Gay Republicans; feeling the love?

[Fishking]

Well, no, statist loving liberals since the CRA in the 1960s don't like arbitrary discrimination against disfavored minorities in the markets or labor force, which is why I can't remember any efforts to repeal the CRA and public accommodation laws in general. The only disputes are whether the gays should be protected like Christians and Jews and blacks.

I think that's a view shared by pretty much all demographics in the U.S. (conservative, liberal) except for reality-challenged libertarians.

I don't favor trampling over private property rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of association just to push certain social changes. Not that wanting discrimination to end is bad but it's the road to hell paved with good intentions type of thing. I support the CRA and such, 100%, for regulating the government (e.g. the military).

Think about it, freedom of speech is defined by allowing unpopular speech to occur. If you only allow acceptable speech, then you don't have freedom of speech.

Private property rights is the very bedrock of almost any freedom out there and it is one of the most trampled upon rights. It should then be no surprise when the government oversteps in other areas.

 

[CLAX1911]

The right not to be forced to violate your faith.

If it violates your faith to serve customers because of what they are and not what they want that is your problem. If it violates your faith to serve black people you aren't going to have a business.

For example, I do not - and should not - have the right to force a Muslim chef to make me pork chops, as that violates his faith.

That is actually a poor example. They aren't being refused because they want a product that the company doesn't serve. They are being refused for what they are. It's no different than having a white only business.

The Law should not allow me to target Muslims by taking advantage of their religious beliefs in that manner.

The law doesn't allow people to target Christians in that manner either, not anywhere.

The law in Indiana would give people special privileges to violate law if they claim they're doing it for religious reasons.

 

[JasperL]

I don't favor trampling over private property rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of association just to push certain social changes. Not that wanting discrimination to end is bad but it's the road to hell paved with good intentions type of thing. I support the CRA and such, 100%, for regulating the government (e.g. the military).

If you support Title II of the CRA, you're a "statist loving liberal" who favors laws prohibiting discrimination against protected classes.

Think about it, freedom of speech is defined by allowing unpopular speech to occur. If you only allow acceptable speech, then you don't have freedom of speech.

The CRA (and the Indiana law, as amended) didn't affect unpopular speech at all - they dealt with acts of discrimination - denying goods or services based on race, color, religion, national origin. All we're discussing is whether those protections should be extended to LGBT or explicitly denied them, as the Indiana law effectively did.

Private property rights is the very bedrock of almost any freedom out there and it is one of the most trampled upon rights. It should then be no surprise when the government oversteps in other areas.

Private property rights aren't absolute, and you can disagree, obviously, that businesses that open their door to the public should be able to freely discriminate for any reason or no reason, but that's not been the law for over 50 years now.

 

[SheWolf]

Yeah. Money > Freedom.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I think I remember you arguing the businesses would have desegregated themselves because they would have realized they had greater financial interest to serve everybody.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ha! Well I know you are being sarcastic and unfortunately there are some people that feel that way but we both know that's not the case. Christianity doesn't give me any special rights, I have the same as everybody else and my ability to discriminate against any item of choice is based on the law and rights of others. My personal religions doesn't change that, what is illegal discrimination for a non christian is the same as it is for a christian. Yes some people don't understand that, no matter what group they associate with.

I'm glad you caught onto my sarcasm. Sometimes I'm bad at letting people know I'm being sarcastic.

I really think they believe there is merit behind their argument. I don't know why. People used the exact same attunement to justify discrimination against Jewish people, women, black people, the Irish, interracial couples and so forth. It's lost every tone

 

[LaylaWindu]

I'm glad you caught onto my sarcasm. Sometimes I'm bad at letting people know I'm being sarcastic.

I really think they believe there is merit behind their argument. I don't know why. People used the exact same attunement to justify discrimination against Jewish people, women, black people, the Irish, interracial couples and so forth. It's lost every tone

That's the part the confuses me too . . these "arguments" have been tried many times. They always fail and have been proven wrong. The only thing left that seems logical is that people simply want to shroud their bigotry and or want to discriminate in some other illusion. The problem for them is a quick look at history, test of logic, a look at our rights and the law and it doesn't hold up at all on any front.

 

[disneydude]

Because statist-loving liberals don't like people practicing freedom if it contradicts their own beliefs?

Sorry but obtaining a business license does not give anyone the right to disregard the laws and practice discrimination against people that they think are "icky". These bigots know nothing about the man they pretend to worship. They pervert his name and take it in vain.

 

[disneydude]

The right not to be forced to violate your faith. For example, I do not - and should not - have the right to force a Muslim chef to make me pork chops, as that violates his faith. The Law should not allow me to target Muslims by taking advantage of their religious beliefs in that manner.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

God I am so tired of this lame argument. It fails on so many levels. This is nothing like forcing a Muslim chef to make you pork chops. The CORRECT analogy would be a Muslim Chef refusing to cook something for you that is on the menu because he thinks you are "icky". Doh!

