Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[Blake]

Hiring strippers for a private event is legal. Nobody said he was taking pictures of the strippers, just that strippers would be there and he is uncomfortable with that.

You can't force hire a public business to a private event where they feel the conduct is offensive. If it's an event open to the public, then indecent exposure laws kick in.

Gay marriage between two consenting adults should not offend anyone.

I can't believe this is that hard to grasp.

[Spurminator]

You can't force hire a public business to a private event where they feel the conduct is offensive.

That is exactly my point, these businesses feel the conduct of two men or women getting married is offensive... whether that's a valid opinion or not, offense is subjective.

I don't think you should be forced to attend a private event that you find offensive, for whatever reason you find it offensive. This is different from a business, open to the public, refusing to allow two men to enter their studio to take wedding pictures.

Gay marriage between two consenting adults should not offend anyone.

I can't believe this is that hard to grasp.

See, you just said "should not," but it does. Offense is subjective.

In my opinion, neither gay marriage nor a woman's nipples should offend anyone, but here we are.

[Blake]

See, you just said "should not," but it does. Offense is subjective.

In my opinion, neither gay marriage nor a woman's nipples should offend anyone, but here we are.

Are you going to just say "woman's nipple" and drop the mic?

Where do you draw your line, or does nothing offend you?

[mingus]

Gay marriage between two consenting adults should not offend anyone.

I can't believe this is that hard to grasp.

I agree, but you're insistence/stubbornness that only YOUR idea of what qualifies a legitimate marriage must extend to everyone via govt. coercion is equally hard to grasp. Your view not only mandates business service gay ceremonies, it mandates that they service EVERY OTHER marriage ceremony b/w two consenting adults that they don't agree with (if all that's needed to qualify a marriage as legitimate is consenting adults, which seems to be the case): Interreligious, polygamist, incestious, etc.

Yeah, that.

Let people be the judge of what they consider to be an appropriate marriage.

At the end of the day though, I think a balance can be struck so that both parties can get what they want, sort of in keeping with what some of Chinook already said, but with additional stipulation:

So if the small business declines to service a marriage it doesn't agree with, that small business gets an added tax, which compensates the couple for having to find another place that will service them. Basically, the anti-gay/whatever marriage party gets to run its business as their consience sees fit, and the couple party can get what they want and be compensated for the additional time & money they may've wasted & risk they may've taken (any time you get on the road, you're taking a risk) to find a different business to service them.

That's the best I can do at the moment of trying to make it as much of a two way street as possible.

[Shastafarian]

If it's already implemented, then it's not new. If it's already established, it's not reform.



I was pretty specific. "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Seems like a moral stance to me. Obviously the religion part is a moral stance. It simply doesn't matter that you don't support the latter side.




You say this like it's an objective difference, but it's not.




Um, yes, marriage equality is an issue with two sides. There has been and will be disagreement. The question of choice has nothing to do with it.



That's not good enough. You don't get to run up on someone say, "Accept me!" and then be offended when they decline.



The Court choosing to table this issue this year means it could well be a long battle yet.



YES! MFing yes!. That's what it means to have freedom of opinion in this country. They are people who pay taxes and follow this country's laws. They absolutely deserve to have their rights respected when they represent themselves. Do they have the same rights when the represent the government? No. That's why the woman who refused to issue the marriage license was wrong.



Speaking is an action too. But in places that aren't Oregon, NM and Colorado where you aren't legally obligated to serve everyone, refusing to do so is just exercising your rights.



I have a tolerance for people who disagree with me, and I know that you can't make a moral system by only looking at one side. Too often people pull that "what if it were you?" card, and you will end up making bad decisions if you get trapped into relying on that logic.

