Should Final Four be relocated from Indiana to protest recent anti-gay legislation?

[Charizard]

Okay, so when did you choose to be straight? I fail to see why it would be different for people who's sexuality differs from your own.

And the religion argument doesn't add up because religion is something people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in, so that's very different from people "choosing" a sexuality that in many cases, in the majority of countries, they're being told is wrong. Then you have homosexual animals, I mean logic is just so heavily on the side of being born with it.

I do agree that it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not, because that implies that it's 'less right' if it is. But as somebody who doesn't identify as straight myself, and has never made any decision about that whatsoever, the idea of it being a choice is absurd.

And somebody can be bi & still be primarily interested in a certain gender. Bisexuality is a spectrum, it's not just a 50/50 split down the middle.

Personally, I don't believe I was born with any sexual orientation. I think freud was onto something suggesting everyone was born asexual. I mean, I didn't have raging hormones and a sexual attraction as a young tot, and definitely not as a baby. I realize people who feel strongly for gay rights don't like this because I'm not saying, you're absolutely right you were definitely born either gay or straight, but me saying that would be me lying because I have no idea if someone is born gay, im just speaking in my experience and what I think makes sense.

And I have to disagree with your second paragraph, respectfully of course. Why do you have to believe in a religion starting at birth? A lot of people choose their own religion, or belief in deity at many different ages. People should educate themselves before choosing a philosophy to live their life by to avoid bias. And anyway, there are plenty of choices we make that result in persecutio in addition, which was my original point. Saying, "why would I choose to be gay and be discriminated and face persecution willingly" is not proof.

So you can choose to be with a man sexually tonight if you just decided? That can become the desire of your sexual lust?

Well no, and you can find Freud's take on sexuality pretty easily via Google to understand my point a little better.

[Curmudgeon]

The so called "fix" doesn't do it for me. This is just another act in the GOP right wing clown show. The GOP's problem here is that LGBT folks are disttriibuted evenly throughout the population. They aren't a group that can be easily segregated or demonized. You can't tell a gay person by looking at him or her. The great majority of families in America have a son, daughter, cousin, nephew, niece, in-law, family friend, whatever, who is gay. We care for these people because they are part of our families or they are close friends or colleagues.

The GOP has lost the culture war. They've lost on Blacks, Hispanics, gays, marijuana, and gender equality. If they want to be viewed as something other than an angry, obstructionist neofacist minority, they have to change. They have gerrymandered state legislatures to keep themselves in power. It has been a brilliant strategy but the victories are only tactical. In the long run these hate mongers who hide behind religion will fail, although personally I'd much rather see them fail sooner rather than later.

[soxfan2003]

So you're against the Federal Civil Rights laws? You think segregation and Jim Crow laws should have remained in place? You think it should be legal for people to deny others food, gas, employment, housing, mortgages, and other goods/services based upon race or other characteristics?



I get the point but just because there are worse laws elsewhere does not mean we should leave bad legislation alone. This is also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation.



This has nothing to do with "common sense" but is rather a statement that gays should be comfortable with a separate but equal term for their marriages. That does not work when the government recognizes "marriage" on legal grounds. Heterosexual couples can still have their "Muslim marriages" and "Christian marriages."



That's like 99% of the businesses in many small towns. So a black family could be denied food, gas, and lodging while driving through large parts of the U.S.?



This is just as much an "agenda" as a woman's right to vote or for people to marry those of another race. "Reasonable people" did not support those things in their time. They had to be dragged into the future with legislation that they opposed. Now we look at those things as a given but they were controversial issues back then. The same goes for gay marriage. People will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about and all this talk about an "agenda" will be forgotten or dismissed as thinly veiled bigotry.

You have inserted straw man arguments that are ridiculous. The state or federal government disallowing blacks and whites to marry is a heck of a lot different than a florist deciding to not support a gay marriage for religious reasons or a piano player doing the same. A gay couple can go to another florist or buy there cake elsewhere or even grow their own flowers and bake their own cake. From my work experience in high school and in college breaks -- 7 years total -- , I learned a lot about weddings since I had to set them up. Easily setup 300+ of them over the years and I sometimes interacted with people who brought in the cakes and florists. It's a radical gay agenda for gays to be complaining about florists and people who bake cakes when you recognize how many different people do those activities. We are not talking monopolies here like the cable companies denying gays cable TV in the 1980's.

