Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
American Atheists comment on Washington Florist case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SimplyMe" data-source="post: 73000404" data-attributes="member: 9588"><p>I'm not sure how important these distinctions are, though they do tend to support my idea that homosexuals were discriminated against -- for whatever reason -- and so the government (at least in some cities and states, and to a limited extend on the federal level) felt the need to extend protections toward them.</p><p></p><p>It seems your also using this as an argument to claim that these protections are no longer needed, as many of these "memes" have been debunked. First, there is the issue that many still believe many of these memes -- for example, you'll find threads here where people argue the homosexuals are pedophiles meme.</p><p></p><p>But even if that wasn't the case, even if no one still believed these memes, the fact remains that we still see plenty of examples of gays being discriminated against -- and likely the vast majority go unreported, particularly in those states and localities that have no protections for gays. As other stories here show, by complaining, these gays tend to open themselves up to further harassment (particularly from people who agree with the business doing the discriminating).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I find this irrelevant. You could just as easily make the argument that adulterers are all Communists but that doesn't really fit either, despite the facts that Communists would blackmail adulterers into working for them.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Except there have always been the standard "stereotypes," such as the effeminate man or the butch woman -- and people (even if not homosexual) would frequently be discriminated against because they seemed to exhibit those traits. And it ignores the idea of a homosexual couple not being able to be "together" in public.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I would say you are being naive here. You are trying to claim that a group despised enough to get "beaten and murdered," with law enforcement often looking the other way, does not effect a persons, who belongs to that class, ability to live their life; that they aren't going to face a lot of other forms of discrimination in their lives?</p><p></p><p>Beyond that, I did address the idea that they did face discrimination in trying to find housing or even to buy at the retail level. Again, that is the reason that the "gay ghettos" exist today.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd say that is your opinion as to the job of government. I would say in the US we've gotten to the point, at least back in the 1960's (with the Civil Rights Act), where the idea was that government is there to protect people, including their ability to fully participate in society. And don't bother trying to show that the government isn't perfect at it, or that it doesn't protect everyone "equally" -- the idea here is more that it is an ideal, a goal.</p><p></p><p>I think there is a debate to be had about how far these protections should extend. I mean we currently have another thread on the board where a lesbian couple was denied housing. There was one, though it was a while ago, about a gay couple denied landscaping services, you have this thread about a florist. Additionally, there is an issue with how you construct a law which protects people from discrimination, while, at the same time, not putting an undue burden on businesses. </p><p></p><p>The issue being, as soon as you start carving out exemptions, such as a businesses not being required to make items for "events" (such as weddings); history shows us that some owners will start trying to abuse that exemption, such as claiming they only bake for "events" -- even if it is just (to use the baker again) an "event" to celebrate a Monday night at home or something equally nonsensical.</p><p></p><p>The other side is, these are businesses being required to provide services. Again, an argument can be made that perhaps there should be protections for sole proprietorships or family run businesses, to protect the business owner's beliefs. But, particularly for businesses with multiple employees, we have laws to try and protect employee's beliefs -- for example, where while a business would need to bake the cake for the gay wedding, they would give the cake to an employee who doesn't feel like it violates his beliefs. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And while sad, this seems to, again, you trying to muddy the issues. Again, Civil Rights laws are to protect groups who have traditionally faced discrimination that limit there ability to participate in society. If your fried was gay, the law would do nothing to "force" him into society, or to solve his issues, that it does today. Civil Rights laws attempt to make it so that society does not prevent, or create artificial obstacles, people being able to be able to participate in society. But the laws are from the other side -- they open up society so these people can participate -- they do not force people to participate in this society being opened to them, much less provide help or incentive to participate.</p><p></p><p>Now, if we were talking about arguments for universal healthcare, then this story would likely become relevant -- that this person you know could get the medical (psychiatric) help to enable him to help him cope (and possibly in someways heal) from the years of abuse. But it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, at least directly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SimplyMe, post: 73000404, member: 9588"] I'm not sure how important these distinctions are, though they do tend to support my idea that homosexuals were discriminated against -- for whatever reason -- and so the government (at least in some cities and states, and to a limited extend on the federal level) felt the need to extend protections toward them. It seems your also using this as an argument to claim that these protections are no longer needed, as many of these "memes" have been debunked. First, there is the issue that many still believe many of these memes -- for example, you'll find threads here where people argue the homosexuals are pedophiles meme. But even if that wasn't the case, even if no one still believed these memes, the fact remains that we still see plenty of examples of gays being discriminated against -- and likely the vast majority go unreported, particularly in those states and localities that have no protections for gays. As other stories here show, by complaining, these gays tend to open themselves up to further harassment (particularly from people who agree with the business doing the discriminating). And I find this irrelevant. You could just as easily make the argument that adulterers are all Communists but that doesn't really fit either, despite the facts that Communists would blackmail adulterers into working for them. Except there have always been the standard "stereotypes," such as the effeminate man or the butch woman -- and people (even if not homosexual) would frequently be discriminated against because they seemed to exhibit those traits. And it ignores the idea of a homosexual couple not being able to be "together" in public. And I would say you are being naive here. You are trying to claim that a group despised enough to get "beaten and murdered," with law enforcement often looking the other way, does not effect a persons, who belongs to that class, ability to live their life; that they aren't going to face a lot of other forms of discrimination in their lives? Beyond that, I did address the idea that they did face discrimination in trying to find housing or even to buy at the retail level. Again, that is the reason that the "gay ghettos" exist today. I'd say that is your opinion as to the job of government. I would say in the US we've gotten to the point, at least back in the 1960's (with the Civil Rights Act), where the idea was that government is there to protect people, including their ability to fully participate in society. And don't bother trying to show that the government isn't perfect at it, or that it doesn't protect everyone "equally" -- the idea here is more that it is an ideal, a goal. I think there is a debate to be had about how far these protections should extend. I mean we currently have another thread on the board where a lesbian couple was denied housing. There was one, though it was a while ago, about a gay couple denied landscaping services, you have this thread about a florist. Additionally, there is an issue with how you construct a law which protects people from discrimination, while, at the same time, not putting an undue burden on businesses. The issue being, as soon as you start carving out exemptions, such as a businesses not being required to make items for "events" (such as weddings); history shows us that some owners will start trying to abuse that exemption, such as claiming they only bake for "events" -- even if it is just (to use the baker again) an "event" to celebrate a Monday night at home or something equally nonsensical. The other side is, these are businesses being required to provide services. Again, an argument can be made that perhaps there should be protections for sole proprietorships or family run businesses, to protect the business owner's beliefs. But, particularly for businesses with multiple employees, we have laws to try and protect employee's beliefs -- for example, where while a business would need to bake the cake for the gay wedding, they would give the cake to an employee who doesn't feel like it violates his beliefs. And while sad, this seems to, again, you trying to muddy the issues. Again, Civil Rights laws are to protect groups who have traditionally faced discrimination that limit there ability to participate in society. If your fried was gay, the law would do nothing to "force" him into society, or to solve his issues, that it does today. Civil Rights laws attempt to make it so that society does not prevent, or create artificial obstacles, people being able to be able to participate in society. But the laws are from the other side -- they open up society so these people can participate -- they do not force people to participate in this society being opened to them, much less provide help or incentive to participate. Now, if we were talking about arguments for universal healthcare, then this story would likely become relevant -- that this person you know could get the medical (psychiatric) help to enable him to help him cope (and possibly in someways heal) from the years of abuse. But it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, at least directly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
American Atheists comment on Washington Florist case
Top
Bottom