Gay community takes care of hateful bakers.

[Black Aliss]

And it makes me wonder about fundies like Christopher Maxwell. Is he courting a potential lawsuit if he refuses to photograph a second marriage?

No, because "previously married" is not a protected class under the civil rights act of 1968 or of any state law that I know of. For that matter, sexual orientation is not a protected class in most states, but where it is, you can't refuse public accomodation or service to LGBT persons.

In no state in the US is it legal discriminate on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, when it comes to serving food in a restaurant, which is why I would not be able to refuse service to Christians, as someone else claimed would be my right. Private clubs are another matter entirely, so a business, such as the bakery, could conceivably declare itself a private club, require a membership to enter or place an order, and not bake cakes for homosexuals.

[Firiel]

And faggots are bunches of thin sticks used to get kindling going. Doesn't mean it's not offensive to call a gay person a fag or faggot. Calling Jewish people a bunch of kikes is purposefully insulting, and is very emotionally charged since it wasn't that long ago that people who were considered to be kikes were spat on, beaten, and sent to the ovens to die. If you think words like this are cute, then there's something deeply wrong with you. You think a word that marked someone to DEATH is cute. Are you a troll?

It'sFunToRun is Jewish, I believe. That doesn't mean you have to agree with her point of view, by any means, but it does make that view less trollish, IMO,

[It'sFunToRun]

You're comparing apples to stink bombs. You're comparing refusing service in an emergency room to refusing service for genuine concerns of safety. Refusing to provide service to a same-sex couple wanting a cake is in no way comparable to a black person refusing to provide clown-entertainment at a party thrown by the KKK, and only a really fucking stupid moron would think these compare in any way at all. We're not talking about a couple afraid for their safety. We're talking about a couple who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake because Bible.

I actually agree that the bakery should have to provide a cake because that's closest to the "store owner" example. However, if you think that a black guy shouldn't have to provide clown service to the KKK, then a KKK member shouldn't have to provide clown service to black people. I'm fine with that.

[It'sFunToRun]

And faggots are bunches of thin sticks used to get kindling going. Doesn't mean it's not offensive to call a gay person a fag or faggot. Calling Jewish people a bunch of kikes is purposefully insulting, and is very emotionally charged since it wasn't that long ago that people who were considered to be kikes were spat on, beaten, and sent to the ovens to die. If you think words like this are cute, then there's something deeply wrong with you. You think a word that marked someone to DEATH is cute. Are you a troll?

Jews have been beaten, stolen from, discriminated against, raped, and murdered. We have real things to worry about instead of getting mad over a cute little word.

You comparing a word to pogroms against the Jews is silly and dramatic.

OMG the Word! It hurts! Get it off of me! It burns! Not. :lol:

[Toothfairy]

I wonder if the people will accept "gay" funds. Some people are just bigots.

you know they do

[Sundaymorning]

Politics and religious hate aren't protected classes in any state or at the federal level.

So this means, if I, lets say, owned a flyer business. I would make flyers for people and companies and charities and such, really a broad range of causes and costumers. And one day, PP would want that I make some flyers to advertise his church or his new movie "the truth about sodomites". Or Michael Pearl would want that I make flyers to advertise his new book on "child training" or "wifely submission". Or the FCR would want me to make some flyers to promote an event against gay marriage. I would be able to refuse?

[Mama Mia]

This is why equal rights for gays, women, and non-Christians, is sliding backward. There really are people who think it should be legal for businesses to refuse service for these things.

I can imagine it now. A society where we all wear patches declaring our sexuality, our genitalia, and our religion, so that store-owners could make sure we're the kind of people they want in their store. How 1940....

Equal rights for gay people are sliding backwards?? In what universe does that make any sense??

In only a decade, we've gone from 0 people in the U.S. Being able to legally marry their same sex partner to over half the states, and well over half the people, being able to legally marry their same sex partner. And it appears likely that pretty much everyone in the U.S. will have marriage equality within the next couple of years ( except for maybe a couple in the Deep South) Many states also have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation/identity.

