Vort Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 just saying, I would never live next to a homophobe or racist, and I think I am not the only one.You thoroughly grill all prospective neighbors on their personal views before you move into a new residence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I don't see what calling someone a gay or racial slur has to do with protecting life, liberty and property...Nah. Just free speech. But then, free speech is only reserved for people I agree with; so--carry on, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Am I the only one who sees the irony in Lakumi's statement? As part of a chain of posts centered on objecting to the idea that people should be free to discriminate Lakmui states his refusal to live next to certain types of people. Edited February 20, 2014 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 We need the power of individuals to have the freedom to discriminate how they please without fear of retribution. While i understand the intent of this quote, it worries me because not everyone is level headed and just willing to say " i won't do business with these people." We have seen violent discrimination of groups in the past and there wasn't always legal or other retribution to keep them in check. While it may seem silly to bring up i take a look at many places in Africa where people have the freedom to discriminate against gays with out retribution and it doesn't give me hope that any other country could really be more trusted if given that out.Currently in a few states there are bills aimed at protecting religious freedoms aimed specifically at gays and gay marriage. again while i support them, the bills do not provide a two way street and have a very narrow focus. The wording of them is very open as well. As JAG has pointed out before he's ok with people being able to deny him because of his faith, but the bills being introduced and supporting this " power of individuals to have the freedom to discriminate how they please" is aimed at only one group and doesn't allow that group to have the same freedom to discriminate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Just a clarification - what do we mean when we say "discriminate"?When I say it--and I think when yjacket says it--we mean merely "treat people differently based on whether we agree with their lifestyle choices". "Violent" discrimination, of the type I think Soulsearcher and perhaps Lakumi are describing, would seem to entail assaults, batteries, or other offenses against the person/personal property that are already crimes per se; and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that that should be permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'm pretty conservative and believe in preserving marriage between a man and a woman. But I don't actually think it's right that anyone should be denied employment, housing, business, etc. on the basis of their sexual orientation or sexual identity alone. I don't personally think Christ would want us turning such away for those things, either.Where it gets complicated is when you bring marriage into the picture. For instance, I believe that the cake maker in Oregon should have had a right to saying "no" to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, if he/she didn't believe in gay marriage. But I don't believe if that same couple walked in and wanted cupcakes for a snack, they should be turned away. I certainly don't believe that it is moral or should be legal to deny them basics like housing, if they are otherwise capable of being responsible lessees. Employment is a little more sticky, but I think as long as a lifestyle of any kind doesn't interfere with being able to perform one's duties or with maintaining the company's image (for instance, Deseret Book shouldn't be forced to employ a transvestite), people should hire on a person's merits alone, not their orientation. But how to legislate or enforce any of that is beyond me. I do think that a person should be able to put whoever they want to on their insurance if they're paying for it, and should be able to name whoever they wish as their next of kin (but can't they already do that in the form of a power of attorney?). I don't want to deny homosexuals any of those rights. Just leave marriage alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakumi Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I don't personally think Christ would want us turning such away for those things, either."quoted for truth" to coin a common forum phrase.And there is a difference in someone who simply doesn't agree with something and is even vocal about it, and the one who puts hateful slogans on their lawn.I don't want to live next to that, even if I agree with them. I don't feel doing that is right.It's a negativity I don't want in my life.Besides, if they are fine with proudly displaying things they hate on their lawn, they'll probably come after me- I got lots for people to hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Just a clarification - what do we mean when we say "discriminate"?When I say it--and I think when yjacket says it--we mean merely "treat people differently based on whether we agree with their lifestyle choices". "Violent" discrimination, of the type I think Soulsearcher and perhaps Lakumi are describing, would seem to entail assaults, batteries, or other offenses against the person/personal property that are already crimes per se; and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that that should be permitted.The key in the quote from yjacket