Name 10 businesses in the entire US prepared to discriminate against blacks or gays shopping for groceries, gasoline or lodging? Most lodging and big grocery stores that people go to have way more than 10 employees. As mentioned previously, I have worked at a hotel for many years and known 3 different people who own motels. Most gasoline places just take charge cards and they don't ask for your race!

I am opposed to the Federal Government treating gays separately from heterosexuals and have been for over 25 years. I don't think the term "marriage" should be recognized by the federal government. I said civil unions for ALL that the federal government recognizes and that means gays and straights and bisexuals. Gays just like straights then can go to any private institution and have their non legally binding ceremony called "marriage" or anything else. If Church X doesn't recognize same sex marriage, gays can go to church Y or make up their own private institution that does. It doesn't have to be a church. They can setup private institutions that discriminate against straights. I have no problem with that. And if you do, you are kind of being ridiculous. Why? Should we have it illegal to have a "LGBT hiking groups" on meetup.com or different meetup groups in which you have to be of a certain age or sex? If I tried to join one of those groups and admitted that I was straight in the application or not the target age or gender, I certainly don't blame them for not allowing me to join.

For my particular state, I am completely in favor of the religious freedom bill President Clinton signed into office applied at that state level as well. If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't want anyone opposed to my sexual orientation or lifestyle decision forced to bake a cake for me or photograph my wedding or play the piano. I say lifestyle decision since while I believe most people are "born gay" probably from some sort of biological process and others -- think mostly bisexuals -- can be attracted to both sexes so it is an actual decision on their part. A couple famous bisexual woman have admitted this applies to their own personal circumstances. If supporting the law that Clinton signed for my state makes me against Federal Civil Rights bill, it makes Clinton previously against the Federal Civil Rights bill as well. Truth is I don't know enough about the Federal Civil rights bill to say definitively whether I would have voted for it or not. I don't like discrimination that doesn't have a constitutional basis such as religious freedom but I sure like the constitution and states rights.

I take the Federal Bill of Rights seriously and the constitution seriously. If the constitution is wrong and it has been in the past, there is an amendment process to fix it.

I am 100% against federal government discrimination in any form against any citizen including gays but I am in favor of the constitution as well. Not all US citizens have the option to permanently move elsewhere since other countries may not accept them. Discrimination against woman, African Americans and other groups should never have been written into the Constitution.

As for states, I actually do think they should be allowed to discriminate --- as long as they aren't in violation of the US Constitution/Federal laws -- and they should be allowed to do other crazy things like set taxes at 85% or barely tax at all as long as people have the power to move with their feet and are not enslaved/prevented from moving. If the state of Alabama wants to discriminate against gays or blacks or short people in a manner in which the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, citizens can move. If CA wants to discriminate against whites in the future, the state can as long as they aren't in violation of the constitution. Whites can move out of that state. After saving up for a year, I myself moved across country after college with only $5000 to my name and no job.

People often talk about how good the federal government has been but with a weaker federal government not interfering as much with states business, perhaps the US would have avoided a couple of very costly wars and ended the war on drugs that has imprisoned lots of non violent black men much sooner.

This is nonsense. It is easy to say that when you have little fear that this will actually happen to you. The U.S has a history of not only discrimination, but state sanctioned slaughter of certain minority groups. If this is libertarianism, then it's pretty ridiculous.

States slaughtered whites as well.

From Wikipedia....

"The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites being lynched between 1882 and 1968, with the annual peak occurring in the 1890s, at a time of economic stress in the South and political suppression.[3] A five-year study published by the Equal Justice Initiative in 2015 found that nearly 4,000 black men, women and children were lynched in the Southern states alone between 1877 and 1950.[4]"

I realize the per capita numbers are not as high but on a yearly basis -- not 73 years like one of the above examples --, I suspect blacks nowadays kill murder more than 4000 blacks.

Not saying that millions of black people weren't killed from the cross atlantic slave trade to various countries in which they were transported in horrible conditions that led to lots of death from disease et cetera but the US and state government sanctioned killings of blacks in the United States was never that high. Were blacks treated horribly by the federal and state governments? Sure since slavery was an incredibly evil. The number killed was obviously high if your family was impacted. And slavery itself abhorrent but the purpose of slavery was economic and it made little economic sense to kill a productive slave. Sell him instead.

