 8:08:47 PM by Kostya