is " to discriminate how they please" You and yjacket might be limited to treat people different in minor ways, but the problem with such an open comment is that others will discriminate or treat people different by trying to deprive them of life or health. We've seen "good christian" people in Africa discriminate by forming mobs and going out beating groups of gays because they have the ability to discriminate how they please with no retribution. Now if yjacket had said something like "discriminate with in reason as long as it brings no actual harm" then i might be less worried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakumi Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 The key in the quote from yjacket is " to discriminate how they please" You and yjacket might be limited to treat people different in minor ways, but the problem with such an open comment is that others will discriminate or treat people different by trying to deprive them of life or health. We've seen "good christian" people in Africa discriminate by forming mobs and going out beating groups of gays because they have the ability to discriminate how they please with no retribution. Now if yjacket had said something like "discriminate with in reason as long as it brings no actual harm" then i might be less worried.Even still, that could become a new segregation. Anyone able to refuse business or anything with anyone because "I don't like them"How far would it go? I could refuse someone to become a tenant of my home because they're Mormon or Chinese or whatnot?How many "No___" would you see in stores, introducing a mass segregation into society would a frightening idea... Nothing good would ever come from letting people freely hate eachother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Even still, that could become a new segregation. Anyone able to refuse business or anything with anyone because "I don't like them"How far would it go? I could refuse someone to become a tenant of my home because they're Mormon or Chinese or whatnot?How many "No___" would you see in stores, introducing a mass segregation into society would a frightening idea... Nothing good would ever come from letting people freely hate eachother.While i might not like the idea, it's preferable to the alternative. plus i think if it was allowed to it's full extent it wouldn't take long for people to see how stupid some of it would be to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakumi Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 While i might not like the idea, it's preferable to the alternative. plus i think if it was allowed to it's full extent it wouldn't take long for people to see how stupid some of it would be to be honest.No... No... I don't have that much faith in peopleAnd the alternative is what... gay marriage?Why would you make it legal for someone to not allow black people in their store becuase... some people don't like gays?Not everyone hates gays, but a lot of people hate others... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Even still, that could become a new segregation. Anyone able to refuse business or anything with anyone because "I don't like them"How far would it go? I could refuse someone to become a tenant of my home because they're Mormon or Chinese or whatnot?How many "No___" would you see in stores, introducing a mass segregation into society would a frightening idea... Nothing good would ever come from letting people freely hate eachother.This goes against many of my libertarian ideas, but I agree that the notion is a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 No... No... I don't have that much faith in peopleAnd the alternative is what... gay marriage?Why would you make it legal for someone to not allow black people in their store becuase... some people don't like gays?Not everyone hates gays, but a lot of people hate others...LOL if you read my posts you find i don't really have much faith in people. i have slim hope, but not really faith.The alternative is forcing people to the point they get scared and lash out. It's what happened with the gays and now it's happening with religion. Groups only thinking about themselves, how to protect them and how to make sure they are safe and protected and for the most part seeing the other side as the enemy to out maneuver.The reason i prefer letting people discriminate with in reason( no violence) is because i have no faith in them. Black against white, christian against christian, straight against gay. i really think if we give people these choices they might see just how horrible people can be and wonder why they thought it was better to feed hate than the alternative. Allow people to be petty and small and they tend to do it with zest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakumi Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 LOL if you read my posts you find i don't really have much faith in people. i have slim hope, but not really faith.The alternative is forcing people to the point they get scared and lash out. It's what happened with the gays and now it's happening with religion. Groups only thinking about themselves, how to protect them and how to make sure they are safe and protected and for the most part seeing the other side as the enemy to out maneuver.The reason i prefer letting people discriminate with in reason( no violence) is because i have no faith in them. Black against white, christian against christian, straight against gay. i really think if we give people these choices they might see just how horrible people can be and wonder