Other than blacks, I fail to see the minority that was systematically killed by US governments in the US. Japanese were interned which is a practice that was awful BUT it is also true that SOME Japanese Americans in Hawaii were truly for Japan in that War. It was a policy of the Japanese government to try to get sympathizers.

Lots of people have been killed by governments for no legit reason throughout the entire world and that is a reason a less powerful government is a good thing. Think of all of the people slaughtered by governments by forcing them to go to a war(Vietnam) that didn't make sense. People were once slaughtered for religious reasons in the US. Salem witch trials et cetera. How many minorities have been slaughtered by states for no reason? A heck of a lot of people were killed by the slave trade that went well beyond just the US but not that many American slaves were actually killed when they were on US land. Why? Slaves were viewed as "property" and as sick as that may be but who blows up their own house, TV or other form of property? After slavery ended, lots of lynchings et cetera happened but the sheer amount wasn't as high as some people might expect.

Also whites will be a minority in CA sooner or later. Even as a majority, they were arguably discriminated against. Some white and many more Asian students who have applied to UC Berkeley and other UC colleges were discriminated against because of their race.

Whites -- especially Jews -- and people from Asia been discriminated against by the state of California. 2 years ago, I sold something to a fellow from India on Craigslist that was applying to schools like Stanford, UC Berkeley and a few Ivy League schools in the Northeast. People from India tend to vote Democrat and I didn't ask him about his party affiliation -- I am an independent. We started talking and he flat out said that he was doing everything possible to "hide his race" from the State of CA and some liberal Ivy League North East colleges since he said certain groups were being discriminated against. It wasn't a "theory" to him but reality that his friends told him about. He goes it isn't PC but its reality.

Young Asian students recognize this. And in a certain point in the future, whites will be a minority in CA so who knows how the laws will go in different direction.

For the record, I am 100% in favor of blacks and everyone else from families that aren't rich getting big stipends to send their students to the best k-12 schools that they can. I recognize the K-12 schools that protect teachers unions are failing black students and many other students.

[soxfan2003]

The so called "fix" doesn't do it for me. This is just another act in the GOP right wing clown show. The GOP's problem here is that LGBT folks are disttriibuted evenly throughout the population. They aren't a group that can be easily segregated or demonized. You can't tell a gay person by looking at him or her. The great majority of families in America have a son, daughter, cousin, nephew, niece, in-law, family friend, whatever, who is gay. We care for these people because they are part of our families or they are close friends or colleagues.

The GOP has lost the culture war. They've lost on Blacks, Hispanics, gays, marijuana, and gender equality. If they want to be viewed as something other than an angry, obstructionist neofacist minority, they have to change. They have gerrymandered state legislatures to keep themselves in power. It has been a brilliant strategy but the victories are only tactical. In the long run these hate mongers who hide behind religion will fail, although personally I'd much rather see them fail sooner rather than later.

I'm all for gender equality but the Democrat version of a it is woman being treated better than men. If you haven't been paying attention, in lots of directly comparable jobs/experience, woman are being paid more then men nowadays. I have no problem with that if companies view them as a little bit better workers. The reason for the existing wage disparity has to do with woman wanting to leave the work force to raise kids and not being as interested in certain high paying occupations. Compare the amount of woman who are English majors at the Ivy League schools vs STEM majors. It is a huge difference.

If women for whatever reason do not want to get involved with STEM and take the huge risks to be entrepreneurs, it stands to reason their wages overall won't be as high. And there will be a lot less woman worth billions or tens of millions.

I'm all for equality but in all honestly every woman -- and I have known some hardcore progressives -- I have known in tech has never said gender influenced her pay. Most have been happy with their pay and if they hated their jobs it was for different reasons such as their boss (male or female) being a jerk.

And in many respects blacks are the big loser in illegal Hispanic immigration which drives down wages. Rich liberal whites and rich conservative whites who hire Hispanics illegally have won on that one but the average American including law abiding Hispanics have lost big time.

[JoelNoel]

There is no difference between Indiana's law and the laws in CT, PA, etc. It's the same law that Barack Obama voted for in Illinois.

[babyjax13]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

So if my religion says I should get to punch you in the nads, but you think that is not OK...I should still be allowed to do it because you should accept that I don't accept your lifestyle? I'm really struggling to understand where the hypocrisy is...