I'm tired of doing line-by-line responses honestly. Neither of us is budging. And even though it annoys you, I'm right and you are wrong in this situation. Religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against a group of people. By definition that is not permissible under the current laws. I think people browsing this thread only need to look at your response of "YES! MFing yes..." to know you're using a guise of libertarianism to justify your point when in actuality it's anarchism. If people can discriminate based on sexual orientation then they can discriminate based on anything and our social construct falls apart. Maybe you would enjoy that United States, but I sure as wouldn't. Good day.

The Miller Test relates to what can be determined obscene and protected by the First Amendment, so I'm not sure how it relates to a person's right to abstain from exposure to obscenity at a private event, if at all. But say it's a striptease, if that works better. Very PG-13.

Bingo, it set a precedent. And aren't these nutjobs trying to say that their religious freedom (i.e. First Amendment protection) is being infringed upon by having to attend gay weddings? If they can't prove it's obscene, I think they'll lose in court.

I think you guys are getting too hung up on the hypothetical.

You're right these situations are hypotheticals and while you are clearly much better at analogies than Chinook, no situation is exactly like the one we are currently discussing. That is part of the reason we have a court system. And I think eventually the phobes will lose in court.

[Shastafarian]

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He … shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.'

Should people be allowed to refuse weddings or ceremonies for those who are disabled? How about those who have an injured foot or hand?

[Blake]

I agree, but you're insistence/stubbornness that only YOUR idea of what qualifies a legitimate marriage must extend to everyone via govt. coercion is equally hard to grasp. Your view not only mandates business service gay ceremonies, it mandates that they service EVERY OTHER marriage ceremony b/w two consenting adults that they don't agree with (if all that's needed to qualify a marriage as legitimate is consenting adults, which seems to be the case): Interreligious, polygamist, incestious, etc.

Yeah, that.

Let people be the judge of what they consider to be an appropriate marriage.

Do Interreligious marriages really bother you that much?

But yeah, you shouldn't be able to discriminate people in the public domain on who they legally are

At the end of the day though, I think a balance can be struck so that both parties can get what they want, sort of in keeping with what some of Chinook already said, but with additional stipulation:

So if the small business declines to service a marriage it doesn't agree with, that small business gets an added tax, which compensates the couple for having to find another place that will service them. Basically, the anti-gay/whatever marriage party gets to run its business as their consience sees fit, and the couple party can get what they want and be compensated for the additional time & money they may've wasted & risk they may've taken (any time you get on the road, you're taking a risk) to find a different business to service them.

That's the best I can do at the moment of trying to make it as much of a two way street as possible.

Lol proposing a discrimination tax.

Yeah that

[DarrinS]

Gawd damn. Just let the gays get married and have the same ty cakes, photographers, and divorces that the rest of us enjoy.

/thread

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm tired of doing line-by-line responses honestly. Neither of us is budging.

Nobody reads them either. Most of his is repeating himself over and over again. Reduce your arguments down to 8-10 sentences and just post those. The argument is not that complex really when it comes down to it.

[boutons_deux]

NThe argument is not that complex

live and let live

(instead of the asshole Christian Taliban imposing their morals on everybody else with the force of law)

[Blake]

Gawd damn. Just let the gays get married and have the same ty cakes, photographers, and divorces that the rest of us enjoy.

/thread

Yeah but the bible tells us not to bake them a cake

[mingus]

Do Interreligious marriages really bother you that much?

But yeah, you shouldn't be able to discriminate people in the public domain on who they legally are



Lol proposing a discrimination tax.

Yeah that

Interreligious marriages don't bother me. At All. I'm a Jew with a Catholic gf smh at that ridiculous claim.

Unlike you, when I talk about the effects of a discriminatory policy, or really any thing for that matter, I don't arbitrarily narrow the scope of discussion (& le) down to one category of people that is effected by it.

[Blake]

Interreligious marriages don't bother me. At All. I'm a Jew with a Catholic gf smh at that ridiculous claim.

You brought it up and said that. I see you meant that in that you think it should be OK to discriminate against interreligious marriages.

