The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Replace gay with ugly, red headed, fat, rich, stupid, a white sox fan, etc. and that's the law of the land already.

 

Edit: Actually I'm wrong, because the law of the land is that you can discriminate against those types of people without having to justify the discrimination based on a religious belief.

So you're cool with this sort of bigotry or?

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

What about replace with race, religion?

 

So would it be okay to not serve a Jew because my religion said so? Maybe a woman? What about an Asian?

 

We both know that it would not be okay to say "I wont bake you a cake because youre a white guy marrying a black girl"

 

Now maybe you think that should be okay, I dont know. Should we just let everyone be racist and say we have the right to be dicks? Its great if youre a white man, maybe not so great if youre anything else.

 

Should we legislate fairness?

Edited February 13, 2014 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Reading the text of the law leads me to believe that any kind of service in which the provider knows about the client's sexuality can be denied. The only slight hole is that the law asks the organization to try to find someone without such religious convictions to provide the service if it doesn't cause "undue harm" to the provider.

I think it would depend on how far you could stretch this language:

 

Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,

goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other

social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,

or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil

union or similar arrangement;

 

What qualifies as "related to" a domestic partnership?

[StrangeSox]

We both know that it would not be okay to say "I wont bake you a cake because youre a white guy marrying a black girl"

 

OTOH plenty of libertarians make explicitly that argument.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Here's the quote from the bill about what you can refuse:

 

(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and othersocial services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civilunion or similar arrangement;

It would take an unbelievable stretch for this to apply to gay people calling the police, going to the hospital, hanging out at a park, or eating lunch at a restaurant. None of those activities are 'related' to a couple's marital/partnership/civil union status.

[Jenksismyhero]

So you're cool with this sort of bigotry or?

 

I wouldn't say i'm cool with it, but if that's what the state of Kansas wants to do, and if that's how certain businesses want to operate, so be it. This is 2013. With social media and everything, that kind of stuff won't be tolerated and those businesses will be targeted quickly. Frankly I'd rather "the market" weed this stuff out in lieu of putting more laws on the books that create more litigation.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

OTOH plenty of libertarians make explicitly that argument.

 

I was referring to the current law, not what we may think the law should be.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

What about replace with race, religion?

 

So would it be okay to not serve a Jew because my religion said so? Maybe a woman? What about an Asian?

 

We both know that it would not be okay to say "I wont bake you a cake because youre a white guy marrying a black girl"

 

Now maybe you think that should be okay, I dont know. Should we just let everyone be racist and say we have the right to be dicks? Its great if youre a white man, maybe not so great if youre anything else.

 

Should we legislate fairness?

 

I don't when it requires someone to act in a way they don't want to. From a government perspective, yes. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. But for private citizens? No. I think if you want to be a dick, you can be a dick. Again, with today's technology and our culture, if you step outside the realm of social acceptability you are quickly out of business. I'd rather let nature play its course there instead of forcing another set of requirements on someone.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I was referring to the current law, not what we may think the law should be.

 

I'm pretty sure based on that Colorado case from the 90's this law won't be around very long, even if gays aren't a federally protected class. Heck it might even violate Kansas law, I dunno. Are they a protected class there?

[StrangeSox]

I wouldn't say i'm cool with it, but if that's what the state of Kansas wants to do, and if that's how certain businesses want to operate, so be it. This is 2013. With social media and everything, that kind of stuff won't be tolerated and those businesses will be targeted quickly. Frankly I'd rather "the market" weed this stuff out in lieu of putting more laws on the books that create more litigation.

 

"The market" has a pretty s*** record of weeding out discrimination against minorities while government laws have a pretty good record of breaking it.

 

Do you feel the same about public accommodations laws in general?

 

edit: think about what you're saying "the market" will do here. "The market" has given Kansas complete Republican domination that lead to this horrible bill being passed in the first place. I don't imagine much backlash coming from the Republican electorate there in the next elections. Now why would we expect "the market" to suddenly weed out the sort of discrimination that the democratically elected Kansas legislature just explicitly enabled?

Edited February 13, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I don't when it requires someone to act in a way they don't want to. From a government perspective, yes. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. But for private citizens? No. I think if you want to be a dick, you can be a dick. Again, with today's technology and our culture, if you step outside the realm of social acceptability you are quickly out of business. I'd rather let nature play its course there instead of forcing another set of requirements on someone.

