Politics and sexuality, freedom and discrimination.

[DuckiesDarling]

In America we are seeing a lot of people claiming that in order for them to be free and practice their religion they must be allowed to discriminate. The courts are not agreeing so far and have ruled that people who refuse to provide a service.. yes SERVICE due to sexual orientation are wrong. Just as the person who refused to write "God hates Fags" on a Bible Cake was ruled to be correct. She did bake the cake and offered the patron the tools to write it himself.

On the flip side you have a pizzeria that stated they would not cater a gay wedding. Besides the obvious not many people would want pizza for wedding the amount of vitriol tossed at Memories Pizza was staggering and people responded, raising over $840k for them. Much more than they would have earned just by staying in business.

Was it a stunt hoping for this? Was it a setup by media and loaded questions? Or was it a product of this day and age that if people throw money at something it eases their conscious.

I've been proudly wearing my NoH8 shirt all around town an explaining what it means. Just because you don't agree with something it doesn't mean you have to hate.

It's getting much harder for some now because businesses and other large entities like entire states are now willing to punish states like Indiana for hatred legally by restricting dealings and affecting economy which forces citizens to make their voices heard.

When is someone's freedom restricted by not being allowed to discriminate?

[pole_smoker]

It sounds as though some of these businesses are just doing it for media attention, and money like you said.

There's a mechanic who now says he would refuse to service the car of an LGBT person or same gender couple, and now he's claiming he got threats by LGBT people just like the pizzeria owners did.

[Long Duck Dong]

I do discriminate on the grounds of attitude because thats the one thing that makes the biggest impression on me.......

discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is a different kettle of fish to be honest......we have had cases in NZ where people have been refused accommodation on the grounds of sexuality and often its turned out to be case of LGBT people going to a place that is known to be run by religious people, with the intention of turning the issue into a media circus.......its like a reverse WBC tactic........

the counter argument is one of discrimination on sexuality grounds is wrong, so our rights supersede other peoples choices in their own places of business... the issue for me, is that people use that for their 15 minutes of fame. even going so far as to real life troll businesses just to cause issues

would I go to a church, knowing that their beliefs may be one that is not accepting of LGBT.... yes if it was for a funeral or something like that, but I would not go there in drag with the intention of turning the church into a war zone..... but by the same token I would avoid a church that makes a point of advertising that they are LGBT friendly and using LGBT acceptance as a selling point to attract other members.....

would I use the services of a mechanic or pizzeria that was not LGBT friendly? yes..... I may not agree with their beliefs but I also do not really see how I need to proclaim my sexuality in order to get my car fixed or order a pizza.... and personally I will go to the best place for the services I want, if they turn me away, ok fine, I will not return there, I will go somewhere else...... but nor am I going to use the situation to fuel a media war because death threats and other childish BS is not helping the issue and only fuels a persons determination to discriminate more........

to be honest, the right to discriminate on religious grounds ( using the bible ) requires a person to only apply part of the bible to the situation and ignore the part where jesus instructs his followers * love thou neighbour * and " judge not, lest thee be judged "...... and in a way that applies to me as well... the more I sit in judgement of others, the more others will sit in judgement of me...... ahh the eternal circle......

anti discrimination laws do not really work that well, here in NZ, the laws that protect against discrimination have now become the ropes that we try to hang others with..... OMG, I did not get the payraise I wanted, so the boss is discriminating against me on the grounds of height, weight, sexuality, skin color, belief, eye color, the way I am dressed etc etc and it has got to the point that the bosses do not want to employ disruptive people like that.... and so more cries of discrimination fill the air.......

too much freedom is more dangerous than not enough.......

[DuckiesDarling]

A lot of what I'm seeing in the news and on some groups I am in on Facebook are full of a lot of extremists one way or another. It's leaving people that didn't want to be involved, didn't care as it didn't personally affect them, suddenly having to make a choice. It's a not a for us or against us... I wish that people could see it doesn't have to be hate from either side. NOH8

[darkeyes]

It remains early days of law and anti lgbt discrimination.. recourse to law is expensive, problematical and yet necessary... we cannot legislate for how people feel, but to put in place a clumsy, but necessary method of ensuring those being discriminated against gain the freedoms due to them and that their freedoms are protected has 2 be. That it means the freedom to discriminate in many areas is removed is self evident and maximise freedoms for all of humanity, some liberty will be supressed...

