Locked:Starkville Meeting

[00Dawg]

Or refusing service to someone who's been a dick in the past, or is being a dick now. Private businesses either get to have some say in who they'll service, or none at all seems to be the crux of this matter. I'd prefer they have some say. Could a full on "we reserve the right to refuse service to..." policy at every level backfire? Absolutely.
But these aren't publicly traded companies. These aren't required services. Most of all, in neither case was there a local monopoly, and the owners made a sincere effort to help the potential customers find what they wanted elsewhere. You guys are backing the dicks in this case.

If these were the only cases of overreaction to a minor inconvenience, maybe we hand wave these away. But they're not. Look at the guy in California who lost his business because it was revealed he supported Prop 8. Searching through records of political backers to figure out who you can run out of town? That's only a couple of steps removed from pogroms.

 

[johnson86-1]

That would be too easy.

So would finding somebody that wants to do business with you. I can understand having your feelings hurt by somebody telling you they don't want to participate in your wedding, even if you're willing to pay them to do so, but I cannot understand literally wanting to make a federal (or state) case of it. Not every little dispute is worthy of involving force and not everything bad that happens in life should have a law aimed at preventing it.

 

[dawgstudent]

This is like a repeat of a 1950 argument.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

If I showed up in your gay bar and you refused to serve me, I don't know that I'd be taking you to court over it.Simple, want to support those businesses, go for it. Free country.

 

[BeardoMSU]

Or refusing service to someone who's been a dick in the past, or is being a dick now. Private businesses either get to have some say in who they'll service, or none at all seems to be the crux of this matter. I'd prefer they have some say. Could a full on "we reserve the right to refuse service to..." policy at every level backfire? Absolutely.
But these aren't publicly traded companies. These aren't required services. Most of all, in neither case was there a local monopoly, and the owners made a sincere effort to help the potential customers find what they wanted elsewhere. You guys are backing the dicks in this case.

If these were the only cases of overreaction to a minor inconvenience, maybe we hand wave these away. But they're not. Look at the guy in California who lost his business because it was revealed he supported Prop 8. Searching through records of political backers to figure out who you can run out of town? That's only a couple of steps removed from pogroms.

Excuse me, but a customer being a dick/obnoxious/unruly/etc. isn't the same as a customer just being "gay"...unless, of course, you see their existence itself as obnoxious (or should I use the word "abomination"?).

Not one person on here is saying you can't run your business. If someone is being an *******, ask them to leave or refuse service all you want. If someone comes in and isn't wearing a shirt or shoes, ask them to return in full attire. These aren't the same thing as refusing to serve a person because you don't like them, whether its because they're LGBT, their skin is "brown", or they worship the God of Abraham, but just so happen live by the teachings of another one of his prophets. You see: one is not like the others.

 

[patdog]

Equating skin color and sexual behavior is getting tired...

How about equating discrimination with discrimination? Is that tired too?

 

[BeardoMSU]

So would finding somebody that wants to do business with you. I can understand having your feelings hurt by somebody telling you they don't want to participate in your wedding, even if you're willing to pay them to do so, but I cannot understand literally wanting to make a federal (or state) case of it. Not every little dispute is worthy of involving force and not everything bad that happens in life should have a law aimed at preventing it.

Discrimination is not a "little dispute" not worthy of attention. As someone else stated earlier, what if our nation's past problems with discrimination were left up to the "good citizens' to do the right thing, rather than the govt. getting involved?

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I remember a day when this thread would have been locked by 11 PM last night.

 

[esplanade91]

One day when you run your own business and are the one that has to pay the miscellaneous taxes and comply with all the regulations then you can let me know if you still think no politicians are anti-business.

I completely get what you're saying. But speaking in hypotheticals, if your representative made you pay an extra $1,500 in taxes in year X and used all the $1,500's he gathered from all of the other businesses and then turned the street into a boulevard with green spots and **** to attract weekend shoppers in year Y... Isn't that pro-business? I don't think you'll find anyone on either side of the aisle that isn't pro-jobs or doesn't think businesses are the lifeblood of our nation. There's more than one way to Rome.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Nobody should be mistreated. There simply is no science that would equate homosexual identity with genetics. If there were, I suspect that this argument would die down pretty quickly. Since there isn't, people living a homosexual lifestyle are constantly clamoring for people to declare them "normal and OK" while others belittle, mistreat and even hate them, which is deplorable.

