"Bigot" states risk losing corporations

[cabinessence]

1 hour ago, CanadianLoonie said:

Imagine if there was a religion which forbids the payment of taxes to governments...

Once Mr. Roper claimed to belong to a religion that forbade him from carrying money. That was at the Regal Beagle. Another time when his wife, Helen asked which denomination the minister who was hired by Roper to marry Larry was from, Stanley quipped, "what do I care, he was cheap." Mrs. Roper then said, "That's your church alright." A pretty funny moment as well.

[cabinessence]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I don't see it that way. I see it more as not wanting to be associated in any way with bigotry.

 

Acceptance would be tantamount to saying that it's okay. Instead, they are demonstrating that they believe discrimination is wrong, no matter what the basis for it is and they are doing it in the best way possible: By hitting the bigots in the wallet.

Then the LGBTQ society, should add a few more letters to include everyone , and not be so inclusive.

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

Then the LGBTQ society, should add a few more letters to include everyone , and not be so inclusive.

They could add every letter of the alphabet, but it would make no difference.

 

They aren't a society, they're a community and they are what they are: Person's with sexual/gender preferences that lie outside of the societal norm. Including "everyone" would make no sense, since "everyone" is not having specific discriminatory laws being drafted that treat them differently than the rest of us.

[cabinessence]

25 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

They could add every letter of the alphabet, but it would make no difference.

 

They aren't a society, they're a community and they are what they are: Person's with sexual/gender preferences that lie outside of the societal norm. Including "everyone" would make no sense, since "everyone" is not having specific discriminatory laws being drafted that treat them differently than the rest of us.

Points, well taken. Could any group then not decide to exclude people? What if Ted Nugent felt excluded from a Vegan group? I think it was Tony Gallagher or Jim Taylor, who coined the term WOE (Women Opposed to Everything).

[elvis15]

2 hours ago, CanadianLoonie said:

That is a very low bar to hit...

 

If he was logical, he would be consistent and not be compromised by his liberal bias.

 

For example, he is rightly critical of civil asset forfeitures, yet what are his views on taxation? 

 

He is for privacy and to a degree, digital encryption, but would he tow the same line on financial privacy?

Hmm, those are things that are similar but not the same, and seem odd to suggest that being for one should mean being wholly for the other. I'd suggest consistency would be better covered by considering each situation on it's own merits, even if you lean to one side that would suggest a predisposition to how you might feel.

 

But I've read enough of your posts when this type of discussion comes up that I won't get into a debate on it. The fact remains that Oliver's piece was a relevant point to make considering the discussion, and certainly he'd be supportive of the subject of LGBT rights in so far as not making stupid, biased and selfish laws disguised as something else that discriminate against them.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, cabinessence said:

Points, well taken. Could any group then not decide to exclude people? What if Ted Nugent felt excluded from a Vegan group? I think it was Tony Gallagher or Jim Taylor, who coined the term WOE (Women Opposed to Everything).

Ted wouldn't be "excluded". He is welcome to become a Vegan any time he likes.

 

Also, people shouldn't be confused as to what is being discussed here. The anti-gay crowd is not being denied anything, let alone their rights. They are fighting for the ability to deny others their rights.

 

It's not just women who are opposed to such thinking. Springsteen, Adams, me....a lot of straight men are as well, as should any forward thinking human being, IMHO.

[DonLever]

If big corporations are willing to pull out of states that discriminatory against the LGBTQ community, why are they doing business in other countries that heavily discriminate against LGBTQ people?  They don't seem to have any problems doing business in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where some places even ban homosexuality.

 

So it is pretty hypocritical of big corporations to pull out of Americans states that discriminate against  LGBTQ but not other countries around the world that do so.

 

[cabinessence]

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Ted wouldn't be "excluded". He is welcome to become a Vegan any time he likes.

 

Also, people shouldn't be confused as to what is being discussed here. The anti-gay crowd is not being denied anything, let alone their rights. They are fighting for the ability to deny others their rights.

 

It's not just women who are opposed to such thinking. Springsteen, Adams, me....a lot of straight men are as well, as should any forward thinking human being, IMHO.

What if the sikh temple for example, protested over their rights to deny entry to someone who didn't want to cover their head? They would then be fighting for the ability to deny others their rights. What if Ted wanted to be included as a vegan, but keep his rights to eat meat? Not too dissimilar to a group wanting to join a certain church, but have the church change their dogmas or traditions. What about that men's charity group in Kelowna, was it that was criticized for not allowing women?  What stances to fitness clubs have on transgenders using the women's only section?

