The debate "Forcing Religious people to service Gay Weddings is ignorant." was started by
March 28, 2015, 7:32 pm.
35 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Naudious posted 20 arguments, Getmurked posted 5 arguments, BRG1102478 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Tassja posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 15 arguments to the disagreers part.
Naudious, Getmurked, mdavis1309, wmd, tr, BRG1102478, Dictator, I_Voyager, magda32, fdnisyou, Cormi98, Hjkp98, ArsonLarson, Kaitlyn56 and 21 visitors agree.
murch, Tassja, PsychDave, honestopinion14, stormshy, Vivinary, transfanboy and 10 visitors disagree.
So your defense is still that bigots are already driving them out and keeping them out so we should relax the rules about what they can get away with?
I have never heard of immigration critics being charged with hate speech for presenting data. Laws against hate speech exist for the same reason as laws prevention systemic racism, to protect people from being targeted.
Your statement that banning racial and sexual preference based blacklists is an attack on free speech is implying that racism and anti-gay sentiment should be a protected. Free speech has limits. You can't threaten to kill someone amd you can't lie to make them look bad (liable, defamation of character). Why do you feel systemic racism should be protected?
It keeps police out of either sides pocket.
If someone doesn't want you in their store, your not entitled to be allowed in there anyways.
If you use police to arrest racist for expressing their views, then the precident is set that mean people don't get to express their views. And the definition of mean changes over time.
Canada has laws against hate speech, meant to protect people from language that most of us find abhorrent. However, those laws are now used to charge critics of immigration in Canada, even for just expressing data to support a point.
Just because nobody likes them, doesn't mean they don't have a right to manage their property.
Also, radio stations don't require much maintainance, so those people penalties have other jobs, and radio stations can reach multiple towns. And some listeners may not know the KKK is involved.
Again: Racists don't typically obey Anti-Discrimination laws anyways, its their nature. And blacks don't typically live in regions with higher levels of racism. The same is true of gays.
If there are not enough to be sustainable, how does the radio station stay in business?
Businesses should not be able to blacklist people based on race, gender or sexual preference, that is the point. You feel that legal action against racist businesses is aggression, but if a person on the blacklist went into one of those businesses, what do you suppose would happen? Historically the police were called to arrest them. Your idea that there should be no rules about blacklisting would put the law on the side of racist businesses, rather than the people being discriminated against. How would that help?
These small towns are still not racist. Rather they have independent racist groups which coalesce there. These towns fight against the KKK influence. For instance, the Mayor of Harrison declared a day scheduled to hold a white supremacy rally to be Love Your Neighbor Day.
These rallies have to attract racists from across the country in order to have a turnout, so they dont control the economies of regions. So the question stands: If someone is stupid and racist enough that they won't serve blacklist, should they be forced to, anyways?
A town doesn't have to be 100% racist. It simply has to have enough population who are either racist or indifferent. You don't condone mistreatment of animals (you seem like a good person, so I feel safe to assume this), but do you buy certified humane meat? Is all of your chicken free range? It isn't that you don't care about animals, and I would be willing to wager that if you saw an animal suffering you would want to help, but it is not something that most people think of when shopping, and if they do they justify their actions by thinking of the money they are saving. You assume people would drive farther to avoid shopping somewhere they disagreed with the policy, but from what I have seen, people would talk about disagreeing in principal, but still go where it is convenient.
As to your claim that there are no small towns with the condo if prejudice and racism described, a quick Google search shows lots of results. For one specific example, explain Harrison, Arkansas. There is a radio station openly associated with the KKK. If there was not enough support, it would never have been sustainable. I know of not everyone is racist, and I am in no way implying that they are. I do feel that there are areas where there is a higher concentration of people who would support racist, as well as anti-gay, messages. In these areas, to make it legal and acceptable to discriminate, would be to take away legal protection for minorities.
I do see that we have wandered off topic, which was specifically weddings, but to remove the rules about one area would effectively remove those rules from all areas, so it is still relevant.
its liberal. as long as the democrats become presidents, minorities will get what ever they want.
Which would provide a perfect opportunity for a competitor to startup which will serve the rejected minorities and memebers of the majority who are also offended.
In order for the scenario you describe to occur, a small town with a small minority pop. and 100% racist/homophobic majorty pop.
These towns don't exist in modern America.
Your argument is based on the premise that banning certain people based on who they are will result in them simply choosing somewhere else to go. What about small towns with limited choice? If there is only one grocery store, people who are not permitted to shop there have to travel for basic necessities.
The government enforces law like not murdering or stealing because those are part of the non-aggression principal. It isnt even necessarily setting a moral standard because if the government punishes you for say robbery, by imprisoning you, it isnt breaking your moral standard because your moral standard holds that aggression is fine. The government stopping aggression is just part of the natural role a society needs to fulfill, a counter-aggression if you will.