 

[disneydude]

You're freedom to discriminate against people apparntly. It seems to be all Christianity is about

Not TRUE Christianity. Only the perverted version.

 

[cpwill]

God I am so tired of this lame argument. It fails on so many levels. This is nothing like forcing a Muslim chef to make you pork chops. The CORRECT analogy would be a Muslim Chef refusing to cook something for you that is on the menu because he thinks you are "icky". Doh!

...no. Though there are places where that might happen (a strict Islamist male refusing to serve a woman or a woman refusing to serve a man, for example).

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Absentglare]

I don't favor trampling over private property rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of association just to push certain social changes. Not that wanting discrimination to end is bad but it's the road to hell paved with good intentions type of thing. I support the CRA and such, 100%, for regulating the government (e.g. the military).

Think about it, freedom of speech is defined by allowing unpopular speech to occur. If you only allow acceptable speech, then you don't have freedom of speech.

Private property rights is the very bedrock of almost any freedom out there and it is one of the most trampled upon rights. It should then be no surprise when the government oversteps in other areas.

In other words, you never favor restricting freedoms, and you don't understand how anti-discrimination laws protect our freedoms, so the end result is that you want to trample over these freedoms based on your inability to understand them.

A public accommodation is not speech. You lose the right to associate however you like when you make it a public accommodation. Don't like it ? Keep it private, and you can have your "freedom" to maintain whatever discrimination you want.

 

[Absentglare]

...no. Though there are places where that might happen (a strict Islamist male refusing to serve a woman or a woman refusing to serve a man, for example).

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

This is what we call grasping at straws.

I cannot walk into any random restaurant, demand pork, and then sue when it isn't provided.

 

[Fishking]

In other words, you never favor restricting freedoms, and you don't understand how anti-discrimination laws protect our freedoms, so the end result is that you want to trample over these freedoms based on your inability to understand them.

A public accommodation is not speech. You lose the right to associate however you like when you make it a public accommodation. Don't like it ? Keep it private, and you can have your "freedom" to maintain whatever discrimination you want.

There is no right to other people's property. That's a fabrication. Other people's property belongs to them and them alone. There is no violation of freedom on the part of a private business discriminating against someone.

Please point to me where in the Constitution is says that you have all of these freedoms until you open up a business, then all of that goes out the window.

 

[Fishking]

I don't think you understood what you read.

If you support Title II of the CRA, you're a "statist loving liberal" who favors laws prohibiting discrimination against protected classes.

I support the CRA so long as it's regulating the government itself. I don't support its regulating private citizens.

The CRA (and the Indiana law, as amended) didn't affect unpopular speech at all - they dealt with acts of discrimination - denying goods or services based on race, color, religion, national origin. All we're discussing is whether those protections should be extended to LGBT or explicitly denied them, as the Indiana law effectively did.

That was an analogy to demonstrate how you do not have a freedom if they simply only let you use it under government approved reasons. Like I stated, freedom of speech is defined by allowing things like hate speech. Similarly, property rights and the freedom of association only exists if you have control of how you dispense with your property and who you deal or associate with. If you are forced into transactions with people then you do not actually have freedom of association. I could see an argument to be made if there was an actual conflict in freedoms, where one person doing something harms or violates the freedoms of another. This isn't the case here.

Private property rights aren't absolute, and you can disagree, obviously, that businesses that open their door to the public should be able to freely discriminate for any reason or no reason, but that's not been the law for over 50 years now.

It may have been the law for 50 years but laws change all the time. Your very statement proves the point by this particular one only being around a few decades.

 

[JasperL]

...no. Though there are places where that might happen (a strict Islamist male refusing to serve a woman or a woman refusing to serve a man, for example).

Sure, so waiting in restaurants that serves women is probably not a good career choice for a "strict Islamist male." You can't be suggesting employers would have to accommodate such a belief, I don't think. And if the business doesn't serve women/Christians/blacks/Iranians etc. but is open to the public, I'd think federal law would already prohibit that.

And perhaps more to the point, Pence's concessions forfeiting 'freedom' for money essentially did nothing more than give the gays the same protections that you get as a Christian or that are provided to everyone based on race, color, national origin, religion, etc. Had nothing to do with men serving women or vice versa. It really was just about the gays - at least the concessions that you oppose.

 

[Fishking]

Sorry but obtaining a business license does not give anyone the right to disregard the laws and practice discrimination against people that they think are "icky". These bigots know nothing about the man they pretend to worship. They pervert his name and take it in vain.

