Equality Act & Religious Freedom

[Yttrium]

so are you saying discrimination is moral when directed at specific minorities but wrong when directed at others?

No, I'm saying that different people have different morals. My morals and your morals are both opposed to discrimination against minorities. A great many other people have different moral standards. Notably, there are many Christians who believe that homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are immoral and should be opposed. I'm sure you've noticed this by now.

 

[SilverBear]

No, I'm saying that different people have different morals. My morals and your morals are both opposed to discrimination against minorities. A great many other people have different moral standards. Notably, there are many Christians who believe that homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are immoral and should be opposed. I'm sure you've noticed this by now.

you say you are opposed to discrimination yet you support that discrimination

 

[Yttrium]

you say you are opposed to discrimination yet you support that discrimination

I don't support the discrimination. I recognize shortcomings in the law that allow the discrimination, and I support new legislation that prevents the discrimination.

 

[SilverBear]

I don't support the discrimination.

I think that since the bakery has the right to refuse to make customized cakes for a wide variety of topics, they were entitled to refuse to make this particular custom cake.

 

[Yttrium]

I think that since the bakery has the right to refuse to make customized cakes for a wide variety of topics, they were entitled to refuse to make this particular custom cake.

Laws and rights don't always conform to my moral standards.

For example, let's say my state passed a law to outlaw guns entirely in the state (outside of the military). I would think that the Supreme Court should throw out that law, even though I morally agree with it. I'd love to see guns banished. But we have the 2nd Amendment. I'd like to see that amendment changed, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

If my state had a law saying that homosexuals don't get equal protection, then I would think that it's the right of an employer to fire an employees simply for being homosexual. I would consider the firing to be morally repugnant, and I would support changing the law.

 

[rjs330]

Why should someone's religious rights be subservient to LGBT rights? Religious rights are ensconced in the constitution while LGBT rights are not. Why should one person's rights be made subservient?

 

[Yttrium]

Why should someone's religious rights be subservient to LGBT rights? Religious rights are ensconced in the constitution while LGBT rights are not. Why should one person's rights be made subservient?

Why should one person's rights be made subservient? Why should LGBT rights be subservient to religious rights? It goes both ways. I try to respect both the religious rights and minority rights, and if they're in conflict, something has to give. Who is hurt worse by the conflict? Being a fairly empathic person, I'm going to tend to favor the rights of the person who is hurt worse.

 

[rjs330]

Why should one person's rights be made subservient? Why should LGBT rights be subservient to religious rights? It goes both ways. I try to respect both the religious rights and minority rights, and if they're in conflict, something has to give. Who is hurt worse by the conflict? Being a fairly empathic person, I'm going to tend to favor the rights of the person who is hurt worse.

That's precisely the issue. LGBT folks demand religious rights be subservient to there's and want people punished and harmed for it. Whereas they can go to many places to buy cakes, flowers or photography and not be hurt. We have no rights not to get hurt feelings. But these bakers, forists etc. are being hurt financially, because they are choosing not to accept business AND being harmed financially from the government in terms of fines, lawyers fees etc. Sometimes requiring the closing of a business. Who's really being hurt more? Someone who can go down the street and get what they want? Or someone who will loose thousands and thousands of dollars and maybe their livelihood?

 

[SilverBear]

Why should someone's religious rights be subservient to LGBT rights? Religious rights are ensconced in the constitution while LGBT rights are not. Why should one person's rights be made subservient?

Everyone's rights are in the constitution and none are subservient to others.

 

[SilverBear]

That's precisely the issue. LGBT folks demand religious rights be subservient to there's and want people punished and harmed for it. Whereas they can go to many places to buy cakes, flowers or photography and not be hurt.

Where have i heard this before?

oh yeah

We have no rights not to get hurt feelings. But these bakers, forists etc. are being hurt financially, because they are choosing not to accept business AND being harmed financially from the government in terms of fines, lawyers fees etc. Sometimes requiring the closing of a business.

because they choose to discriminate just like if they chose to discriminate against any other minority.

Who's really being hurt more? Someone who can go down the street and get what they want?

like a theater that is just for black patrons.

Or someone who will loose thousands and thousands of dollars and maybe their livelihood?