When the government initiates aggression, then it is violating the very principle it is trying to enforce. If a restaurant refuses to service gays, but isnt actively starting aggression against gays. Then the government can't intervene without violating the very basic principles it upholds.
Racism and Homophobia is evil, so it will defeat itself. If you need to use force where Racists and Homophobs are not using force, then you imply that your side of the debate can't compete on an equal basis with the racism and Homophobia.
The hotel argument was because Naudious said he was including service industry in the statement. I can understand Catholic priests not being able to perform gay marriages since it is prohibited. He had said that he also felt any business should be able to refuse to serve gay people. Therefore florists, caterers, hotels for the guests all become relevant to the discussion.
I was not being purely rhetorical, or I would not have included that I am from Canada. I explained where my information came from so that if it was inaccurate you could correct it. I do believe that racism and bigotry are more common in some parts of the US since otherwise there would likely not be racially based riots
I would argue that hatred of an entire group for why they are is learned, no matter which group. Children learn their views on people based on what they see around them and what their parents show them. As they get older, the outside world either reinforces or counteracts those lessons.
If parents teach that gay people are evil and should be discriminated against, and society shows that this is an acceptable behavior, it will reinforce that discrimination is alright.
If parents teach hate but society forbids discrimination, it will, in at least some cases, cause these children to rethink the lesson that it is alright to hate people for being different.
Naudious claimed I was in favor of the government setting morals and, to some extent, he is right. The government already sets basic guidelines of what is acceptable by making murder, theft, assault and many other things illegal. I think our differences at least partially come from where we draw the line about what morals the government can impose and which cross the line into tyranny. I feel protecting people from discrimination by business is acceptable, Naudious disagrees (at least partially because he feels it is unnecessary and market pressure would do the job). I think allowing businesses to have evil practices is unacceptable And that, if the market pressures were enough to control them, the laws would not need to have been passed in the first place.
*have a right to boycott Indiana
Most racists believe there is a religious basis to their hate. So they are comparable, loosely.
I don't agree with discriminating against gays or blacks.
People have a right to do with their buisness what they want, which includes evil.
It is the same right which allows the tech industries to boycott Indiana for their law. I disagree with the boycott, because it is unfair to boycott the whole state, and because i think that buisnesses have a right to discriminate (i disagree with them doing so). But i think those corporations have the right to fo so.
No, racists own buisnesses, but it isnt the norm. Those who do don't hire blacks anyways.
Also, you clearly made you're statement rhetorical. So don't pull the "I'm just asking questions!" bullshit Glenn Beck does.
Prejudice prevents buisness ownership because refusing to serve people for no reason.
dont hate gays*
when it comes to religious objection to gay marriage, its more based off a belief/rule thar they think god wants us to obey..thats why a rascism comparisom is unneffective. they have been taught to discriminste, but not by something they live thier life by, but by thier parents, friends or thier own self hatred, so comparing a bland hatred of a color to a religous rule is not the same. last, what is the hotel argument for? no one should discriminate outside of choosing whether or not they will marry two people, for that is the only acceptance i can see, because it goes against everythimg they live by, but most religious people hate gays, amd most would never discrimimste outside of it.
You didn't say the person refusing service was the owner at any point. Beyond that, even if the clerk were the owner, does that give them the right?
Further, when have I said that I had an intimate knowledge of the southern US? I asked if, in your honest opinion, there were no parts of the US where racism and bigotry were more common. You failed to answer. I informed you where my beliefs came from and gave you the opportunity to address them. So, now that we have made that clear, do you honestly believe that there are no racist business owners in the USA? There are no bigots who run businesses? In what way does prejudice prevent someone from having a business? If people who otherwise appear to be normal upstanding members of society are willing to murder abortion doctors and burn down clinics, why would they not discriminate against gay people?
And you don't really have a right to express yourself if you can't exercise what you believe economically.
If you deny bad people the right to express themselves, then you deny everyone the right to free expression because a precedent is set for the government deciding morality.
No, because the front desk clerk doesn't own the hotel.
And please enlighten me more on how you know America is racist because Canadian media says so, and its absurd of me to think, from actually living in Southern states that racists are typically to stupid to run a business.
If two men walk into a hotel and ask for a room with a single bed, inferences can be made. They may be right, they may not, but should the front desk clerk have the right to turn them away?
Racism is not part of who you are, it is a learned hatred. To equate not wanting to serve a group who's sole purpose is to preach hate against a specific group with refusing to serve someone because of who the spend their life with is absurd.
Are you honestly saying that there are not parts of the USA that have a more common instance of intolerance than others? I live in Canada and have only passed through most of the country while traveling to Florida, but from how it is portrayed there are parts of the US where racism and bigotry is more common, meaning people in these areas would be discriminated against regularly.
I am not trying to fear monger, I am pointing out that if the rules preventing discrimination went away, there is no reason to believe that people would not discriminate.