I quite honestly don't care how the government recognizes or does not recognize such things. Forcing any common thought into the private sector, and trying to control speech and thought through government mandates is a big deal, however. We should all be on guard against that because the power you give the government to mandate something you support today can surely be used to mandate something you don't support tomorrow. We simply put too much stake in our government.

We unfortunately seem to be at a place in this country where any particular persons feelings trump any other authority and our right to disagree is met with threats and assertions as to our intelligence, motivation, etc. (on both sides). That such a mindset is very problematic surely can't be hard to see. I certainly don't hold a monopoly on right answers, nor you, nor anyone else posting here...I suspect that we all have a lot to learn. I don't foresee a time where I will be silenced simply because someone screams louder, or uglier, or actually mistreats me in the name of standing up for people who "shouldn't be mistreated". Again; nobody should be mistreated, including me.

Of course then you throw in idiots like Westborough who claim a Christian affiliation but behave anything but and you get one great big mess!

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

There's lots of science for a genetic disposition

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

I'm sure in your perfect world, every business owner who refuses to accommodate a customer is always "professional and courteous"? Did I say "screw you, I'm gonna ruin your business"? Nope, that's not how I feel this problem needs to be handled. Again, the heart of the discussion is a social stigma based on a religious opinion, that is viewed as antiquated and closeminded by a fast growing portion of our population (now a majority, I believe). And again, you never answered my question: how would this discussion be framed if the florist, baker, or photographer refused the business of a black couple, or interracial couple? You can say, "Well, they offered them an alternative" - that may be true, but the heart of the problem remains their initial refusal.

The difference is the person's religion doesn't view those things the same. Are we going to raise hell if some Grandmother owns a bakery and doesn't want to make a Satanist cake? How about the grandmother doesn't feel right making a sex cake for a bachelor party. Is she obligated by law to perform those services even though she doesn't feel morally right about doing it?

I personally don't care who marries who. I think it is a personal issue that I don't have the right to stick my nose in but I think that is also the right of a person to run their business however they see fit.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Your parallels are off.

Refusing the product is not the issue. Refusing the people is the issue.

A grandmother in her cake shop should be able to refuse a "satanist cake." In fact, if a gay couple comes in and asks for a cake covered in pastel dicks, she should be able to refuse it, too.

However, if she makes a cake for a straight couple , and then refuses to bake the same cake for a gay couple, that is wrong. She should also not refuse the satanist that wants a transformers cake for his son.

See the difference?

 

[patdog]

There simply is no science that would equate homosexual identity with genetics.

No, none at all**

Link

 

[BulldogBlitz]

for centuries homosexuals were enslaved to build the great pyramids of vegas (that's las vegas), and all that sequin beading....

 

[BulldogBlitz]

Refusing service to someone because you "don't support" them being gay is no different than refusing service due to not supporting someone being black, or really smart, or enjoying broccoli.

restaurants routinely refuse to serve the homeless.

in addition, i can't expect much when i waltz into the vegan restaurant (yes, i live within about 10 minutes of a few true vegan) and demand a steak, insisting that they are discriminating against me because "i'm carnivore, hear me roar."

its a free country. if you don't particularly like what the business stands for (or against), go elsewhere. free market economy will take care of itself. remember that place that used to serve chicken... never open on sundays and its CEO said he didn't support gay marriage. the boycott drove that place out of business.... oh wait.

 

[00Dawg]

Funny you should mention religion. The most staunch opponent of gay marriage I know is in no way religious. He's just tired of having acceptance and approval demanded (and codified) for something he finds distasteful.
You're wanting me to tell you that homosexuality is the same as race, and that no one should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of either. All I can tell you here is that the business owner didn't approve of gay marriage, and sought to follow his principles in how he ran his private business.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

Excuse me, but a customer being a dick/obnoxious/unruly/etc. isn't the same as a customer just being "gay"...unless, of course, you see their existence itself as obnoxious (or should I use the word "abomination"?).