This is from a blog post I wrote after I came out, and I think it addresses your hypocrisy argument pretty well:

Even though I have known for a long time that I am gay, they think that I am a different person now that I have told them. I have no expectation that everyone will approve of it. Would it be nice? I don’t think that people would be so harsh toward me if I were an atheist; I think that they would be able to conceive of a person not believing in god. But being gay? No, that is a choice not just to be sinful, it is a choice to be amoral.

I am destroying the moral fiber of America, because of me traditional institutions and values are under attack. But is it not the Christian thing to do to show kindness to your neighbor? How can you say those things and then claim that you love me anyway?

The government has a history of systematically punishing people that are gay, infringing upon their freedom, destroying their liberty, regulating their speech and sterilizing any vestiges of “non-traditional” activity in the public and private sphere. My government and fellow citizens discriminate against me because of something that is innately a part of who I am. Everywhere I go they say “states have the right to make laws as they see fit,” and “it is up to the citizens to decide how their state is run.” And even though they institutionalize discrimination, the people greet it with a smug approval…or at least tolerate it despite their disagreement. They don’t fight for me, they don’t fight with me. Instead they just say “if you don’t like it, you can move.”

States that fight for “traditional Christian values” are celebrated for their lack of fear in fighting against a government attack on individual rights. But how can you not see that the ability of citizens to arbitrarily decide that someone should lose their job based on their sexuality is wrong?

“God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” As a Christian, you must understand something being at the core of who you are, central to your being. You must feel the pulse of god in your veins, his spirit guiding your every action. Based on your conception you must be able to empathize with the fact that romantic and sexual attraction are just as central to who other people are. Hold whatever beliefs you may about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but keep in mind Jesus’ prime directive, the golden rule. I would never tell someone that their religion is invalid because of science, do not tell me that my sexuality is invalid because of religion. God loves us all, god tells us to judge none. You have no authority to say that the things I do are things that god hates just as I have no authority to dismiss the things you feel as a Christian.

Arbitrary discrimination is unacceptable, and that is the heart of this issue. Denying someone services because they are gay is arbitrary

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

The reason people discriminate is because minority groups seem "icky" or their god doesn't "like" those people. And really, who cares about that? Religion is a private enterprise between men, commerce is a societal enterprise that provides necessary goods and services to everyone. When you create loopholes that allow discrimination based on individual beliefs, you create a system that places certain individuals at greater risk of not being able to provide an equivalent quality of life to themselves and their families even if all things are held equal. That is an inherently unfair system that lacks the elements of liberty and equality of opportunity (but not of outcome) that was the foundation of our country. RFRAs like Indiana's, Arkansas' and Arizona's places minorities at a greater risk of being unable not just to enjoy a high quality of life, but also to have access to life necessities. When businesses can decide not to serve someone for arbitrary reasons it is harmful to that individual and the integrity of our nation. When they decide to fire someone for arbitrary reasons it is even more harmful, and can lead to people becoming homeless or dying when they no longer have access to medical facilities because of a lack of money...or even possibly the lack of doctors willing to serve them.

Now deciding not to serve something like a cake may not represent an imminent harm, imagine that a couple lives in a rural town that is hours away from any bakery outside of where they live. In that case, they have to significantly modify their behavior in order to simply get a wedding cake. That baker serving them, on the other hand, does not have to modify their behavior, they just have to make a cake.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are in place to ensure "liberty" in the American system. I particularly like this definition of Liberty:

the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Allowing commercial enterprises to discriminate greatly changes the behavior of those who are discriminated against. It denies them access to basic services, while at the same time marginalizing and demeaning them. It is an OPPRESSIVE restriction. I see no reason why serving gay people in your BUSINESS would be oppressive, unless you want to make a religious argument, and there is no current judicial precedent to say that religious beliefs are ample grounds for discrimination.

[babyjax13]

There is no difference between Indiana's law and the laws in CT, PA, etc. It's the same law that Barack Obama voted for in Illinois.

Which is irrelevant to this conversation. Just because other states has passed similar measures does not make the acceptable, and in general, those measures were passed much before the LGBT civil rights movement gained significant steam...which also doesn't make them OK.

[JoelNoel]

There is no difference between Indiana's law and the laws in CT, PA, etc. It's the same law that Barack Obama voted for in Illinois.

