Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: GOP: if Chipotle can choose meat, we can discriminate
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
GOP Reps: Chipotle Gets To Pick Its Meat, So We Get To Discriminate Against Gays (Huffpost)
If Congressional Republicans' lips are moving, they're saying something awful. [ 20. March 2015, 00:35: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Tools. And tools in the name of Jesus.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, because choosing the best quality pork is exactly the same as being mean to lesbians.
Lord Jesus, please teach these simpletons the different meanings of the word "discriminate". Amen.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'll start listening to them when they start displaying more intelligence than the meat they're talking about.
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Hmm...they think homosexuality is a matter of choice, and that businesses can exercise their freedom to not employ them.
And being in Congress is a matter of choice...
So those of us Americans who find Congressional Republicans morally repugnant can fire them? Like right now?
Alternatively, we could turn them some part of LGBT for, say, 6 months or so...
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I have no problem with people BEING Republican - I mean there's evidence that conservatism is actually down to structural aspects of the brain so we can't judge them for that. I just think its wrong to act on it. Have you seen the disgusting things they do? Legislating against the poor and vulnerable, taking away healthcare, putting money before people? Any decent society can't function when people are allowed to act on their Republicanism - it destroys the social fabric.
So I love Republicans as people, I just want to bring them to the fullness of truth so they realise the damage their lifestyle does to them and those they love. I hold them to the same standards as any Democrat. We have exactly the same obligations be we Republican or Democrat after all and we know that Biblically Jesus condemned Republicanism so we can't support it being promoted using our tax dollars or taught to our children.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Macrina: [ 23. March 2015, 06:38: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
What Starlight said!
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
There are times we really need a "Like" button!
-------------------- "...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe." ~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Macrina, I think I love you.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Thanks everyone
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Refusing to serve homosexuals is the new poster child of both sides of the debate over the acceptability of homosexuality. Those who believe homosexuality is a sin view it as a religious freedom issue. Then there are those who, like me, view it as a silly expression of a wrong approach to Christianity.
Let me emphasize wrong and silly here. As Jon Stewart pointed out these lunkheads are not cross examining customers about wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, or gluttony.
On the other hand, is this really an area where government ought to step in and regulate it? What is the basis for that government regulation?
If the answer is - in any form or fashion - "You have to accept our social norms" I don't want it to happen. Once the government decides to regulate social norms to prevent asshole behavior, the government is in the business of regulating social norms.
If the answer is we are preventing discrimination - them make it the real deal. Come out loud and strong that any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not to be tolerated in any form or fashion. Not just dumb ass bakers. Include dumb ass legislatures that say homosexual couples are not entitled to the same rights as any other person.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: If the answer is we are preventing discrimination - them make it the real deal. Come out loud and strong that any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not to be tolerated in any form or fashion. Not just dumb ass bakers. Include dumb ass legislatures that say homosexual couples are not entitled to the same rights as any other person.
I'm on board. Where do I sign?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: Let me emphasize wrong and silly here. As Jon Stewart pointed out these lunkheads are not cross examining customers about wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, or gluttony.
On the other hand, is this really an area where government ought to step in and regulate it? What is the basis for that government regulation?
If the answer is - in any form or fashion - "You have to accept our social norms" I don't want it to happen. Once the government decides to regulate social norms to prevent asshole behavior, the government is in the business of regulating social norms.
So you're ok with Jim Crow laws or should the government step in and regulate that?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: If the answer is - in any form or fashion - "You have to accept our social norms" I don't want it to happen. Once the government decides to regulate social norms to prevent asshole behavior, the government is in the business of regulating social norms.
If the answer is we are preventing discrimination - them make it the real deal.
I'm not sure these are different things. Doesn't preventing discrimination force others to accept the social norm of non-discrimination?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Palimpsest,
Really? Really you are going with that? Gosh.
Crœsos,
I understand that the two may intertwine. Perhaps my distinction is poorly made. (I do that kind of thing.)
For me any government being able to step in and say you cannot do X because it is bad social behavior is a prerogative I would rather governments not take. So, while I deplore people being able to have "Coaler" stacks in their pickup trucks; I am not prepared to have a government step in a say "You cannot do that because it is acting like a jerk."
I say that because I have rarely met a legislator I would trust to run my Nephew's birthday party, much less set social norms.
To me, simply saying you can't pull that no cake stunt because you are being a jerk is dangerous grounds. They may sincerely believe God is calling upon them to demonstrate the Christian way by judging others and feel that their judgments must be enforced . . or they are meaningless. In such a case an economic sanction of prospective customers voting with their feet is an appropriate response.