As to your last point, I would say passing judgment on what someone who is paying for your services seems more like the work of an asshole than saying that no, you can not treat them as a second class citizen for who they are.
You have a right to believe what you want, but that doesn't really mean anything if you have to act like you believe something you don't.
Hotels don't usually ask "are you gay" when you reserve a room, and Big Name hotels have universal acceptance policies.
Sorry getmurked, I was responding to Naudious and didn't see your response until I had posted it.
I understand religious objections to gay marriage, but working in the service industry does not give to the right to pass moral judgment on everyone you serve. The laws are in place to protect people from discrimination. In areas where there are a lot of people who oppose gay marriage, it would be almost impossible to find service. Imagine a gay couple taking a cross country road trip. Should they have to choose whether to hide that fact in order to get a hotel room, or sleep on the side of the road?
You can consider racism a natural part of who someone is. Then should black buisnesses be forced to serve KKK meetings, so long as they aren't a lobbying organization?
If regions are really so racist, they'd refuse to serve blacks, then i don't think many blacks would live there anymore anyways.
I also don't think forcing racists to serve blacks helps race relations, but would instead breed resentment.
Fear-mongering with "if the government doesn't force Anti-Discrimination, then all-white racist neighborhoods will come back" isn't a valid argument.
Forcing someone to support something they don't want to support doesn't make you a Social-Justice Warrior. It makes you an Asshole.
did you understand my argument at all?
There are three flaws in your rebuttal. One is the fact that I explicitly said I disagree with refusing to cater the NRA so you are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. Secondly, as I said, there is a big difference between disagreeing with a lobby group and discriminating against people for who they are. Finally, for many years there was segregation in many parts of the USA. Do you really feel that there are not parts of the country that have enough racist people to support white only businesses? How long before there were white only communities again as black families were driven out by the fact that stores refused to sell them groceries? There is a reason for anti discrimination laws, and it is to prevent just that situation.
what he is trying to say(rather horribly if i do say so myself) is that race discriminatiom is based off a single, hatred belief, either passed from parents or evolved on your own , for the sole purpose of just hate. religions against gay marriage is based off a standing belief, and bases off what you live your life by, and breaching that rule would be dishonorable
now personally, i think they should change, but its not my decision. i cam understamd the amount of blasphemy and disrespect churches could feel by servicing it
What you're saying is that liberals who want to deprive the rights of gunowners are free to discriminate against associating with meetings of gun owners.
But Conservatives who want to deprive the rights of homosexuals should be forced to associate with homosexual marriage.
I do not want buisnesses to reinstate discrimination. But I think they should be allowed to. Partially so they can lose their buisness when people stop eating at restaurants with Whites Only signs.
Are you actually saying that you agree with business owners reinstating segregation if they want to?
There is a big difference between the NRA and homosexuality. One is a political lobby group, the other is part of who you are. I disagree with refusing to cater the NRA due to objecting to their views. Business owners are free to lobby their own positions, but being discriminatory does no good.
I would also love for you to answer about Gun Regulation supporting buisnesses being forced to cater the NRA.
Not to mention proving discrimination is incredibly hard anyways, and is a system which can, and has been, easily abused.
Yes. If you don't want to serve someone, you shouldn't have to. If its for a stupid reason like race, then you'll lose money and probably be forced to shutdown anyways.
Anti-Discrimination laws only help racists make smarter buisness decisions, since minorities probably wouldn't want to work or eat with racists anyways.
So racist people should be able to refuse to serve black people in their establishment since they do not like their kind and should not have to aid or promote them?
What you are suggesting is that businesses should be free to discriminate however they want and North America has come a long way since that was acceptable.
Because you shouldn't have to promote and aid a process that you don't agree with. Should liberal restaurant owners who support gun control be forced to cater NRA events?
There have been pastors who have been sued for not performing gay weddings.
I have never heard of a priest being forced to perform a gay marriage. If the religion bans gay marriage, I can understand not being willing to perform it, though personally I disagree with the decision.
For people in the service industry, you are paid to serve customers, not pass moral judgment on them. If it would not be acceptable to refuse to serve someone because of their race or gender why would sexual orientation mace that discrimination alright?
All if those.
I think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage or love at all. But you're right, there are plenty of churches or secular organizations willing to service gay weddings. You don't need to force someonevwho doesn't want to do it to do so.
i agree. forcing anyone against something to do that something is wrong. i do think religous churches should be more open, and change, like the prebysterian church did. however, if they dont, other means should be offeres for gay marriage, such as government or state appointes ones
When you say service do you mean as an officiant or as caterers, florists etc?
When did I ever make the assumption that religious people wouldn't service homosexual weddings? Obviously some do, and some don't. I said forcing that service is wrong.
Assuming that religious people would have a problem with servicing a Gay wedding is ignorant.