Unlike you, when I talk about the effects of a discriminatory policy, or really any thing for that matter, I don't arbitrarily narrow the scope of discussion (& le) down to one category of people that is effected by it.

The le comes from the news story, not me. It specifically references people that want to have the right to discriminate against people born a certain way because their bible commands it.

You can't open your doors to the public but maintain that right to discriminate against the way people were born or want to live. It's bad for our society. It holds us back.

[mingus]

You brought it up and said that. I see you meant that in that you think it should be OK to discriminate against interreligious marriages.



The le comes from the news story, not me. It specifically references people that want to have the right to discriminate against people born a certain way because their bible commands it.

You can't open your doors to the public but maintain that right to discriminate against the way people were born or want to live. It's bad for our society. It holds us back.

Yeah, I think it's alright to discriminate on marriage when the marriage conflicts with the religious views of a person. Why? Not because interreligious marriage offends my sensibilities--I'm 99.9% sure I'll marry outside my "religion" (which I personally don't practice seriously, but that doesn't stop people from identifying me as such, but that's another story), but because I humbly recognize that living in a free society (to the fullest extent it can be considered such) doesn't ALWAYS mean, or imply at all, that I can get what I want, any time that I want & from whomever I want. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Blake]

I humbly recognize that living in a free society (to the fullest extent it can be considered such) doesn't ALWAYS mean, or imply at all, that I can get what I want, any time that I want & from whomever I want. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

Right, also meaning bakers open to the public don't always get to discriminate against who they want, when they want.

[mingus]

Right, also meaning bakers open to the public don't always get to discriminate against who they want, when they want.

C'mon man, you're using the word "get" here quite differently than how I used it.

[Blake]

C'mon man, you're using the word "get" here quite differently than how I used it.

It works all the way around. Just because you live in a free society, you're not free to do whatever you want.

Just because you own a business in a free market that's open to the general public, you don't get to always run it the way you want, where you want, and to who you want.

At some point to protect the public and keep our society moving forward, government has to step in. There's no way around it

[mingus]

It works all the way around. Just because you live in a free society, you're not free to do whatever you want.

Just because you own a business in a free market that's open to the general public, you don't get to always run it the way you want, where you want, and to who you want.

At some point to protect the public and keep our society moving forward, government has to step in. There's no way around it

No, what I meant was--and I should've clarified it--is that, in this instance, the baker is being unavoidably & utterly and completely forced to go against his/her conscious every single time. OTOH, the gay couple can--and if they can't this is where I absolutely think govt. intervention is necessary--avoid the obstruction of their freedom buy doing business some place else & with little hassle.

This is due to the equivocal nature of how you/we, differently, used the word "get". You can't "get" discrimination like you can "get" a cake some place. In this instance, you bar a business owner from giving service in accordance with his/her religious beliefs, then they effectively can't avoid having to run their business without a conflict of interests. All such bakers must concede to ALL such gay people (there are no doubt gay people who don't want to live in a "free" society rigged to their benefit). And it's the same vice-versa. BUT, OTOH, gay people can get a cake somewhere else (and 'd wager there are FAR more business who would sell as opposed to wouldn't pretty much anywhere). "Get to" =/= "get". They both mean different things.

[Blake]

No, what I meant was--and I should've clarified it--is that, in this instance, the baker is being unavoidably & utterly and completely forced to go against his/her conscious every single time. OTOH, the gay couple can--and if they can't this is where I absolutely think govt. intervention is necessary--avoid the obstruction of their freedom buy doing business some place else & with little hassle.

This is due to the equivocal nature of how you/we, differently, used the word "get". You can't "get" discrimination like you can "get" a cake some place. In this instance, you bar a business owner from giving service in accordance with his/her religious beliefs, then they effectively can't avoid having to run their business without a conflict of interests. All such bakers must concede to ALL such gay people (there are no doubt gay people who don't want to live in a "free" society rigged to their benefit). And it's the same vice-versa. BUT, OTOH, gay people can get a cake somewhere else (and 'd wager there are FAR more business who would sell as opposed to wouldn't pretty much anywhere). "Get to" =/= "get". They both mean different things.

