Pennsylvania borough set to repeal LGBT protections 4 months after passing them

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
If it for example says " no person shall" must every possible person be named?

Im left handed Asian lesbian.
But ostensibly a person.
No. Classes are protected, not individuals. For example it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. The type of religion is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,955.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe in discrimination because of race because it's senseless. Truth is, no one can tell race for sure by looking at someone anyway. But we aren't talking about discrimination, but practicality. At least that's what I'm talking about. You are off on some rant to make everything about hate.
You should be able to choose people based on their behavior and dress codes that you set, however. That's just common sense. If someone is the kind of tenant who is going to parade around in women's underwear it makes people understandably uncomfortable. If they are going to shout religious slogans in the faces of people, that would be a consideration too. Would you rent to Westboro Baptists?

So someone who is gay is going to 'parade around in women's underwear'? Therefore, no gays allowed? And someone who is a Catholic is going to shout religious slogans over the back fence? Good grief...

And you have the temerity to say that you don't believe in discrimination but then pigeonhole two groups of people with farcical stereotypes and suggest I could turn them away because of that. Ye gods, that's what discrimination is. You're doing exactly what you say you reject.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So someone who is gay is going to 'parade around in women's underwear'? Therefore, no gays allowed? And someone who is a Catholic is going to shout religious slogans over the back fence? Good grief...

And you have the temerity to say that you don't believe in discrimination but then pigeonhole two groups of people with farcical stereotypes and suggest I could turn them away because of that. Ye gods, that's what discrimination is. You're doing exactly what you say you reject.
You didn't even read my post. I never said anything about Catholics shouting slogans.
And of course, men who claim to be women parade around in women's clothes.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
You didn't even read my post. I never said anything about Catholics shouting slogans.
And of course, men who claim to be women parade around in women's clothes.

Not to mention how these so-called LGBTLMNOP "anti-discrimination" laws discriminate against women by allowing men to legally expose themselves to women and children in women's dressing and locker rooms.

It's blatant discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination, just like so much of what other deviant behavior radical leftists are trying to push onto normal society.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,955.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You didn't even read my post. I never said anything about Catholics shouting slogans.
And of course, men who claim to be women parade around in women's clothes.

You seem not to realise that the arguments you suggested I could legitimately use to prevent someone renting my property were the exact ones that someone who wanted to discriminate against gay people or Christians would use. There are no valid reasons, so people make up negative stereotypes and use that to justify their bigoted position.

'Is Joe?'
'Are you kidding. The priest? I'm not having anyone at my house shouting religious slogans all afternoon'.

That's a legitimate argument as far as you're concerned.

Welcome to Bizarro world.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,955.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Not to mention how these so-called LGBTLMNOP "anti-discrimination" laws discriminate against women by allowing men to legally expose themselves to women and children in women's dressing and locker rooms.

It's blatant discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination, just like so much of what other deviant behavior radical leftists are trying to push onto normal society.

You missed your calling in the law. 'If a man exposes himself in a female toilet, then you can legitimately refuse to rent your house to a gay person'.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And of course, men who claim to be women parade around in women's clothes.
There's a pretty significant difference between "parading around in women's underwear" (what you originally wrote) and "parading around in women's clothes". It's generally considered impolite to parade around in your underwear, regardless of your gender or the gender that the underwear was marketed to. However, I don't see what's so offensive about a man wearing a dress. Cross-dressers exist too, and they may not necessarily be trans - just men who like to wear women's clothing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It is. So why pass more laws saying the same thing
Because such laws don't exist in Pennsylvania, at least covering members of the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court ruled that gender identity and sexual preference were included under "sex" in the Equal Employment Clause of the Civil Rights Act, so that protection exists for now, but since it isn't explicitly stated in the law, that ruling could potentially be overturned. And since the ruling was written narrowly, it does not extend those same protections to housing or public accommodations.

The complaints by the city councilman in the article ring a bit hollow. You could make somewhat of an argument that the employment protection is redundant because of the above, but as I already pointed out, the law as written does not currently afford any explicit protection to the LGBTQ community. And the rest is clearly not redundant as no Pennsylvania or federal laws prohibit housing or public accommodation discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity. He says that it should be a state law - that's fine. But it isn't a state law yet. Should it become state law, then it would make sense for Chambersburg to repeal their local ordinance, but there's no reason to do so before that point. He says that it lacks any teeth - that's fine. So then why get rid of it rather than giving it teeth?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
It is. So why pass more laws saying the same thing

Because classes are not automatically protected. Classes that are protected have to be defined by law (or the constitution). Before the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities were not a protected class (federally). And the law specifically excludes certain 'disabilities' from protection (e.g. kleptomania and pedophilia).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You seem not to realise that the arguments you suggested I could legitimately use to prevent someone renting my property were the exact ones that someone who wanted to discriminate against gay people or Christians would use. There are no valid reasons, so people make up negative stereotypes and use that to justify their bigoted position.