Which is irrelevant to this conversation. Just because other states has passed similar measures does not make the acceptable, and in general, those measures were passed much before the LGBT civil rights movement gained significant steam...which also doesn't make them OK.

No the laws are perfectly acceptable and only tangentially deal with LGBT issues. Those laws ensure that the government will be held to a strict standard when acting against a business or individual.

[JoelNoel]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

So if my religion says I should get to punch you in the nads, but you think that is not OK...I should still be allowed to do it because you should accept that I don't accept your lifestyle? I'm really struggling to understand where the hypocrisy is...

This is from a blog post I wrote after I came out, and I think it addresses your hypocrisy argument pretty well:

Even though I have known for a long time that I am gay, they think that I am a different person now that I have told them. I have no expectation that everyone will approve of it. Would it be nice? I don’t think that people would be so harsh toward me if I were an atheist; I think that they would be able to conceive of a person not believing in god. But being gay? No, that is a choice not just to be sinful, it is a choice to be amoral.

I am destroying the moral fiber of America, because of me traditional institutions and values are under attack. But is it not the Christian thing to do to show kindness to your neighbor? How can you say those things and then claim that you love me anyway?

The government has a history of systematically punishing people that are gay, infringing upon their freedom, destroying their liberty, regulating their speech and sterilizing any vestiges of “non-traditional” activity in the public and private sphere. My government and fellow citizens discriminate against me because of something that is innately a part of who I am. Everywhere I go they say “states have the right to make laws as they see fit,” and “it is up to the citizens to decide how their state is run.” And even though they institutionalize discrimination, the people greet it with a smug approval…or at least tolerate it despite their disagreement. They don’t fight for me, they don’t fight with me. Instead they just say “if you don’t like it, you can move.”

States that fight for “traditional Christian values” are celebrated for their lack of fear in fighting against a government attack on individual rights. But how can you not see that the ability of citizens to arbitrarily decide that someone should lose their job based on their sexuality is wrong?

“God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” As a Christian, you must understand something being at the core of who you are, central to your being. You must feel the pulse of god in your veins, his spirit guiding your every action. Based on your conception you must be able to empathize with the fact that romantic and sexual attraction are just as central to who other people are. Hold whatever beliefs you may about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but keep in mind Jesus’ prime directive, the golden rule. I would never tell someone that their religion is invalid because of science, do not tell me that my sexuality is invalid because of religion. God loves us all, god tells us to judge none. You have no authority to say that the things I do are things that god hates just as I have no authority to dismiss the things you feel as a Christian.

Arbitrary discrimination is unacceptable, and that is the heart of this issue. Denying someone services because they are gay is arbitrary

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

The reason people discriminate is because minority groups seem "icky" or their god doesn't "like" those people. And really, who cares about that? Religion is a private enterprise between men, commerce is a societal enterprise that provides necessary goods and services to everyone. When you create loopholes that allow discrimination based on individual beliefs, you create a system that places certain individuals at greater risk of not being able to provide an equivalent quality of life to themselves and their families even if all things are held equal. That is an inherently unfair system that lacks the elements of liberty and equality of opportunity (but not of outcome) that was the foundation of our country. RFRAs like Indiana's, Arkansas' and Arizona's places minorities at a greater risk of being unable not just to enjoy a high quality of life, but also to have access to life necessities. When businesses can decide not to serve someone for arbitrary reasons it is harmful to that individual and the integrity of our nation. When they decide to fire someone for arbitrary reasons it is even more harmful, and can lead to people becoming homeless or dying when they no longer have access to medical facilities because of a lack of money...or even possibly the lack of doctors willing to serve them.

Now deciding not to serve something like a cake may not represent an imminent harm, imagine that a couple lives in a rural town that is hours away from any bakery outside of where they live. In that case, they have to significantly modify their behavior in order to simply get a wedding cake. That baker serving them, on the other hand, does not have to modify their behavior, they just have to make a cake.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are in place to ensure "liberty" in the American system. I particularly like this definition of Liberty:

the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Allowing commercial enterprises to discriminate greatly changes the behavior of those who are discriminated against. It denies them access to basic services, while at the same time marginalizing and demeaning them. It is an OPPRESSIVE restriction. I see no reason why serving gay people in your BUSINESS would be oppressive, unless you want to make a religious argument, and there is no current judicial precedent to say that religious beliefs are ample grounds for discrimination.