You're assuming there's a baker nearby that isn't a bigot.

I think it's less of a hassle for a baker to go ahead and treat all members of society equally and just make the cake instead of forcing gays, inbreds and blacks to drive to search around for an equal opportunity baker

[Blake]

This is due to the equivocal nature of how you/we, differently, used the word "get". You can't "get" discrimination like you can "get" a cake some place. In this instance, you bar a business owner from giving service in accordance with his/her religious beliefs, then they effectively can't avoid having to run their business without a conflict of interests. All such bakers must concede to ALL such gay people (there are no doubt gay people who don't want to live in a "free" society rigged to their benefit). And it's the same vice-versa. BUT, OTOH, gay people can get a cake somewhere else (and 'd wager there are FAR more business who would sell as opposed to wouldn't pretty much anywhere). "Get to" =/= "get". They both mean different things.

So in vacuum, you're cool too if Walmart decided to ban blacks based on religious beliefs

[mingus]

You're assuming there's a baker nearby that isn't a bigot.

I think it's less of a hassle for a baker to go ahead and treat all members of society equally and just make the cake instead of forcing gays, inbreds and blacks to drive to search around for an equal opportunity baker

Firstly, I never said anything about race. You brought it up at the very beginning of this thread, and I'll say now as I did before, I don't view interracial marriage as being equivalent to the others seeing how there's both no religious justification for such a believe & race isn't dependent, either in whole or in part, on choice.

As to your point about the hassle involved: there's really no way to quantify in concrete terms how much of a "hassle" it is for a person who has a sincere religious/moral objection to providing this service to go against it. And even if there was, I actually think the opposite of what (I think) you are meaning is true. Because at least for interreligious & gay marriage, I think this particular business is an exception pretty much anywhere in the country. Business owners, especially well-run, well-respected ones, in my experience, don't operate under the pretense of this kind of bigotry. If they do, they'll end up going out of business due to word about its bigoted practices getting to its supplier, who will likely stop doing business with them due to the pressure put on them from by our pre-dominant--and increasingly so--socially liberal cultural.

And I believe myself to be every bit as much a contributer of that cultural as you do. I just see a different means to growing it, in part due to the differences I've discussed here. But also because I don't think govt. coercion in these types of situations is always the best, even if it might be the easiest in the short term, way to mend these types of situations. Because one of the consequence of it is it de-incentivizes, and basically altogether eliminates, people from having to protest bigoted business practices with their mouths & wallets by protecting said business with a guise of acquiescence. The result being your still left with bigots--except in disguise--and bigoted segment of society that thinks it's still okay to be a bigot as long as long as you hide it. I think the prospects of cultural reform & harmony, in this particular case, are better achieved when you leave the govt. out of it, and let the people bring about the change.

[mingus]

So in vacuum, you're cool too if Walmart decided to ban blacks based on religious beliefs

LOL.

No, I wouldn't be alright if the outcome of applying the principle I used in defense of my view on business-marriage, effectively meant that it would ban all/most Arabs, due to the fact that most of them are Muslim. I've stated before that there ARE cases where I believe govt. intervention is what's best. It's not that I'm not principled--it's just that I think pivoting from from time to time on it, and being able to do so on a case by case basis is necessary in order to allow for freedom to fullest extent that it can be achieved.

[Blake]

Firstly, I never said anything about race. You brought it up at the very beginning of this thread, and I'll say now as I did before, I don't view interracial marriage as being equivalent to the others seeing how there's both no religious justification for such a believe & race isn't dependent, either in whole or in part, on choice.

Oh right, I forgot you think being gay is a choice.

Fwiw southern Baptist preachers used the bible as religious justification for segregation