why they thought it was better to feed hate than the alternative. Allow people to be petty and small and they tend to do it with zest.History will show you that people have a tendancy to take things too far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 History will show you that people have a tendancy to take things too farPerhaps, but what's the alternative? A totalitarian system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 While i understand the intent of this quote, it worries me because not everyone is level headed and just willing to say " i won't do business with these people." We have seen violent discrimination of groups in the past and there wasn't always legal or other retribution to keep them in check. While it may seem silly to bring up i take a look at many places in Africa where people have the freedom to discriminate against gays with out retribution and it doesn't give me hope that any other country could really be more trusted if given that out.Currently in a few states there are bills aimed at protecting religious freedoms aimed specifically at gays and gay marriage. again while i support them, the bills do not provide a two way street and have a very narrow focus. The wording of them is very open as well. As JAG has pointed out before he's ok with people being able to deny him because of his faith, but the bills being introduced and supporting this " power of individuals to have the freedom to discriminate how they please" is aimed at only one group and doesn't allow that group to have the same freedom to discriminate.So how is discriminating in a case of gay marriage a two way street? What do you have in mind?. Perhaps like, if the bakers won't bake gays a wedding cake then they should be allowed to not invite the bakers to the wedding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 So how is discriminating in a case of gay marriage a two way street? What do you have in mind?. Perhaps like, if the bakers won't bake gays a wedding cake then they should be allowed to not invite the bakers to the wedding?Nope, i think that if religion has the right to say no all groups should have the right to say no. You don't have to bake me a cake that's great, i have the right to deny you any service or goods as well. Right now the bills being put through only give religion this right and it's aimed specifically at gay marriage and gay partners. I also think if these pass there has to be a strict litmus test. Ok you because of your strict religious beliefs say you can't serve gays getting married, but then all of your business dealings have to meet your religious beliefs. if you make any other exceptions then just how sacredly held are your beliefs and are you just targeting gays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 History will show you that people have a tendancy to take things too farSlippery slope but on the other side of the hill, me thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Nope, i think that if religion has the right to say no all groups should have the right to say no. You don't have to bake me a cake that's great, i have the right to deny you any service or goods as well. Right now the bills being put through only give religion this right and it's aimed specifically at gay marriage and gay partners. I also think if these pass there has to be a strict litmus test. Ok you because of your strict religious beliefs say you can't serve gays getting married, but then all of your business dealings have to meet your religious beliefs. if you make any other exceptions then just how sacredly held are your beliefs and are you just targeting gays?What would gays say no to? That's what I'm asking? I don't see that people are going to mind all that much if gays (as a sub-group of humanity) don't do business with them, unless they are in some kind of business that caters to gays. Then they probably aren't going to discriminate anyway. Give me an example that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 What would gays say no to? That's what I'm asking? I don't see that people are going to mind all that much if gays (as a sub-group of humanity) don't do business with them, unless they are in some kind of business that caters to gays. Then they probably aren't going to discriminate anyway. Give me an example that makes sense.Just as there are religious bakers, photographer ect ect, there are gay people in these jobs as well as many others and for a large number of them no one knows they are gay. Right now they can't say no to doing business with people either. If we are having bills that say it's ok for religious to say no to gays, it needs to be ok to do it the other way around, all groups should be able to say no on the same levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faramir Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) So I posted the following on fb yesterday.Basically I think gay marriage is a non-fix for a problem of discrimination.I don't see how it will help prevent discrimination but I certainly see how it gets people angry @ one another & sidestepping the real issue.I also think the more we do to protect the rights of individuals, regardless of lifestyle, the more ability we can have to prevent gay marriage from being treated as a right.I said it better yesterday, publicly so here it is:Recently there was a protest in Idaho that, though some may be surprised, I most definitely support.This protest was an anti discrimination protest. Our state legislature is being asked to add protections to people who are gay and/or transgender from