[RUPERTKBD]

12 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

What if the sikh temple for example, protested over their rights to deny entry to someone who didn't want to cover their head? They would then be fighting for the ability to deny others their rights. What if Ted wanted to be included as a vegan, but keep his rights to eat meat? Not too dissimilar to a group wanting to join a certain church, but have the church change their dogmas or traditions. What about that men's charity group in Kelowna, was it that was criticized for not allowing women?  What stances to fitness clubs have on transgenders using the women's only section?

People don't have the right to do whatever they want and private institutions are allowed to enforce rules, so long as those rules don't break any laws and don't infringe on the basic human rights of others.

 

This law in North Carolina (and similar ones in other states) are attempting to do just that.

[elvis15]

32 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

What if the sikh temple for example, protested over their rights to deny entry to someone who didn't want to cover their head? They would then be fighting for the ability to deny others their rights. What if Ted wanted to be included as a vegan, but keep his rights to eat meat? Not too dissimilar to a group wanting to join a certain church, but have the church change their dogmas or traditions. What about that men's charity group in Kelowna, was it that was criticized for not allowing women?  What stances to fitness clubs have on transgenders using the women's only section?

On their own private property, so long as it's not discriminatory on the basis of religion (i.e. would a yamulke be sufficient for a Jewish person wishing to attend a Sikh wedding?), then they have that right. People don't need to go there. A better example would be if a Sikh person ran a restaurant and wanted to deny service to anyone who wouldn't similarly wear a head covering.

 

And if Ted wanted to be included as a vegan but still wanted to eat meat then he'd just be stupid. Sure, he could call himself vegan for following vegan practice for one meal but then go back to being an omnivore for every other meal after but that'd be pretty false. I guess he could try veganism longer term but reserve the right to have meat if he wanted to at some point in the future, which would be far less stupid but he'd be welcome to do so. But then that's besides the point of this thread and the laws being passed in NC and elsewhere.

[cabinessence]

6 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

On their own private property, so long as it's not discriminatory on the basis of religion (i.e. would a yamulke be sufficient for a Jewish person wishing to attend a Sikh wedding?), then they have that right. People don't need to go there. A better example would be if a Sikh person ran a restaurant and wanted to deny service to anyone who wouldn't similarly wear a head covering.

 

And if Ted wanted to be included as a vegan but still wanted to eat meat then he'd just be stupid. Sure, he could call himself vegan for following vegan practice for one meal but then go back to being an omnivore for every other meal after but that'd be pretty false. I guess he could try veganism longer term but reserve the right to have meat if he wanted to at some point in the future, which would be far less stupid but he'd be welcome to do so. But then that's besides the point of this thread and the laws being passed in NC and elsewhere.

Maybe so, maybe so.I think a yamulke would be allowed at a Sikh temple. Maybe even a baseball cap or ushanka. When you talk of religion, why was it ok for people to fight to change what a church believes in? If you don't want to go to that church, don't go. Maybe it's like a dress code. I was working out at the gym once, and I went over the 15 minute limit on the particular machine I had been using. A lady tapped me on the shoulder and let me know, in o friendly terms that my time was up and to let her use the machine. She was right, I was wrong. Then I noticed that there were 3 identical machines unused in the women's only section, any of which she could have chosen to use. I didn't have that option. Not fair. 

[elvis15]

7 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

Maybe so, maybe so.I think a yamulke would be allowed at a Sikh temple. Maybe even a baseball cap or ushanka. When you talk of religion, why was it ok for people to fight to change what a church believes in? If you don't want to go to that church, don't go. Maybe it's like a dress code. I was working out at the gym once, and I went over the 15 minute limit on the particular machine I had been using. A lady tapped me on the shoulder and let me know, in o friendly terms that my time was up and to let her use the machine. She was right, I was wrong. Then I noticed that there were 3 identical machines unused in the women's only section, any of which she could have chosen to use. I didn't have that option. Not fair. 

Who said anyone was fighting to change what a church believes in? That's not a part of this discussion, and in fact apart from discrimination not allowed by the law most people support others to have their own religious beliefs. Some of those beliefs are stupid in a lot of people's eyes, but they can have them so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

 

As far as your last example (again, not relevant to the discussion completely) if the machine you were using was in better working condition, had more options, etc. than the machines in the women's only section then she would have the right to choose to use it. I'd extend that to a situation where she wanted to work out next to her male friend or something similarly reasonable. But, if the machine was identical for all intents and purposes and there was no other reasonable explanation apart from preference (or purely pedantic enforcing of the rules), then you could politely mention the other open machines she could use so you could continue your workout if you wanted more than 15mins and there was no one else waiting.