Punching someone would interfere with that person's liberty, so it clearly would not be protected. You should have no right to tell a business they must participate in a ceremony which they are vehemently opposed.

This entire backlash is much to do about nothing. A reporter found a business with crosses displayed, so the owners were asked if they would cater a same-sex wedding... even though they were a pizza parlor.

[webc5]

This is what I have to say.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ERhaA6xOM[/youtube]

[soxfan2003]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

So if my religion says I should get to punch you in the nads, but you think that is not OK...I should still be allowed to do it because you should accept that I don't accept your lifestyle? I'm really struggling to understand where the hypocrisy is...

This is from a blog post I wrote after I came out, and I think it addresses your hypocrisy argument pretty well:

Even though I have known for a long time that I am gay, they think that I am a different person now that I have told them. I have no expectation that everyone will approve of it. Would it be nice? I don’t think that people would be so harsh toward me if I were an atheist; I think that they would be able to conceive of a person not believing in god. But being gay? No, that is a choice not just to be sinful, it is a choice to be amoral.

I am destroying the moral fiber of America, because of me traditional institutions and values are under attack. But is it not the Christian thing to do to show kindness to your neighbor? How can you say those things and then claim that you love me anyway?

The government has a history of systematically punishing people that are gay, infringing upon their freedom, destroying their liberty, regulating their speech and sterilizing any vestiges of “non-traditional” activity in the public and private sphere. My government and fellow citizens discriminate against me because of something that is innately a part of who I am. Everywhere I go they say “states have the right to make laws as they see fit,” and “it is up to the citizens to decide how their state is run.” And even though they institutionalize discrimination, the people greet it with a smug approval…or at least tolerate it despite their disagreement. They don’t fight for me, they don’t fight with me. Instead they just say “if you don’t like it, you can move.”

States that fight for “traditional Christian values” are celebrated for their lack of fear in fighting against a government attack on individual rights. But how can you not see that the ability of citizens to arbitrarily decide that someone should lose their job based on their sexuality is wrong?

“God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” As a Christian, you must understand something being at the core of who you are, central to your being. You must feel the pulse of god in your veins, his spirit guiding your every action. Based on your conception you must be able to empathize with the fact that romantic and sexual attraction are just as central to who other people are. Hold whatever beliefs you may about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but keep in mind Jesus’ prime directive, the golden rule. I would never tell someone that their religion is invalid because of science, do not tell me that my sexuality is invalid because of religion. God loves us all, god tells us to judge none. You have no authority to say that the things I do are things that god hates just as I have no authority to dismiss the things you feel as a Christian.

Arbitrary discrimination is unacceptable, and that is the heart of this issue. Denying someone services because they are gay is arbitrary

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

The reason people discriminate is because minority groups seem "icky" or their god doesn't "like" those people. And really, who cares about that? Religion is a private enterprise between men, commerce is a societal enterprise that provides necessary goods and services to everyone. When you create loopholes that allow discrimination based on individual beliefs, you create a system that places certain individuals at greater risk of not being able to provide an equivalent quality of life to themselves and their families even if all things are held equal. That is an inherently unfair system that lacks the elements of liberty and equality of opportunity (but not of outcome) that was the foundation of our country. RFRAs like Indiana's, Arkansas' and Arizona's places minorities at a greater risk of being unable not just to enjoy a high quality of life, but also to have access to life necessities. When businesses can decide not to serve someone for arbitrary reasons it is harmful to that individual and the integrity of our nation. When they decide to fire someone for arbitrary reasons it is even more harmful, and can lead to people becoming homeless or dying when they no longer have access to medical facilities because of a lack of money...or even possibly the lack of doctors willing to serve them.

Now deciding not to serve something like a cake may not represent an imminent harm, imagine that a couple lives in a rural town that is hours away from any bakery outside of where they live. In that case, they have to significantly modify their behavior in order to simply get a wedding cake. That baker serving them, on the other hand, does not have to modify their behavior, they just have to make a cake.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are in place to ensure "liberty" in the American system. I particularly like this definition of Liberty:

the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Allowing commercial enterprises to discriminate greatly changes the behavior of those who are discriminated against. It denies them access to basic services, while at the same time marginalizing and demeaning them. It is an OPPRESSIVE restriction. I see no reason why serving gay people in your BUSINESS would be oppressive, unless you want to make a religious argument, and there is no current judicial precedent to say that religious beliefs are ample grounds for discrimination.