Hate is an expensive endeavor

 

[Yttrium]

That's precisely the issue. LGBT folks demand religious rights be subservient to there's and want people punished and harmed for it. Whereas they can go to many places to buy cakes, flowers or photography and not be hurt. We have no rights not to get hurt feelings. But these bakers, forists etc. are being hurt financially, because they are choosing not to accept business AND being harmed financially from the government in terms of fines, lawyers fees etc. Sometimes requiring the closing of a business. Who's really being hurt more? Someone who can go down the street and get what they want? Or someone who will loose thousands and thousands of dollars and maybe their livelihood?

They don't have to be hurt financially. They can just, ya know, bake the cake.

 

[rjs330]

Where have i heard this before?

oh yeah

because they choose to discriminate just like if they chose to discriminate against any other minority.

like a theater that is just for black patrons.

Hate is an expensive endeavor

Not even remotely the same thing. Comparing a gay person not being able to get a wedding cake from a baker while.being able to go down the block and getting one with a black person who.couldnt even go into a business, drink out of a fountain or go to a hospital for meducal emergencies is patently absurd. Especially when a gay person can go into that shop and buy anything else.

Your not helping your case by being so absurd with your comparison.

Black Civil Rights and LGBT Rights: Why They Are Not the Same Thing

African-American Vs. Gay Civil Rights Is A False Choice | HuffPost

Blacks don't believe gay rights are the same as civil rights: poll

The People's District: 5 Reasons Gay is Not the New Black - Forth District

 

[rjs330]

Everyone's rights are in the constitution and none are subservient to others.

Except religious rights. Those are subservient to gay rights. At least that's what is being promoted.

 

[Yttrium]

Except religious rights. Those are subservient to gay rights. At least that's what is being promoted.

I'm still hoping we get a good test case in the Supreme Court before long, something similar to the bakery case. We really need to see what this court thinks about the issue.

 

[hedrick]

No, I'm saying that different people have different morals. My morals and your morals are both opposed to discrimination against minorities. A great many other people have different moral standards. Notably, there are many Christians who believe that homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are immoral and should be opposed. I'm sure you've noticed this by now.

Sure. But if they have a business that makes wedding cakes, in many places they can’t choose which weddings to do it for depending upon whether they think the wedding is moral.

 

[Yttrium]

Sure. But if they have a business that makes wedding cakes, in many places they can’t choose which weddings to do it for depending upon whether they think the wedding is moral.

...

I don't quite understand what you're saying there.

 

[KCfromNC]

Jack Phillips: 2012. Seven years ago. And two men were sitting in our wedding area and so when I went over to sit down to talk with them, we made introductions. One of them said he was David, the other one was Charlie. “I’m Jack. What can I do for you?” David said, “We’re here to look for wedding cakes.” Charlie said, “It’s for our wedding.” And so right away I realized that this is not a cake that I can create

Yep, exactly my point. Without even knowing what would be on the cake, he knew he couldn't make it because the customers were the wrong type of minority. It has nothing to do with what was to be put on the cake, but about who the people buying it were.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's precisely the issue. LGBT folks demand religious rights be subservient to there's and want people punished and harmed for it. Whereas they can go to many places to buy cakes, flowers or photography and not be hurt.

And people who have a religion-based aversion to selling things to minorities can choose a different line of work. I mean, it isn't as if there's a constitutional right to be a florist or something.

 

[SilverBear]

Not even remotely the same thing. Comparing a gay person not being able to get a wedding cake from a baker while.being able to go down the block and getting one with a black person who.couldnt even go into a business, drink out of a fountain or go to a hospital for meducal emergencies is patently absurd. Especially when a gay person can go into that shop and buy anything else.

its exactly the same thing.

sure black people couldn't go into the Broadway theater in Knoxville Tennessee but they could go just down the street to a theater that was happy to have them. Going down the street didn't hurt them at all but they weren't happy about it and demanded that the religious rights of whites and the theater owner must be subservient to their selfish wants and desires. They wanted white people punished and harmed.

That's precisely the issue. LGBT folks demand religious rights be subservient to there's and want people punished and harmed for it. Whereas they can go to many places to buy cakes, flowers or photography and not be hurt.

Your not helping your case by being so absurd with your comparison.

denying the truth of the matter just makes you look foolish.

 

[SilverBear]

I'm still hoping we get a good test case in the Supreme Court before long, something similar to the bakery case. We really need to see what this court thinks about the issue.

we had that last year in Bostock v. Clayton County the court rules that LGBT individuals are protected under title VII of the civil rights act