You have that exactly backwards. First of all, the government has no right to limit someone's ability to open a business, so long as they are not causing harm to someone else or their property. Secondly, you already have the right to discriminate. You don't "lose" your right simply because you decide to make your private property a place of free and voluntary transactions.

Finally, whether they pervert the message of their various faiths is irrelevant. The problem is that there shouldn't even need to be a law passed to allow such things. These rights already exist via the Constitution but it's been perverted so much that people don't even know how to properly look at the issue. This goes back to people thinking that freedoms and liberties are only things that agree with their own personal morality.

The people complaining about these laws are the biggest hypocrites out there. You will complain and rage against laws and actions that limit same sex marriage because you don't agree with that moral code but then you use the law to enforce your own morality. In other words, no legs to stand on here.

 

[Absentglare]

There is no right to other people's property. That's a fabrication. Other people's property belongs to them and them alone. There is no violation of freedom on the part of a private business discriminating against someone.

Please point to me where in the Constitution is says that you have all of these freedoms until you open up a business, then all of that goes out the window.

Nobody claims right to property or labor.

If you choose to sell your labor, then you might be obligated to provide your labor. In fact, this is the ideal situation for a business to be in: to have buying customers.

You don't give up your freedoms once you open a business, but having a business requires compliance with business law. If one is unable to comply with business law, it is not the state's responsibility to change the law to accommodate the business, especially when doing so would restrict the freedoms of otherwise potential customers in the public.

 

[JasperL]

I don't think you understood what you read.

I support the CRA so long as it's regulating the government itself. I don't support its regulating private citizens.

I simply misread it.

That was an analogy to demonstrate how you do not have a freedom if they simply only let you use it under government approved reasons. Like I stated, freedom of speech is defined by allowing things like hate speech. Similarly, property rights and the freedom of association only exists if you have control of how you dispense with your property and who you deal or associate with. If you are forced into transactions with people then you do not actually have freedom of association. I could see an argument to be made if there was an actual conflict in freedoms, where one person doing something harms or violates the freedoms of another. This isn't the case here.

It's hard to believe you would assert a black man in Alabama was as 'free' as a white man when he couldn't apply for or be considered for many jobs, eat in many restaurants, even attend the vast majority of good schools, public or private, was turned away from many hotels, etc. There's a good reason you didn't and do not have members of disfavored minorities making this argument.

All you're really doing is asserting as a conclusion that property owners have an unfettered right to serve who they want, and therefore since no one has a right to service, there can be no loss of freedom. But that argument ignores how these things work in reality and treats denial of service for arbitrary reasons as a neutral act. It's not - it's an act of hate or intolerance or bigotry and does or did real harm to real people. At BEST you can argue that the harm to private property rights is worth protecting despite this known harm to those on the receiving end of arbitrary discrimination, but you cannot pretend that those harms do not exist and just hand wave them away as irrelevant or unimportant.

It may have been the law for 50 years but laws change all the time. Your very statement proves the point by this particular one only being around a few decades.

They can be changed, but as I said earlier, there has been no support for those changes, not with liberals or conservatives.

 

[Fishking]

Nobody claims right to property or labor.

If you choose to sell your labor, then you might be obligated to provide your labor. In fact, this is the ideal situation for a business to be in: to have buying customers.

Of course someone is claiming the rights to someone else's property and labor. That's what happens when they get refused and then they bring a law suit against the person and use the law to force them.

There is no constitutional or logical reasoning behind the abdication of rights if you open a business. Now, I agree that an ideal business would run things in a manner that brings in the most $$. Of course, there are ideologies and beliefs that run contrary to that. For example, do you look down on a business that could acquire a widget cheaper from a Chinese company but goes with a U.S. company instead? How about a company that pays their workers higher than market wages or provides greater benefits than what they would need? Are you going to look down on them for that? The reality is is that you only criticize a business that doesn't maximize profits if their reasons disagree with your own ideology.

You don't give up your freedoms once you open a business, but having a business requires compliance with business law. If one is unable to comply with business law, it is not the state's responsibility to change the law to accommodate the business, especially when doing so would restrict the freedoms of otherwise potential customers in the public.

This statement is contradictory. You say you don't give up your freedoms once you open a business but then say that you have to comply to laws that violate those very freedoms. Again, please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you give up your rights if your private property is a business.

 

[JasperL]

You have that exactly backwards. First of all, the government has no right to limit someone's ability to open a business, so long as they are not causing harm to someone else or their property. Secondly, you already have the right to discriminate. You don't "lose" your right simply because you decide to make your private property a place of free and voluntary transactions.

Well the law and the courts disagree with you about that right to discriminate based on race, religion, etc.