Look I am not against gays. I have supported gay and straight civil unions since the 1980's and rented a couple of rooms in a house from a gay couple for 4 years in the mid 1990's in the first real apartment I had on my own that I paid for. A couple of my cousins are gay.

That being said, this whole notion that very small businesses discriminating based upon religious beliefs is wrong is ridiculous. If gays are denied cakes for weddings or any other event, it is a golden opportunity for a gay person to open up a national wedding cake making business. Heck if I was a gay entrepreneur, I would be trying to make money off of this myself.

Discrimination occurs all of the time. I have had wealthy black people that are supposedly liberal tell me that they don't like to go to large parts of Oakland since it is "the ghetto". They basically discriminate against large parts of a city. An average or below average looking gay guy asks out a great looking gay guy, good chance he is turned down and discriminated against because of his looks. Same things in the straight world. I am not bad looking at all but I'm not Tom Brady either or Derek Jeter so I have only had the opportunity to date one unknown model that went to UC Berkeley and not a whole bunch of super models/famous actresses/pop stars. Was I discriminated against because of my looks? Sure but that is life. Night clubs from what I have often heard discriminate based upon who they let in... should the government get involved with that private business as well to make sure everyone gets in first come, first served?

I realize my examples are ridiculous but the government compelling very small businesses to violate their religious convictions is just as ridiculous as long as we have a first amendment. The night clubs discriminating based upon looks, gender, age, finances or connections are doing what they want for their business.

Now if someone's religion is to physically hurt another person or take away their liberty/freedom THEN the government should protect them. Your first example is absolutely ridiculous and just isn't pertinent to the discussion. I have never felt their should be hate laws just to protect gays, blacks or whites from violence BUT all attacks that can be proven should be prosecuted. A gay person gets beaten on the street for being gay, the person committing the violence should be prosecuted and spend some time in jail.

We all know what gay people want. Acceptance from society and let me tell you, IMHO gays are not going to get it as quick from mainstream America when they are unreasonable about people deciding not to make cakes, play the piano or photograph weddings. It is an agenda that fair minded people not on the coasts will not agree with anytime soon. And I say this as someone who is pretty agnostic who left the Catholic church in part in the early 90's because they discriminate against woman and gays.

There is a lot of logic and a moral high ground by stating the federal government should not be discriminating based upon sexual orientation unless they have a truly compelling reason to do so like they probably did for years in the military when the average military member wasn't comfortable around gays. But if I walk into a cake shop and that business discriminates against me for any reason, I just go into the next shop. Someone else can get my money.

But there was never a compelling reason to treat gays and straights differently under federal tax laws so that is why I have 20+ years ahead of the curve on that issue. If people think for themselves and outside of ideological boxes, IMHO the US would be a much better place.

If gays are so concerned about religious bigotry, why not spend some effort on convincing family members and relatives that support them to consider going to churches that don't discriminate? That is a much more effective and reasonable way to do things. And yes there are Christian churches that have woman priests and support gays. And why not focus on intolerance in the Muslim world and the US doing business with countries like Saudi Arabia that truly repress gays?

[harold lewis]

[Cicero]

did you catch the new episode of south park, soxfan?! can you loan me some bitcoins? where do you stand on gamergate, goonsir? do you think the white race might be in peril?



Lmao someone save this dude's posts somewhere for the sake of posterity, there's so much to study and analyze. once I saw a thread in realgm with this title I immediately went to the last page hoping to find "that guy" and I am not disappointed.


and p.s. bro, you not only clearly have your own ideological box you're comfy in (to each their own), but plz cut that "Democrats and Republicans" faux-"middle common sense" false equivalency bull like you're not just peddling your own distinct political brand because last I checked Barry Goldwater had a firm ideological foxhole and it sure as **** ain't moderate. The fact that Richard Nixon would get chased out of the current GOP these days for being "too liberal" doesn't change the fact that your ilk have always had a clear and identifiable place on the political spectrum and it's definitely not one that provides you with a middleground position lmao
Plz take the Republican party back from the Christofascists that stole it from your wing of the party so we can just go back to calling a spade a spade, because an America where someone with your distinct political ideologies and lines (lines ive seen parroted a thousand times before) can play the "awww shucks, both these parties are craaaazy" card is a violently **** up America.
for christ sakes, Obama isn't even close to left wing or progressive. Dude wouldn't be too politically different from George H.W. Bush, just with Romneycare. **** is soooooo skewed these days. Wake up and remember who you are, soxfan!!!1111

[eagereyez]

How did I know this would turn into another racial thread.