 

So what happens if the majority of apartment buildings make a rule that they wont rent to Jewish people, because Jews killed Jesus and that offends them.

 

Its fair that Jews have to live in the few apartments that will allow them?

 

Im not saying I have the answer here, Id prefer that everyone can be a douche and judged for it, I just also concede that historically the majority has made terrible rules to screw with minorities, so I do give some deference to the idea that I cant trust the majority to act fairly.

 

Maybe its a cynical jaded perspective, but I think its the safer perspective.

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure based on that Colorado case from the 90's this law won't be around very long, even if gays aren't a federally protected class. Heck it might even violate Kansas law, I dunno. Are they a protected class there?

 

There's a recent Colorado case as well as a New Mexico case that this law is a reactionary response to. But both of those cases were based on state law that explicitly included sexual orientation as a protected class.

[Jenksismyhero]

"The market" has a pretty s*** record of weeding out discrimination against minorities while government laws have a pretty good record of breaking it.

 

Do you feel the same about public accommodations laws in general?

 

True, but again I think the world today is different then 50 years ago. The PC police have won and businesses are afraid to offend ANYONE. So let the outliers try it and they'll be targeted and that will be that. I can be fat or ugly and denied service. Why is being gay any different?

 

And i'm fine with most public accommodation laws although I do think (and there may be, I'm no expert there) exceptions if the laws require a significant financial burden.

[StrangeSox]

Jenks' concern about equal protection/public accommodations laws creating more litigation (which is apparently a bigger concern than equal treatment?) makes me wonder: how much litigation is there these days over race- or sex-based refusal of public service incidents? Or has the existence of these laws prevented those incidents from happening in the first place?

[Jenksismyhero]

So what happens if the majority of apartment buildings make a rule that they wont rent to Jewish people, because Jews killed Jesus and that offends them.

 

Its fair that Jews have to live in the few apartments that will allow them?

 

Im not saying I have the answer here, Id prefer that everyone can be a douche and judged for it, I just also concede that historically the majority has made terrible rules to screw with minorities, so I do give some deference to the idea that I cant trust the majority to act fairly.

 

Maybe its a cynical jaded perspective, but I think its the safer perspective.

 

Here's where I go back to my point about it being 2014. Are the majority of gay people denied entry into a business these days? Are they precluded from living somewhere? Are they being rounded up and hanged from trees? No. Back when most equal protection laws were passed that was actually the case. So those laws made sense to combat an actual problem.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

"The market" has a pretty s*** record of weeding out discrimination against minorities while government laws have a pretty good record of breaking it.

 

Do you feel the same about public accommodations laws in general?

 

edit: think about what you're saying "the market" will do here. "The market" has given Kansas complete Republican domination that lead to this horrible bill being passed in the first place. I don't imagine much backlash coming from the Republican electorate there in the next elections. Now why would we expect "the market" to suddenly weed out the sort of discrimination that the democratically elected Kansas legislature just explicitly enabled?

 

 

Come on, the "market" has changed the view of homosexuals radically. In about 2 decades we've gone from a country that made gay jokes openly and frequently to a country that can't tell people that someone is transgendered without a lynch mob forming on the gay side of the aisle.

[StrangeSox]

Here's where I go back to my point about it being 2014. Are the majority of gay people denied entry into a business these days? Are they precluded from living somewhere? Are they being rounded up and hanged from trees? No. Back when most equal protection laws were passed that was actually the case. So those laws made sense to combat an actual problem.

 

Gay people are still denied service, fired from jobs, denied marriage equality, ranted about by bigots on TV/radio, and demonized by public officials. If you hadn't noticed, even though it's 2014, one state's legislature just passed a horrendous bill legalizing anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

It is still very much an actual problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks' concern about equal protection/public accommodations laws creating more litigation (which is apparently a bigger concern than equal treatment?) makes me wonder: how much litigation is there these days over race- or sex-based refusal of public service incidents? Or has the existence of these laws prevented those incidents from happening in the first place?

 

I didn't mean that the law would create some flood of litigation. I'm just saying, anytime you put a law on the books and someone claims they were damaged, there's a lawsuit. And I just don't think it's a good thing.

