- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
blonde is not a protected class but you are in many protected classes ALL OF US are, they protect us all.
And I was born blonde, but because I'm not in the "protected class", I can be denied service strictly because of the fact that the business owner doesn't want to serve blondes.
This issue has nothing to do with birth.
So what - I don't either but it's a word I hear fairly frequently in my part of the world and is how a bigot commonly refers to homosexuals, which is why I used that term.
OK, so you're not going to address the point. Obviously the work environment I described isn't mythical. It's reality in many areas and an obvious reason why tolerant places like California attract gays from the intolerant 'heartland.' Being gay and out is still committing career suicide in many places. Much of that won't change until attitudes change, but I see no reason for the law to allow for terminations based on race, religion, national origin OR sexual orientation. Maybe you do. If so I disagree.
But let's put it this way. DADT was an institutionalized version of that. If a person was found to be gay, it was grounds for immediate discharge from the armed forces, even for a person with a spotless record, 19 years towards a 20 year retirement.
1) Do you support DADT?
2) Do you support private businesses having a DADT policy?
Heya Helix. :2wave: You did read the Law correct.....where again does it discriminate?
blonde is not a protected class but you are in many protected classes ALL OF US are, they protect us all.
You can tell if someone is gay just by looking at them?
What does DADT have to do with my post? I'm talking about businesses being compelled to serve people who demand that they serve them, or engage in commerce with them, etc.
1.)I know it isn't a protected class. In other words, a baker can refuse to serve me because I'm blonde. A baker can't refuse to serve me because I'm gay.
2.)In other words, businesses can refuse service all day long - and they do.
3.) They just can't do it for a reason that is covered by "protected class".
4.) Being a pubic accommodation has nothing to do with it.
5.) The law doesn't require that anyone and everyone serve the public.
In many cases, of course you can. Maybe not just by "looking at them" but in ordinary conversation and interactions we all provide many clues in a very short time that tell the world who we are. I'm not sure what the point is.
Then take it up with Pence. I'm talking about a much larger issue. You don't see a slippery slope and I do. It has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with being able to walk away from an offer of commerce with anyone who you don't want to do business with, without the government compelling you to accept an offer of commerce with who the laws deem deserving of your work.
And I was born blonde, but because I'm not in the "protected class", I can be denied service strictly because of the fact that the business owner doesn't want to serve blondes.
This issue has nothing to do with birth.
If my kid was gay, I'd love him to death. I have 3 sons and any one of them can be gay for all I know. If my sons were kicked out of a restaurant because the owner didn't want to serve them for any reason, that would bother me. People can kick anyone out of a restaurant. They just can't kick them out and say "I did this because you're (insert protected class here)".
I don't care who is gay and who is straight. I don't care if you want one wife, one same sex partner, or 15 wives. As long as people are of age, they should be able to marry or love who they chose, just as I did, and just as you have. People's preferences of love partners are, IMO, none of my business and none of anyone else's business.
I'm a slippery slope girl. The law is on a slippery slope here. I've already used some examples. Because people don't want to debate without name calling, people assume I'm being anti-gay.
read up :
Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation
What the 'religious freedom' law really means for Indiana
so, do you personally support letting restaurant owners kick out gay people? how about black people?
it has everything to do with birth. did you choose to be straight like you chose your hair color? do you think you could choose to be gay today if you wanted to? are you actually equating sexual orientation with something as trivial as hair color?
You've said that before, but the problem is the people pushing for the RFRA laws do care, and they are public and proud of that, and they want to make who they love and marry and have sex with their business. It took a divided SC to overturn laws that make consensual sex a criminal act. That's who the LGBT community is going against and that other side isn't shy about stating their goals or their unqualified opposition to the "homosexual agenda."
Not necessarily, just willing to accept denying gays and others equal treatment in the marketplace, so presumably you'd support Jim Crow policies (not the laws but businesses hanging "Whites Only" signs) with no regard to how those policies cemented blacks in the South as second class citizens in practice. It's more naive than anything IMO.
Where does it say it can discriminate?
This ignorance of the law was exuded during the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Also, it’s worth noting (again) that RFRA isn’t a “blank check” to discriminate.
Here’s RFRA:
(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Here’s Indiana’s law:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest......snip~
Oh Dear: The Liberal Hysteria Over Indiana
Blacks and gays are not the same kind of discrimination. Blacks largely cannot walk into a business that doesn't serve blacks and get away with it. A gay person can walk into a business that discriminates against gays and be served because while they may choose to act a certain way or say things to reveal their sexuality, nobody is going to 100% know they are gay like they would a black person, especially since pretty much everybody who doesn't live a a cave or a small town knows guys who are super fem or women who are very butch who are straight.
If you can find a post from me where I said anything about being gay or straight being a choice, your post would be relevant. But since I never did, I have no clue whatsoever why you posted this.
You kept bringing up "birth" and "choice" in your posts to me. They have nothing to do with what I'm posting about, which is businesses. But since you seem to think I believe being gay or straight is a choice, I'll tell you now how wrong you are. I never said that, never implied it, and as a matter of fact, never even thought it.
Employment is a part of commerce. And DADT (either explicit like the military or implicit such as exists in many businesses) is exactly the environment that you either support or don't. If you'd rather not take your conclusions to somewhere that you find uncomfortable or aren't willing to defend, maybe rethink your conclusions.
If you can find a post from me where I said anything about being gay or straight being a choice, your post would be relevant. But since I never did, I have no clue whatsoever why you posted this.
You kept bringing up "birth" and "choice" in your posts to me. They have nothing to do with what I'm posting about, which is businesses. But since you seem to think I believe being gay or straight is a choice, I'll tell you now how wrong you are. I never said that, never implied it, and as a matter of fact, never even thought it.
I don't agree with special exemptions for religious claims either. That's my entire argument. Nobody should be getting special treatment or the right to comply or deny service - on either side.
Either serve everyone, or do what you suggested here (which is a good suggestion, BTW).
ok, we agree that it's not a choice. do we also agree that a restaurant owner shouldn't be able to kick out a gay man for being gay any more than he should be allowed to kick a black man out for being black?
many conservatives are scrambling to defend this piece of **** bill, and it's sad. read up again :
A Pagan Lawyer’s Take on Indiana’s “Religious Right to Discriminate Law”
But it's okay to kick me out because I'm blonde, or because I smell like cigarettes, or because I pick my nose at the table, or because he doesn't feel like serving me, or because I look like the teenager who broke his heart, or because my brother took his place on the basketball team, or because......the list goes on endlessly.
Either make it a rule that he has to serve everyone, or know that the market will ferret out people who have stupid business models.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?