[eagereyez]

I got a headache from reading some of the (idiotic) posts in this thread about allowing institutional discrimination for businesses. "Nobody should tell someone who they can serve with their business." Once you allow one business to discriminate who they serve, where else should that apply? Why couldn't then you choose who you can hire for your business as well, based on whatever (racial, age, sex, sex orientation, religious) criteria you want? I mean it is your business, right?

Once you allow discrimination within institutions you allow prejudice, hate and ignorance to build and breed within communities and then greater society. Only someone who wants to live in a primitive, morally absent world could want something like that. It's an inherently destructive idea.

A business that doesn't hire the best people for the job will fail when it competes against a business that does. Basic capitalism ensures this outcome. Government doesn't have to step in to fix anything. Passing a law doesn't magically make people not racist or homophobic. Allowing them to run their businesses into the ground with their prejudiced beliefs might.

[JoelNoel]

did you catch the new episode of south park, soxfan?! can you loan me some bitcoins? where do you stand on gamergate, goonsir? do you think the white race might be in peril?



Lmao someone save this dude's posts somewhere for the sake of posterity, there's so much to study and analyze. once I saw a thread in realgm with this title I immediately went to the last page hoping to find "that guy" and I am not disappointed.


and p.s. bro, you not only clearly have your own ideological box you're comfy in (to each their own), but plz cut that "Democrats and Republicans" faux-"middle common sense" false equivalency bull like you're not just peddling your own distinct political brand because last I checked Barry Goldwater had a firm ideological foxhole and it sure as **** ain't moderate. The fact that Richard Nixon would get chased out of the current GOP these days for being "too liberal" doesn't change the fact that your ilk have always had a clear and identifiable place on the political spectrum and it's definitely not one that provides you with a middleground position lmao
Plz take the Republican party back from the Christofascists that stole it from your wing of the party so we can just go back to calling a spade a spade, because an America where someone with your distinct political ideologies and lines (lines ive seen parroted a thousand times before) can play the "awww shucks, both these parties are craaaazy" card is a violently **** up America.
for christ sakes, Obama isn't even close to left wing or progressive. Dude wouldn't be too politically different from George H.W. Bush, just with Romneycare. **** is soooooo skewed these days. Wake up and remember who you are, soxfan!!!1111

Actually Obama is Far Left. He's a student of Saul Alinsky. Stop pretending that Obama isn't Far Left because he has strong ties to big business.

And Sox doesn't even appear to be a Republican to me. He sounds like a libertarian.

[Zane]

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

Holy hell is that guy dumb.

Not really. His point makes sense. If someone says homosexuality is wrong and it should be illegal for gays to get married, and your response is "well it's not a choice, they're born with it", you're not even arguing against the claim that it's wrong, you're just arguing that that it's not within a person's control.

Uhhh what? Who makes that argument? I feel like most people say it's not a choice because the anti-gay crowd states it's "unnatural" and something "god" didn't intend. His poker friend's statement is ridiculously stupid.

[I_Never Lied]

Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Care to explain your reasoning for the bolded part? Is it scientifically based? Is it based on sociological and economic implications? Is it just your opinion? Is it based on your religion?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "Gay love is OK"?

The Colon is not designed for sex. Point Blank Period. The Colon is not a sex organ. Point Blank Period.


If two men want to hug and have feelings for each other, that is most certainly OK. I love my Dad.

[I_Never Lied]

Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Dude, who cares where someone sticks it?

Why not stick it in a Cow or Dog then?

[I_Never Lied]

Anyone have a link I can read proving that one is born gay? Because my Bio class couldn't even do it. I'm neutral on the issue but have a lot of liberal and conservative friends and listening to their arguments are hilariously rhetorical.

My dad, who is gay, summarized in the most perfect way for me.

Why would he have chosen to be gay? Why would he have chosen to grow up hiding his sexuality, be incredibly depressed to the point of suicide. Why would he have chosen a path that's harder, that involves persecution and discrimination?

Why were you born?