[Jenksismyhero]

Gay people are still denied service, fired from jobs, denied marriage equality, ranted about by bigots on TV/radio, and demonized by public officials. If you hadn't noticed, even though it's 2014, one state's legislature just passed a horrendous bill legalizing anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

It is still very much an actual problem.

 

Ugly/fat/stupid people are denied service, fired from jobs, ranted about and made fun of by people on TV/radio. Let's protect them too. Marriage has nothing to do with being allowed in a store that doesn't want you there.

[StrangeSox]

Come on, the "market" has changed the view of homosexuals radically. In about 2 decades we've gone from a country that made gay jokes openly and frequently to a country that can't tell people that someone is transgendered without a lynch mob forming on the gay side of the aisle.

We also still have a majority of states where gay couples can't get married, where it's legal to fire someone for being gay, and now we've got Kansas passing a bill legalizing anti-gay discrimination along other lines as well.

 

We have a good track record of laws actually working very well to combat this very problem and a pretty horrible track record of "the market" doing so. Why should we suddenly reject using the thing that has worked well in the past in favor of the thing that never works well and for which there's little reason to believe that it will do so now?

 

Again, think about it. Why would this even be an issue if, as you say, the "PC Police" have won nobody anywhere can be anti-LGBT? A whole bunch of conservative Republicans were elected in Kansas while being anti-LGBT, they just passed an anti-LGBT law and they are not going to lose office because of it. Why would we expect the same population that elects and supports these Republicans and this law to suddenly turn against any business that won't serve a gay couple?

[StrangeSox]

I didn't mean that the law would create some flood of litigation. I'm just saying, anytime you put a law on the books and someone claims they were damaged, there's a lawsuit. And I just don't think it's a good thing.

You know what's a worse thing? Anti-LGBT bigotry.

[Jenksismyhero]

We also still have a majority of states where gay couples can't get married, where it's legal to fire someone for being gay, and now we've got Kansas passing a bill legalizing anti-gay discrimination along other lines as well.

 

We have a good track record of laws actually working very well to combat this very problem and a pretty horrible track record of "the market" doing so. Why should we suddenly reject using the thing that has worked well in the past in favor of the thing that never works well and for which there's little reason to believe that it will do so now?

 

Again, think about it. Why would this even be an issue if, as you say, the "PC Police" have won nobody anywhere can be anti-LGBT? A whole bunch of conservative Republicans were elected in Kansas while being anti-LGBT, they just passed an anti-LGBT law and they are not going to lose office because of it. Why would we expect the same population that elects and supports these Republicans and this law to suddenly turn against any business that won't serve a gay couple?

 

You can be fired in Illinois for a million reasons. You can't be fired for about 7 specific ones. Why should being gay deserve some special recognition over any of those other reasons?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You know what's a worse thing? Anti-LGBT bigotry.

 

And anti-ugly, and anti-stupid, and anti-obese, and anti-white sox, and anti-gingers, and anti-D1 education and on and on and on. Everyone should be a protected class apparently. You should have zero say in who you employ or who you serve in your own business. That's what you're saying.

[StrangeSox]

You can be fired in Illinois for a million reasons. You can't be fired for about 7 specific ones. Why should being gay deserve some special recognition over any of those other reasons?

Strong history of bigotry against that class in particular?

 

Can you draw a distinction for why you'd be against protections for being fired for being LGBT but would support protections for being fired based on race or religion?

[StrangeSox]

And anti-ugly, and anti-stupid, and anti-obese, and anti-white sox, and anti-gingers, and anti-D1 education and on and on and on. Everyone should be a protected class apparently. You should have zero say in who you employ or who you serve in your own business. That's what you're saying.

 

What you're saying is that you support being able to fire someone for being gay or being able to refuse them service in a public business for being gay. You're more concerned about potential extra lawsuits than the impact those actions would have. You'll trivialize homophobic discrimination and pretend it's just like being "anti-white sox." You'll then extend the idea that LGBT should be protected from bigotry to meaning that literally everything should be a protected class and that business should have zero hiring/firing power, doing a fantastic job of knocking down strawmen instead of justifying your indifference-at-best towards the anti-LGBT discrimination that is alive and well in this country.