If you say that sexual orientation is a basic human issue that calls for government preservation of rights from interference by government and the private sector (like a prohibition of discrimination based upon skin color, national origin, religious preference, etc.) That is no longer a you can't be a jerk. It is a this is an area where we will protect our citizens from other citizens and from us, the government.
Again, I am stating this poorly and feel like I am reaching for an explanation that is above my head, but there you are.
Even were the US government to do the right thing and say no discrimination based upon sexual orientation (and on gender too - it's about time), there would be issues of which right trumps the other. Does prohibiting the common garden variety moron from refusing to sell cake to one of them gay guys because God came to her one night and said "Go ahead and judge for me because I need a break" mean their religious freedom is being trampled upon? Does that outweigh non discrimination based upon sexual orientation?
Heaven only knows how I would judge that. (I sure don't.) Because as much as I despise the thought of government being able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, I equally despise the government telling me what my religious beliefs ought to be. Hell, I don't even like people here telling me how my religion is wrong.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Telling you not to take your religion out on other people is not the same as telling you what your religion should be, Tortuf.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think your explanation is just fine, Tortuf.
I also think that you have too great a faith that people, if left to their own devices by the government, will basically be fair and decent and not judge other people on completely arbitrary criteria like race and sexuality.
The main reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because of a concrete history of discrimination.
And also because, in my opinion, being discriminatory actually hurts society in the long run. Certainly, I'm sure an economist could construct arguments about the lost opportunities involved in not doing business with people (or doing less business with people) on irrational grounds. But also there's the basic sacrifice of social cohesion when people living side by side treat their neighbours as "other" - as not their neighbours in spirit.
In other words, I think it's actually in the interest of society as a whole to actively stamp out behaviour that denies some people full participation in society on an irrational basis. [ 16. June 2015, 02:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It may be of interest to note that, about 18 months ago, the Australian Attorney-General declared that people have a right to be bigots.
He said this while proposing a change to the Racial Discrimination Act.
Nearly 90% of people here opposed the change. You don't see those kinds of figures in opinion polls very often.
The change was shelved.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: Palimpsest,
Really? Really you are going with that? Gosh.
Well, your "gosh" defense isn't going to change my mind. I note you didn't answer the question.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: To me, simply saying you can't pull that no cake stunt because you are being a jerk is dangerous grounds.
<snip>
If you say that sexual orientation is a basic human issue that calls for government preservation of rights from interference by government and the private sector (like a prohibition of discrimination based upon skin color, national origin, religious preference, etc.) That is no longer a you can't be a jerk. It is a this is an area where we will protect our citizens from other citizens and from us, the government.
Again I'm not sure why you think this is a distinction. Virtually every U.S. jurisdiction that has passed anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals (the laws various bakers, photographer, and florists have fallen afoul of) have simply done it by tacking "sexual orientation" on to the list of characteristics protected against discrimination; mostly your list of "skin color, national origin, religious preference, etc.".
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: They may sincerely believe God is calling upon them to demonstrate the Christian way by judging others and feel that their judgments must be enforced . . or they are meaningless. In such a case an economic sanction of prospective customers voting with their feet is an appropriate response.
quote: Originally posted by orfeo: Certainly, I'm sure an economist could construct arguments about the lost opportunities involved in not doing business with people (or doing less business with people) on irrational grounds.
As Palimpsest points out, the U.S. has been round and round this particular mulberry bush already during the civil rights era. Saying "this form of discrimination is mandated by my religious beliefs" is only an exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimination laws in very limited circumstances. For obvious reasons being able to get around the law by simply saying "it's my religion" casts the whole enterprise of law into doubt. It doesn't do much for religion either, which comes to be seen as just a reason why the rules don't apply to you.
"Fun" historical fact: virtually every private religious school opened in the southern parts of the U.S. from 1954 to about the mid-1970s was opened as a segregation academy. The white supremacists of that era devoutly believed that segregation was an integral part of their Christian religion, and also that the explicitly religious character of the schools would protect them against having to follow non-discrimination laws. I'm not sure there's a legal distinction to be made between the sincerely-held religious beliefs mandating racial discrimination and sincerely-held religious beliefs mandating discrimination against homosexuals. As far as I can tell, the only real difference is that most folks in the early twenty-first century are fairly unambiguous in their opposition to racism but are somewhat ambivalent about anti-gay discrimination.
As far as economic reprisals go, it's not particularly clear that excluding certain disliked minority groups is actually economically disadvantageous. It certainly doesn't seem to have been the case for the nearly century-long span of time in the U.S. between the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For most of that timespan most businesses actually paid an economic penalty for racially-integrated business models. In other words, American whites were willing to essentially pay a premium in order to patronize racially discriminatory businesses.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|