discrimination, (add them to the list of groups already protected). I think, in a state that tends to be conservative, this clarification is an important one to add, as the discrimination is likely to be happening. I do not believe it is right to discriminate against people who's only offense is a lifestyle that someone else does not approve of.I know there are a lot of people who are supporting this right now, but let me explain that I am not jumping on a band wagon. The way this is being supported in other states I do NOT agree with. What is generally being pushed for is legislating the re-definition of the word marriage to mean something it has never before meant. In my opinion this is both ineffective & inappropriate. In this time where adultery & fornication are no longer illegal or seen, (by most), as non-offensive, then what does the re-definition of the word marriage really gain someone who fit's the description of 'LBGT'? It seems to me that this push to re-define marriage is a political machination designed to create contention & confusion NOT to protect peoples rights.(NOTE: LGBT supporters will likely think this is where I lose my sanity & credibility, yes I realize that there are legal constructs that have been created around legal marriages, let me state now, that I am not referring to these legal constructs as being rights granted by marriage, they are not. They are legal constructs. They do NOT define the word... so my focus is on rights if the legal constructs need to be removed, that's fine, or added to other groups, that's fine... see where I'm coming from?).The real issue is that discrimination is absolutely not justifiable, including discrimination based on the lifestyle someone lives.What's worse is this erroneous conflation of marriage & rights makes it less obvious that discrimination can & likely will continue (and may even increase) when the word marriage is re-defined legislatively.The more effective way to prevent discrimination is to pass anti-discrimination laws.By doing so we clarify that treating people badly & unfairly because of differences in lifestyle is wrong & not to be tolerated. For those of you, (like me), that do what we can to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, please remember His approach was very non-discriminatory: Here: Matthew 9:10-13Â* & here: Luke 18:9-14Â* he specifically shows that he did NOT treat people badly because of their lifestyles, (or health, or station in life etc...). And, if you'll remember, he even has an entire parable showing us how to take care of our neighbors: Luke 10:30-37Â* Edited February 20, 2014 by Faramir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Just as there are religious bakers, photographer ect ect, there are gay people in these jobs as well as many others and for a large number of them no one knows they are gay. Right now they can't say no to doing business with people either. If we are having bills that say it's ok for religious to say no to gays, it needs to be ok to do it the other way around, all groups should be able to say no on the same levels.So help me out. I can't think of a business that Gays would have that religious people would want to use. If a gay artist, for instance didn't want to paint me a picture or a gay hairstylist didn't want to do my hair because he thought I was religious, I'd say Okaaaay! I will go elsewhere. I'd high tail it outta there and never look back. Dumb me for walking in that place of business in the first place.Seriously, I'm just not getting this two way street thing ( if you can't tell ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 So help me out. I can't think of a business that Gays would have that religious people would want to use. If a gay artist, for instance didn't want to paint me a picture or a gay hairstylist didn't want to do my hair because he thought I was religious, I'd say Okaaaay! I will go elsewhere. I'd high tail it outta there and never look back. Dumb me for walking in that place of business in the first place.Now imagine the same scenario in a country where religious people were a small minority (say, 10% or so) and you've discovered why I don't like free discrimination: it simply lets the majority discriminate against the minority while leaving the minority with little to no recourse (hint: the discovery involves understanding the weakness of your "I can just go somewhere else" assumption). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Now imagine the same scenario in a country where religious people were a small minority (say, 10% or so) and you've discovered why I don't like free discrimination: it simply lets the majority discriminate against the minority while leaving the minority with little to no recourse (hint: the discovery involves understanding the weakness of your "I can just go somewhere else" assumption).Well I can imagine that, but I'm not talking imaginary. I'm talking about the way things are here in the US. I thought we all were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I see where you're going, LW; and partially agree. I don't oppose nondiscrimination law when there really is nowhere else to go for a minority to obtain an essential service. But I think this business of "I don't care that there are twelve bakers in this town who are lining up to make me and my gay lover a wedding cake--I'm gonna single out the one conservative Christian baker who doesn't want my business and FORCE HIM TO SERVE ME!", reduces down to little more than a tyranny of the minority. Or majority. Or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.