[cabinessence]

5 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Who said anyone was fighting to change what a church believes in? That's not a part of this discussion, and in fact apart from discrimination not allowed by the law most people support others to have their own religious beliefs. Some of those beliefs are stupid in a lot of people's eyes, but they can have them so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

 

As far as your last example (again, not relevant to the discussion completely) if the machine you were using was in better working condition, had more options, etc. than the machines in the women's only section then she would have the right to choose to use it. I'd extend that to a situation where she wanted to work out next to her male friend or something similarly reasonable. But, if the machine was identical for all intents and purposes and there was no other reasonable explanation apart from preference (or purely pedantic enforcing of the rules), then you could politely mention the other open machines she could use so you could continue your workout if you wanted more than 15mins and there was no one else waiting.

"Who said anyone was fighting to change what a church believes in? " It has been said, and here was used as a comparative. Do you recall females fighting certain churches for the rights, to become priests? Do you recall Martin Luther? Can you dig it?

 

With regards to your second paragraph, I wasn't so thorough as to check all the fine details of  the respective machines. My point was that, just as the North Carolina bill is discriminatory, allowing certain gender more privileges than another is as well. Can you imagine if a local sports club opened a men's only workout section?

[thejazz97]

22 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

Can you imagine if a local sports club opened a men's only workout section?

Worse yet, can you imagine if a local sports club opened a women's only workout section? 

[cabinessence]

1 minute ago, thejazz97 said:

Worse yet, can you imagine if a local sports club opened a women's only workout section? 

It has been done! How, in this day of political correctness and women's lib is it possible!!??

[elvis15]

2 hours ago, cabinessence said:

"Who said anyone was fighting to change what a church believes in? " It has been said, and here was used as a comparative. Do you recall females fighting certain churches for the rights, to become priests? Do you recall Martin Luther? Can you dig it?

 

With regards to your second paragraph, I wasn't so thorough as to check all the fine details of  the respective machines. My point was that, just as the North Carolina bill is discriminatory, allowing certain gender more privileges than another is as well. Can you imagine if a local sports club opened a men's only workout section?

Lots of things have been said, but they aren't being said in this particular instance that I've seen (other than in your posts). You'll have to point it out to me if you feel it has been. It's a separate point altogether in any event as I've said in reply to you a few times.

 

If you don't know why someone would ask you to do something under the rules, then how do you know if it's right or not? And again, completely separate point, but allowing certain genders specific privileges is due to the increased amount of discrimination they receive not that it in itself is discriminatory. If it was truly equal to begin with then there wouldn't need to be any affirmative rules in place to help those who are more often discriminated against.

[cabinessence]

So as things become more equal there will be no more women's only sections at gyms? Do two wrongs make a right? Will the future make us unisex, like the aliens portrayed in old sci fi movies? Will male reporters be allowed access to women's dressing rooms? Will David Lee Roth leave Van Halen?

[Grapefruits]

Wonder if these bakeries will be boycotted? 

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

6 hours ago, DonLever said:

If big corporations are willing to pull out of states that discriminatory against the LGBTQ community, why are they doing business in other countries that heavily discriminate against LGBTQ people?  They don't seem to have any problems doing business in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where some places even ban homosexuality.

 

So it is pretty hypocritical of big corporations to pull out of Americans states that discriminate against  LGBTQ but not other countries around the world that do so.

 

Because in the west it is a money maker to cater to the social movements.

 

In the other countries it is a money maker to employ them at dollars a day

[Warhippy]

13 minutes ago, Grapefruits said:

Wonder if these bakeries will be boycotted? 

 

 

 

While he raises a valid point...it's hard to not notice his rather peculiar bias or leaning against the muslim community, the lgbt community or the idea at all.

 

Just because you wrap your idiocy in an intelligent argument doesn't mean you're not an idiot.

 

But in this particular instance I completely agree with him.  it IS the right of any business owner to refuse service to anyone.  Without question.

 

BUT!  To refuse service simply based off of religious reasons because you say it goes against your religious beliefs is openly admitting to your bigotry because you cannot find another reason to refuse service to these people.

 

The most ironic thing of course is that Jesus was a guy known to hang with whores and thieves, and Muhammed was known to do the exact same thing while murdering whoever stood in his way...yet both religions have an issue with who makes a cake for what reason....