'Is Joe?'
'Are you kidding. The priest? I'm not having anyone at my house shouting religious slogans all afternoon'.

That's a legitimate argument as far as you're concerned.

Welcome to Bizarro world.
If you hear Joe shouting at people and don't like his behavior, it's a legitimate reason to not allow him to live on your property. It's got nothing to do with his religion per say. I was a landlord once for about a month or so. Terrible mistake. People trash the house and the sheriff said we can not kick them out. Why? Because of stupid laws. Bad behavior should be allowed to be " discriminated" against.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's a pretty significant difference between "parading around in women's underwear" (what you originally wrote) and "parading around in women's clothes". It's generally considered impolite to parade around in your underwear, regardless of your gender or the gender that the underwear was marketed to. However, I don't see what's so offensive about a man wearing a dress. Cross-dressers exist too, and they may not necessarily be trans - just men who like to wear women's clothing.
I'm not concerned about what you find offensive.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,955.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If you hear Joe shouting at people and don't like his behavior, it's a legitimate reason to not allow him to live on your property.

It's noted that you're sliding away from your original position. Now it's not necessarily what group someone belongs to (Christians, gay people, black people), it's what individuals do. But just because you don't want, quite reasonably, to have someone shouting religious slogans over your fence and annoying your neighbours, it's completely unreasonable to therefore say you're not going to allow any Christians to rent your place. Likewise it's not unreasonable to not have people walking around your garden in their underwear. But utterly unreasonable to therefore say that you can therefore discriminate against gay people.

Discrimination laws are put in place precisely to prevent people using these type of arguments. Your type of arguments. Which is using negative stereotypes and one off incidents to demean an entire group of people. "Gee, they exhibit themselves in women's toilets and walk around in female underwear so it's ok to say 'no gays allowed'."

That's what some think is a considered and reasonable argument? It's shameful. It's the very basis of bigotry.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Because classes are not automatically protected. Classes that are protected have to be defined by law (or the constitution). Before the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities were not a protected class (federally). And the law specifically excludes certain 'disabilities' from protection (e.g. kleptomania and pedophilia).
Ah ok

Inscrutable americans
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Because such laws don't exist in Pennsylvania, at least covering members of the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court ruled that gender identity and sexual preference were included under "sex" in the Equal Employment Clause of the Civil Rights Act, so that protection exists for now, but since it isn't explicitly stated in the law, that ruling could potentially be overturned. And since the ruling was written narrowly, it does not extend those same protections to housing or public accommodations.

The complaints by the city councilman in the article ring a bit hollow. You could make somewhat of an argument that the employment protection is redundant because of the above, but as I already pointed out, the law as written does not currently afford any explicit protection to the LGBTQ community. And the rest is clearly not redundant as no Pennsylvania or federal laws prohibit housing or public accommodation discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity. He says that it should be a state law - that's fine. But it isn't a state law yet. Should it become state law, then it would make sense for Chambersburg to repeal their local ordinance, but there's no reason to do so before that point. He says that it lacks any teeth - that's fine. So then why get rid of it rather than giving it teeth?
Sounds like good reason.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's noted that you're sliding away from your original position. Now it's not necessarily what group someone belongs to (Christians, gay people, black people), it's what individuals do. But just because you don't want, quite reasonably, to have someone shouting religious slogans over your fence and annoying your neighbours, it's completely unreasonable to therefore say you're not going to allow any Christians to rent your place. Likewise it's not unreasonable to not have people walking around your garden in their underwear. But utterly unreasonable to therefore say that you can therefore discriminate against gay people.

Discrimination laws are put in place precisely to prevent people using these type of arguments. Your type of arguments. Which is using negative stereotypes and one off incidents to demean an entire group of people. "Gee, they exhibit themselves in women's toilets and walk around in female underwear so it's ok to say 'no gays allowed'."

That's what some think is a considered and reasonable argument? It's shameful. It's the very basis of bigotry.
So... you are arguing against something I never said first off. But you do know that " gay" is a behavior not a race, correct?
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So... you are arguing against something I never said first off. But you do know that " gay" is a behavior not a race, correct?
"Gay" is no more a behavior than "straight". All it describes is who a person is sexually attracted to.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,702
10,601
71
Bondi
✟248,955.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So... you are arguing against something I never said first off. But you do know that " gay" is a behavior not a race, correct?

This is what you actually said:

'If someone is the kind of tenant who is going to parade around in women's underwear it makes people understandably uncomfortable. If they are going to shout religious slogans in the faces of people, that would be a consideration too.'

That was specifically used in relation to what I said about someone saying that christians or gays were not allowed to rent. You used a negative stereotype to justify religious and sexual discrimination. I mean, for heaven's sake - it's there in your post for all to see.

And 'gay is a behaviour'? Then I guess 'straight' is a behaviour as well? It's like saying that 'someone who prefers blondes' is a behaviour. Madness...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums