Coming out: anti-gay harder than gay?

While I support SSM and equal rights to gays, I do not agree to a requirement to participate in, with or in support of gay-supportive rituals - whether religious or ideological.

The question of how does this harm your wife and you if people refuse to provide services for a ritual that praises, tolerates or endorses homosexuality is a wrong headed message. How would it harm you and your wife if the government required you give a public speech calling for racial segregation or that you make KKK uniforms and flammable crosses as a condition of our employment? Would that "harm" either of you?

 

I am not harmed if people refuse to provide services for a ritual that 'tolerates' homosexuality- or African Americans or Jews or Mexicans.

But I can appreciate those homosexuals, African Americans, Jews or Mexicans who are refused service by a business could be harmed.

Public accommodation laws have been in effect in the United States for 50 years now- certainly if Americans want to do away with public accommodation laws we can do so- but the laws were put into place by Americans who believed that they serve a purpose- and until they are revoked- they are the law.

 

Well if the government told me what kind of speech I could or could not do- then the government would be violating my Constitutional rights.

If I was hired by an employer who made robes- and I was told by my employer to make KKK robes, I don't think I have any protection from the law, since I am not black or Jewish so I couldn't complain that my employer was creating a hostile working environment for me. If I objected, then legally, my recourse would be to find another employer.

Now- lets say the only gas station within 50 miles refuses to sell gas to you because you are a Jew.

Would that cause you any harm?

 

You raised the question of personal harm. I simply asked a question to point out it isn't really a question of harm. It is a question of rights.

 

Hmmm actually as I pointed out- it is a question of harm- to the person who is harmed.
But not really an issue of 'rights'- a person has no particular 'right' to be served, but does have the right to demand protections according to the law, nor does a business have a 'right' to refuse to serve someone.

 

Amen!! That about wraps it up.

The only thing left to do in my view, is continue to fight hard for equal right/protection under the law for everyone.

 

Good .. it will perhaps stop other people attempting to use religious beliefs as a means to discriminate.

 

I'm not, you're just not very bright.

 

Good to see we have a similar view of each other.

 

Insulting people is typically a sign of poor argument and lack of knowledge.

Instead of acting so immature why not make a point?

 

It's actually a sign of having been bored to death by an ideologue and wanting them to go away.

 

You could go away.

 

Yes, it would cause harm if I were a Jew and a gas station refused to sell me gas. However that is irrelevant to the topic, isn't it?

An wedding officiants is required to do a same-sex wedding - which is WORDS, ie "SPEECH." So stop pretending free speech has been eliminated.

The same for a wedding cake's words. A wedding cake has NOTHING to do with whether or not a couple is legally married, rather those words are "speech."

Again, stop pretending that people that these anti-discrimination laws are not being used to require Christians and everyone else to endorse same sex marriage as a condition of their having employment and participating in the American capitalistic economic system. Free speech is eliminated.

 

Honestly, who cares about free speech in this case? It's an abstract idea. What anti-discrimination laws do (I don't support all anti-discrimination laws by the way) is stop people who oppose same-sex marriage from using their own personal beliefs to stop same-sex couples from pursuing what they want. A loss of free speech, in this scenario, is worth it.

 

Exactly. And actually, there are times where 'expression' is what MUST be mitigated; we can 'say' a LOT more than we can do (or decline to do).

Denying select "sinners" or "offenders" a particular service can surely be more than a mere inconvenience; that could actually affect the well being, health or safety of scores of people. And we already know a few scenarios, where one cannot simply say/utter what they wish without consequence.

Truly, virtually all of our rights/liberties are truncated, where the exercise of them begins to deny others the same. I suppose that if we all lived isolated from one another, we could just do whatever we wanted, whenever and wherever we desired; but that surely isn't reality.

 

I am not pretending anything- I am pointing out that Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else.

Business's are no more being required to endorse same sex weddings than they are being required to endorse Judaism and Bar Mitzvah's, or they are being required to endorse mixed race marriages and Kwanzaa.

A 'for-profit' wedding officiant- a business which provides a marriage service is required to provide that service whether the customers are gay, black or Jewish.

However, if I get a license to act as an officiant free of charge, I can discriminate about who I marry or don't marry as much as I want.
Just as churches can.
And churches do.

If you have a business, you have an obligation to follow the state's business laws- in Oregon that means you can't refuse to serve a customer because of race, religion or sexual orientation.

If you are in Florida you can't refuse to serve a customer because of race or religion but you can refuse service to gays or straights to your hearts content.

 

Well at least you admit you oppose free speech. And you oppose religious/ideological freedom too.

What other rights do you oppose?

 

I understand, the price of a person's rights in the USA is that they are destitude and homeless because they are banned from our economic system.

But, of course, if it is acceptable to despise people and punish them for their views, then it certainly is accept for people to despise gays and want to punish them for their views too, no?

If a person is a professional public speaker - and is gay - then clearly that person could be required to give a speech condemning homosexuals and homosexuality quoting the Bible while doing so, because the person being a professional speaker for a fee MUST say whatever he is paid to say as it is illegal to discriminate against people upon their religious beliefs.

 

Every one of our rights has various limitations given for court-approved justifications such as public safety and support for equal treatment.

So, we have such law as that covering public accommodation establishments and employment.

 

I'm a moral nihilist; the very concept of rights is incoherent, in my opinion. I oppose all things which would be considered rights in certain cases.

 

In the USA prior to the Civil War it was against Federal law for anyone to not report a runaway slave they knew of and illegal for sheriffs not to arrest runaway slaves and return them to the slaveowner - these offenses punishable by 5 years in prison. Not one person was successfully prosecuted.

^ How outrageous of people to defy the law. Accordingly to you, they all should have gone to prison. Everyone has to follow the law, including all laws of Oregon. Clearly, you would have strictly enforced racial segregation laws in your business or employment, because you always follow the law and doing so definitely should be a condition of your having employment.

 

Really? Who is destitute and homeless because they are banned in our economic system?

For example- the bakers- no one is saying that they can't bake to their hearts content- but they can't bake and refuse to sell to blacks, Jews and gays.

 

It is legally acceptable to despise anyone. You can despise whoever you want. You can despise gays or blacks or Jews- and you will not be legally punished for your bigoted views.

But is it acceptable to mock and hold in contempt those who would discriminate against someone because they are Christian or gay or Jewish or Black? Sure is- and that is a good thing.

 

Well that is an interesting example- not sure you will like the answer. Once again- look at the law. Public speech is not a 'public accommodation' and is not covered by the law.

And public speakers generally generally agree to speak for a fee on subjects that they are aware of- and no one can compel them to make any speech.

But if a gay person owned bill boards and offered them to rent to anybody- then he would be obligated to let Christian's rent the billboard to spew their homophobic hate speech.

 

Don't you think people should follow the law?

Or do you believe that people should just obey laws that they personally agree with?