We all discriminate in some way for much discrimination .. society and the law allow for this.. we are able to discriminate within the law all manner of things... but generally, not for what a person is or what a person believes. Society has rules in place about how we may discriminate against people and sometimes this will offend against belief... for instance, we may believe homosexuality or bisexality is wrong out of religious or personal conviction, but cannot discriminate against a person (in the UK) at work, in education, housing, health, welfare and a whole host of public and private service areas simply because they are gay or bisexual.. we may wish 2, but it is prevented by the law. Any who do discriminate in contravention of the law will be and are prosecuted and punished. Often such discrimination is difficult to prove.. but while that may be the case, very often courts are convinced that cases have been proven in cases which have gone right up to the UK Supreme Court and beyond (the European Courts).

It is arguable whether courts create more resentment by encroaching on peoples desire to discriminate against others for a whole host of things ecause of what they believe, yet slowly, the lgbt the war against discrimination at least is being won more more I suspect because of education than recourse to law.. but they are complimentary, and winning the battles against sexual, gender and race discrimination would be so much more difficult if we had but one if those tools to fight the war with...

I agree wivya, darlin'darlin' 'bout h8... h8 is something I was raised not 2 do when it came 2 people... and in the main I don't. I h8 certain ideas and things folk have said and done, but find it almost impossible 2 h8 others for what they do, say or believe. In the UK, there is less h8 thrown against the lgbt than probably at ne time in our history. H8 remains in other areas. Some say as bad as ever it has been.. tho I am not so sure. I am hopeful and time will tell.. Tho I do suspect much if the h8 getting better ir worse in those other areas will depend on what happens next month in the general election... :)

[fredtyg]

People should have the right of non- association as well as association. As such, they should do business, or not, with whomever they want. I'm self employed. I decide who I'll work for and what work I'm willing to do. A bakery that doesn't want to support a same sex wedding should have that same right.
You can always take your business elsewhere, just as someone seeking work done nearly always does is they're not satisfied with the service being offered. Keep in mind that pizza place. While they got all kinds of support, they also had a lot of people threatening boycott.

Works both ways, or should. You're not happy with a business, go elsewhere. Business owner not comfortable with the job being requested, they should be able to refuse.

[charles-smythe]

In America we are seeing a lot of people claiming that in order for them to be free and practice their religion they must be allowed to discriminate. The courts are not agreeing so far and have ruled that people who refuse to provide a service.. yes SERVICE due to sexual orientation are wrong. Just as the person who refused to write "God hates Fags" on a Bible Cake was ruled to be correct. She did bake the cake and offered the patron the tools to write it himself.

On the flip side you have a pizzeria that stated they would not cater a gay wedding. Besides the obvious not many people would want pizza for wedding the amount of vitriol tossed at Memories Pizza was staggering and people responded, raising over $840k for them. Much more than they would have earned just by staying in business.

Was it a stunt hoping for this? Was it a setup by media and loaded questions? Or was it a product of this day and age that if people throw money at something it eases their conscious.

I've been proudly wearing my NoH8 shirt all around town an explaining what it means. Just because you don't agree with something it doesn't mean you have to hate.

It's getting much harder for some now because businesses and other large entities like entire states are now willing to punish states like Indiana for hatred legally by restricting dealings and affecting economy which forces citizens to make their voices heard.

When is someone's freedom restricted by not being allowed to discriminate? …I think anyone putting their money on the line running a business should be able to refuse service to ANYONE for whatever reason they choose…I doubt very seriously if they are the only one providing the service…if someone doesn’t want your business…move on down the road & buy from their competitor…until the law requires you to buy from them they have no business requiring them to do business with them…it’s a blade that cuts both ways….

[fredtyg]

…I think anyone putting their money on the line running a business should be able to refuse service to ANYONE for whatever reason they choose…I doubt very seriously if they are the only one providing the service…if someone doesn’t want your business…move on down the road & buy from their competitor…until the law requires you to buy from them they have no business requiring them to do business with them…it’s a blade that cuts both ways….


Agreed. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". We need to get more of those signs back up.

As an aside, I was ragging on one half a married lesbian couple right after that Indiana thing. The own a business. She replied to me, "We reserve the right to refuse service...", so they were kinda with me on that.

And I don't think that Indiana religious freedom law goes far enough. Why should you only be able to use religion to deny service to someone? It should be a basic human right, just as it's a basic human right to choose where you go shopping.

[tenni]

Equal rights is something that many societies struggle with. Equal rights against discrimination seem to be something where Canada and the US differ. If you offer your services, you do not have the right to discriminate under certain conditions that include race and sexuality as well as ethnic origin, sex, age or physical disability.

The physical disability aspect is often connected to making sure that your business has access for physical disability. You can not get certain funding from municipal, provincial or federal governments unless you provide safe access to the physically disabled. The same anti discrimination aspect should apply to all.

There is a huge difference between personal discrimination based on prejudice and systemic and business discrimination. It is one thing to state that I won't date that person because of their physical appearance or disability and another unacceptable reason to state that I won't serve them because they are Black, too fat blind or too tall etc. Any business that discriminates against people based on the above factors would not get government funding. The government would dismiss their application if found to discriminate. I believe that they could be charged as breaking the laws that are written to support anti discrimination. Possible a government that focuses on perceived freedoms of individuals needs to re examine its priorities. The collective good or individual rights seems to be the issue?

Section 15 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[fredtyg]

There is a huge difference between personal discrimination based on prejudice and systemic and business discrimination. It is one thing to state that I won't date that person because of their physical appearance or disability and another to state that I won't serve them because they are Black, too fat or or too tall to sit in my seats etc. Any business that discriminates against people based on the above factors would not get government funding. Anyone who won't sit beside a person due to their race, sexuality etc. should be shown the exit door and often is. Rather than support bigotry, many believe that you should speak out about it.


If this was back in the 1940s, I might feel differently. It isn't, so there's little if any need for any sorts of protections against discrimination. When you think about it, even a small event such as not baking a wedding cake makes the national news now. That's how rare it is.

But the whole idea that someone be forced to do business with someone they don't want to really irks me. All this talk about federal laws and whatnot doesn't really address that.

I've turned down jobs for any number of reasons in my business. I turned down trimming a tree for a guy because I didn't feel comfortable doing the work. Over my head, no pun intended, was what I told him. A bit earlier I turned down a monthly contract with some lady. That was only because I thought she was a flake. I just didn't like her. Discrimination? If so, so what?

I don't see either of those reasons for not doing business with someone as all that much different than someone feeling uncomfortable taking part in a same sex wedding. It's not their thing, so they should be able to opt out. Problem is, a lot of the in- your- face LGBT types think they're accomplishing something by forcing someone to do something they don't want to do.

[mas8092]

I have to write that this is the most intelligent and well thought out threads I have seen.

If you think about it, we are arguing about the rights of florists and bakers to decline to take part in a gay wedding. If they decline, then the world goes nuts. We are not discussing whether they can decline to serve gay or Bi customers. To do that, I expect the customers would have to have a pink triangle sewn on their clothes.

I accept the right of a baker to say no. I accept the fact that a doctor or lawyer can say no for any reason. I accept the fact that a Jewish baker should be afforded the right not to make a swastika Hitler's birthday cake.

Just because a gay couple wants a cake does not mean a business should be forced to make it. I always thought the RFRA was stupid when they passed it. I'm simple. Always thought the First Amendment covered government action.

As marriage goes, I take the Glenn Beck view. Marriage is a religeous rite. All unions are civil unions because they instill legal rights. The ceremony can be at the court house with same sex couples. If you want a church wedding a gay or hetero couple, it is up to your church. Most hetero couples will do the ceremony at the church.

As a people, we should not force a baker to bake a cake for a ceremony in which they do not believe. It's all a distraction ginned up by the radical gay community, And their media toadies, And totally weak corporate leaders. Any RFRA passed in a state is really no big deal. The real deal, if one thinks about it, is whether same-sex civil unions are permitted in a state.

Mind you, I am a conservative from a Midwest U.S. State. The gay Civil Union/Marriage is important to some people. Ultimately, the CU or Marriage issue should be up to each state. Don't like
it? Move. It is not a Federal issue.

[tenni]

fred
I partially see your point. I know that doctors and lawyers may refuse you as patients or clients. However, if they said that they would not accept you as a patient/client because of your sexuality, race etc. that is a different matter.

What I notice in my province recently is that discrimination is getting less overt. It is not as much in your face that they reject you as a client because of your minority status. There is a growing resistence to respect equal rights even though we have the Charter. Even the Conservative government is frequently trying to circumvent the Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court has been consistently turning back their laws if they violate the Charter.

Canadian equality rights are across the land but marraige equality grew out of the provinces passing laws and provincial Supreme Courts deciding that the marriage equality fell under the Charter. The actual federal government waited until a majority of provinces were on Board. Then they made the equality across the nation.

I know that a pastor or religious priest etc can not be forced to marry someone if it violates their right to religion. However, there must be a place where same gender may marry even if provided by the government itself. Marriage in Canada is not a religious issue as much as it is a legal civil issue. The actual religions do not provide the legal documents. The government does. The churches are licensed by the state to perform a marriage. You may do marriage ceremonies without being affiliated to any particular church as long as you are licensed by the state.

I have not heard where a business has refused to offer their services in Canada though. As I wrote, I suspect that bigotry just finds another way to circumvent the laws. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been done due to discrimination but it is difficult to prove.

[fredtyg]

I'm not sure if you're confusing me with mas8092, tenni. Doesn't matter because him and I seem to be roughly of the same mind except for what I consider minor differences.

The point of contention I have with these federal or regional charters you speak of is they seem to give no consideration to personal choice. It's like the government coming in and telling everyone their human interactions are going to be done the government's way and that's it. The libertarian in me rejects that and I don't think there's any problem in me doing so. Discrimination simply isn't anywhere near the problem it might have been half a century ago.

As far as marriage goes, mas is kinda in line with the way I've thought about it. I don't think it's a religious thing, but recognize many people do and have been surprised at some of the people that feel that way.

As far as government goes, though, it should only see marriage as a legal contract or civil union that any two people deemed smart enough to know what they're doing can take part in. Since religious folks think marriage is some holy union under God, let them have it. If you want to get "married" in the church, fine, but as far as the government recognizing it, it should be considered just a civil union or whatever other term you want to use.

In other words, as I might have written here before, let the churches own the word "marriage", but as far as government goes, it's just a civil union. Those of you that object, don't worry. I've taken heat from all sides when I've presented that idea elsewhere.

As an aside, not long ago during a discussion I told my wife we aren't married because we weren't married in a church (her family very much considers marriage a religious ritual). She said, "ok", and seemed quite happy with that. I actually felt good about that, too, after I pointed it out. lol.

[Visexual]

I think the problem with Civil Union is that it doesn't come with all of the same privileges that a marriage does. My wife and I married outside of the church 43 years ago and our marriage is more of a Civil Union but because we have a 'marriage' license, we have more legal rights than a gay couple with a 'civil union' have.

I, personally, appreciate knowing if a privately owned business hates gays or atheists. It lets me know not to do business there.

[Long Duck Dong]

As far as marriage goes, mas is kinda in line with the way I've thought about it. I don't think it's a religious thing, but recognize many people do and have been surprised at some of the people that feel that way.

As far as government goes, though, it should only see marriage as a legal contract or civil union that any two people deemed smart enough to know what they're doing can take part in. Since religious folks think marriage is some holy union under God, let them have it. If you want to get "married" in the church, fine, but as far as the government recognizing it, it should be considered just a civil union or whatever other term you want to use.

In other words, as I might have written here before, let the churches own the word "marriage", but as far as government goes, it's just a civil union. Those of you that object, don't worry. I've taken heat from all sides when I've presented that idea elsewhere.

As an aside, not long ago during a discussion I told my wife we aren't married because we weren't married in a church (her family very much considers marriage a religious ritual). She said, "ok", and seemed quite happy with that. I actually felt good about that, too, after I pointed it out. lol.

That is exactly what they did in NZ.... the church still has rights over the word * marriage * ( During the ceremony before a marriage celebrant, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words "I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband" or words to similar effect. ), a civil union does not have that requirement..... and it is possible later to have a civil union changed to a marriage and vice versa, AFTER two people are wed......


the irony is that a handbinding is not a legal form of union, it must follow the criteria of marriage and civil union..... and yes a handbinding is between two people as a direct connection rather than a 3rd party acting in a official manner and two witnesses, with all the legal trappings that go with it....... and personally I would perfer that the two witnesses and celebrant stood back and kept quiet because a handbinding is between me and my partner...... unfortunately most celebrants will not do something like that as it does not fit with their belief about what should happen.......

[darkeyes]

The church does not and never has owned marriage or the word itself... it stole it in Europe and not we are told until the 11th century and since then arrogantly thinks it owns both the word and institution.... are we to accept that marriage in other religions is not valid and that the church has veto on marriage for any who are not Christian... so athiests and agnostics 2 have no rights to be married?

...well I have news for churches and any religious institution... in most of the west at least it is the state and its people who own the institution of marriage and have done for almost 2 centuries... which is why legislatures all over Europe, North America and some in other parts of the world have been able 2 legalise same sex marriage.. it doesnt matter what the churches say for in this and overwhelmingly other areas of life they are subservient to the state and the elected representatives of the people and so should they be.. all of the people, not simply those who are of one religion...

[pole_smoker]

I think the problem with Civil Union is that it doesn't come with all of the same privileges that a marriage does. My wife and I married outside of the church 43 years ago and our marriage is more of a Civil Union but because we have a 'marriage' license, we have more legal rights than a gay couple with a 'civil union' have.

I, personally, appreciate knowing if a privately owned business hates gays or atheists. It lets me know not to do business there.
A marriage license is not any less valid or without the legal benefits of a marriage outside of a church, mosque, or synagogue is, and it's not akin to a civil union that same-gender couples can get.

[Melody Dean]

I live in Indiana, so I feel like I have to chime in here, even though I am so sick of talking about this bill.

The biggest problem with this bill is not about the technical aspects of it, but intention and reputation. During this bill's travels, it was obvious that it was a bill meant to discriminate based on the things said by supporters of the bill.

Whether or not I agree with that isn't the point. It has made this state look like it's full of bigoted assholes, it has hurt business, and it has discouraged travel.

[2bi2Bboring]

I'm with Melody Dean, we also live in Indiana. Governor Mike Pence is systematically dismantling our states tourism industry. He refuses to consider giving LGBTQ folk protected status. He was questioned over and over about how this law was different than the federal law and dodged every attempt to nail him down about the spirit and intent of the bill and how it discriminated against us. There is no specifically discriminatory language in the bill. Where it actually differs from all other States (except Texas, where the language is the same), is it gives private entities, the right to refuse other private entities or individuals service on religious grounds. Seeing as LGBTQ people have no protected status against discrimination, this leaves us wide open for people of faith to discriminate on whatever grounds they choose. It's the bill and the lack of protected status together that make us vulnerable. These state legislators knew EXACTLY what they were doing, the firestorm that ensued was entirely justified. Mike Pence is a surreptitious, sneaky asshole. I hope there is a special place in hell for this kind of asshat.

[Melody Dean]

It's the bill and the lack of protected status together that make us vulnerable.

Exactly. It's not necessarily the bill itself, but that it exists and the perceived intention of it. It's protecting the rights of others, while opening for more discrimination on a non protected group.