Finally, whether they pervert the message of their various faiths is irrelevant. The problem is that there shouldn't even need to be a law passed to allow such things. These rights already exist via the Constitution but it's been perverted so much that people don't even know how to properly look at the issue. This goes back to people thinking that freedoms and liberties are only things that agree with their own personal morality.

Your personal morality holds that private property rights are inviolate. The country through its laws does not agree.

The people complaining about these laws are the biggest hypocrites out there. You will complain and rage against laws and actions that limit same sex marriage because you don't agree with that moral code but then you use the law to enforce your own morality. In other words, no legs to stand on here.

So prohibiting same sex marriage isn't enforcing someone's morality, but pushing for allowing consenting same sex adults to marry is? How does that work?

Perhaps you're referring to public accommodation laws that protect same sex couples like they protect Jews and blacks and Christians. If so, people aren't really enforcing their morality but enforcing the law as it is, not how you'd like the laws to be.

 

[kamikaze483]

This is probably the worst week in recent memory to be gay and a member of the GOP. Not only did Trump pick antigay Governor Pence, who dragged his own state's name through the mud just to advance a blatant anti gay law, as his VP but the GOP passed one of the most anti gay platforms in modern history! It even supported conversion therapy which has been outright rejected by the medical community and is opposed by a super majority of Americans! Apparently protection of children from discredited and unpopular quack medicine is now encroachment of big bad government. :roll:

I have a theory that gay Republicans are really just masochists who get off on being denied even the tiniest amount of respect or recognition by their political affiliates.

I am a gay person and will be voting Republican. Comments like this demonstrate that even liberals try to force gay people into a box of their own making. Contrary to popular belief, there are more issues in a gay person's life than the government's stance on gay rights. We own businesses, have investments, are concerned about foreign policy, gas prices, corruption within the government.

What the government thinks of me is, quite literally, the least of my concern.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Well the law and the courts disagree with you about that right to discriminate based on race, religion, etc.



Your personal morality holds that private property rights are inviolate. The country through its laws does not agree.



So prohibiting same sex marriage isn't enforcing someone's morality, but pushing for allowing consenting same sex adults to marry is? How does that work?

Perhaps you're referring to public accommodation laws that protect same sex couples like they protect Jews and blacks and Christians. If so, people aren't really enforcing their morality but enforcing the law as it is, not how you'd like the laws to be.

Sometimes a person's ability to deny the facts your pointed out is pretty staggering. I've been on a lot of boards and I have never seen anybody be able to support claims of force and claims about right to others property. They always fail.

 

[CriticalThought]

I am a gay person and will be voting Republican. Comments like this demonstrate that even liberals try to force gay people into a box of their own making. Contrary to popular belief, there are more issues in a gay person's life than the government's stance on gay rights. We own businesses, have investments, are concerned about foreign policy, gas prices, corruption within the government.

What the government thinks of me is, quite literally, the least of my concern.

Isn't wonderful though? I don't fault you at all for your economic and foreign policy views but in order to move in that direction, you have to ally yourself with people who hate you. And lets not kid ourselves, they loath you and many see you as equitable to a child molester. You absolutely should be able to vote your conscience on much more important issues than gay rights without being chained to a group that doesn't even acknowledge you exist beyond viewing you as a sodomite.

 

[CLAX1911]

That's the part the confuses me too . . these "arguments" have been tried many times. They always fail and have been proven wrong. The only thing left that seems logical is that people simply want to shroud their bigotry and or want to discriminate in some other illusion. The problem for them is a quick look at history, test of logic, a look at our rights and the law and it doesn't hold up at all on any front.

Alas, the difference between genus and insanity.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course someone is claiming the rights to someone else's property and labor. That's what happens when they get refused and then they bring a law suit against the person and use the law to force them.

There is no constitutional or logical reasoning behind the abdication of rights if you open a business. Now, I agree that an ideal business would run things in a manner that brings in the most $$. Of course, there are ideologies and beliefs that run contrary to that. For example, do you look down on a business that could acquire a widget cheaper from a Chinese company but goes with a U.S. company instead? How about a company that pays their workers higher than market wages or provides greater benefits than what they would need? Are you going to look down on them for that? The reality is is that you only criticize a business that doesn't maximize profits if their reasons disagree with your own ideology.



This statement is contradictory. You say you don't give up your freedoms once you open a business but then say that you have to comply to laws that violate those very freedoms. Again, please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you give up your rights if your private property is a business.

Opening a business to the public is offering an open contract to the public. Violating that legal obligation by refusing service in violation of the law of the land is, in fact, the store owner taking the rights away from a potential consumer. The owner has the right to sell goods, they are inhibiting their own freedom to more profits in the process.

What this discrimination outlines is a divisive force where virtually everybody is worse off. There is no valid justification for legalizing such discrimination, only ridiculous arguments that both emphasize one person's freedom and marginalize the public's freedom.