Not one person on here is saying you can't run your business. If someone is being an *******, ask them to leave or refuse service all you want. If someone comes in and isn't wearing a shirt or shoes, ask them to return in full attire. These aren't the same thing as refusing to serve a person because you don't like them, whether its because they're LGBT, their skin is "brown", or they worship the God of Abraham, but just so happen live by the teachings of another one of his prophets. You see: one is not like the others.

your honor, i did not discriminate based on sexual orientation. i could not have done so, for i did not see them having sex, therefore i could not verify orientation.

 

[1msudawg]

Issues like this are why many Fiscal Conservative/Social Moderates like me are losing interest in politics and the news.
It's hard to find a place to stand between the left and the right. It's seems to be all or nothing, Democrat or Republican, and some (many?) are left in the

Try this

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ar3R-JJCMAAos8Q.jpg

 

[BulldogBlitz]

now we have 2...even after the one the other day.

you can tell it is a slow sports day when this is what we want to spend our time bumping (yeah...me included).

 

[00Dawg]

Well, taking the bakery case alone (where the professionalism of the business owner's initial response is obviously lacking), they can point to having served these exact customers before for other functions. They simply refused to do so for their wedding. So, where does the message of "we'll serve you all you want, except for ceremony X" land?
They have to make the cake, but can refuse to put two brides on top or two female names on the outside?

 

[00Dawg]

One of the biggest problems with past discrimination was that the government was part of the discrimination. It was codified.
Swinging the pendulum fully the other way doesn't strike me as the best long term plan.

Frankly, I'm an anti-government guy, so I'd rather see the federal government just get completely out of the marriage business. I consider this board reflective of a slightly more conservative view on most items than the majority of voters (and much more liberal than Mississippians as a whole), and a number of posters on here have said they're fine with polygamy. Given the younger generations' penchant for sexual adventurism and preference for no commitment and ignoring traditional consequences, I figure the next step past that is coming anyway. Might as well do it now and save some tax dollars.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

No, none at all**

Link

You tossed out an internet search and call that science. I did not cherry pick, literally clicked on one link from your search. In part, it said:

"In an effort to affect public policy and gain acceptance, the assertion often is made that homosexuals deserve equal rights just as other minority groups—and should not be punished for, or forbidden from, expressing their homosexuality. The fight for the acceptance of homosexuality often is compared to “civil rights” movements of racial minorities. Due to America’s failure to settle fully the civil rights issue (i.e., full and equal citizenship of racial minorities), social liberals, feminists, and homosexual activists were provided with the perfect “coat tail” to ride to advance their agenda. Using this camouflage of innate civil liberties, homosexual activists were able to divert attention away from thebehavior, and focus it on the “rights.”The argument goes like this: “Just as a person cannot help being black, female, or Asian, I cannot help being homosexual. We were all born this way, and as such we should be treated equally.” However, this argument fails to comprehend the true “civil rights” movements. The law already protects the civil rights of everyone—black, white, male, female, homosexual, or heterosexual. Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights everyone else does. The contention arises when specific laws deprive all citizens of certain behaviors (e.g., sodomy, etc.). We should keep in mind that these laws are the same for all members of society. Because of certain deprivations, homosexuals feel as though “equal” rights have been taken away (i.e., marriage, tax breaks, etc.).
Skin color and other genetic traits can be traced through inheritance patterns and simple Mendelian genetics. Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different. If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual. However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior. For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition. Neil Risch and his coworkers admitted:

There is little disagreement that male homosexual orientation is not a Mendelian trait. In fact, a priori, one would expect the role of a major gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong selective pressures against such a gene. It is unlikely that a major gene underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary counterbalancing mechanism (1993, 262:2064).​

Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that

the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the “discovery” of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims...has been confirmed (as quoted in Horgan, 1995).​

Charles Mann agreed, stating: “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated” (1994, 264:1687). It appears that the gay gene will be added to this category of unreplicated claims.
The real issue here is homosexual actions that society has deemed immoral and, in many instances, illegal. Since no study has firmly established an underlying genetic cause for homosexuality, arguments suggesting “equal rights” are both baseless and illogical..."