There are a few local and state initiatives that are trying to roll that progress back. Because they think that there is a big old Gay Agenda that's going to ruin their lives and put them under the thumb of big brother. If I didn't know better I would seriously suspect that ridiculously huge fine was secretly levied by the FRC. Because you really couldn't come up with a better way to alienate people on the fence. And make martyrs out of the bakery owners. $150,000 is a gigantic sum of money. Most people will see that and they aren't going to think " good for the government for fining them to the point of going bankrupt!" .

[Sundaymorning]

So do you think a store owner should be allowed to ban black people? Muslims? Disabled people? Wow. That's fucked.

I think the state and government forces just should leave people alone and don't get involved unless someone commits violence, fraud, breach of contract or theft against someone else.

It's not the states task to force people to behave morally or even decently. Some people are huge a**holes who sadly treat other people like shit. Like parents who ostracise their kids because they are gay.

I know, these anti-discrimination laws might mean well, but I don't think it's a good thing if the state is able to hold too much power over people in general, cause it can go both ways. That's why I don't think the state should be able to dictate how people have to behave. For example, where I live, homosexuality and even straight people living together without being married was illegal up until just a few decades ago. Now, many states are restricting the right to chose for women, and they also claim they mean well.

[BrownieMomma]

I am wondering why a gay couple went to those bakers?

I feel pretty certain they already knew who would be cool about baking them an awesome cake.

Do you really want someone providing a personal service like your wedding cake when you already know the bakery is run by Christians who are not gonna wanna do it? Just how good a job do you think they are going to do?

For your wedding - why not just vote with your money in the first place - go to a bakery that wants your business.

Because it was never about actually buying a wedding cake, was it? It was always about punishing those who don't believe like you.

Now a business is closed. Pyrrhic victory? Teach those horrible people a lesson, and all Christians everywhere should quake for daring to continue to believe the same thing they've believed for over 2,000 years. Too bad the city is now out the taxes and revenue stream of that business.

Why would you ever go to someone who does not agree with you and ask them to custom make something personal for you? Why not just pop over to Walmart and get a cake there? Or hire someone who would like to make it?

Because. It is all about punishing someone who does not believe like you do. It's not about wedding cake at all.

[formergothardite]

Look at those black people why were they even there?

They already knew that the store would refuse to serve them.

Did they really want someone serving them food when they knew it was being made by people who didn't think blacks should eat with whites? Just how good of food would they have served them?

For their lunch, why did they not just go vote with their money? They could have gone to a store that allowed blacks to eat.

Because it was never about buying lunch, was it? It was always about punishing people who didn't believe like them.

Now that business lost money. They taught those horrible whites a lesson and all white people everywhere quaked for daring to continue to believe like they had believed for hundreds of years. Too bad the company lost business because those pesky blacks kept coming in and taking up space.

Why would they even go to a place where the people believed that blacks weren't equal to whites and ask them to make something as personal as the food they were going to eat? Why couldn't they just pop on over to one of the black stores or even find a white store that was okay with them?

Because it was all about punishing someone who did not believe like they did. It wasn't about lunch at all.

Those poor whites who lost money because those selfish blacks wanted to punish them for believing like their grandpappy and his grandpappy and his grandpappy believed.

[Mama Mia]

No, because "previously married" is not a protected class under the civil rights act of 1968 or of any state law that I know of. For that matter, sexual orientation is not a protected class in most states, but where it is, you can't refuse public accomodation or service to LGBT persons.

In no state in the US is it legal discriminate on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, when it comes to serving food in a restaurant, which is why I would not be able to refuse service to Christians, as someone else claimed would be my right. Private clubs are another matter entirely, so a business, such as the bakery, could conceivably declare itself a private club, require a membership to enter or place an order, and not bake cakes for homosexuals.

I thought this didn't sound right, because I had to stare at the poster in my office for years :) . In my state it is illegal to discriminate based on marital status.

There's a pretty comprehensive list of what characteristics it's illegal to discriminate against. Here it is:

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/Publica ... 62.pdf.pdf

Eta: Political affiliation and participation are also included , just not on that notice.

What's strange though is that restaurants and shops all tend to have signs saying " management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone" . I'm sure the intent is to get rid of disruptive customers -- but it seems like it could be used to refuse service to blacks, or whites or same sex couples or whatever. Strange.

But the law regarding discrimination in businesses is even more comprehensive than the employment and housing law.

http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch4

[DGayle]

I think the state and government forces just should leave people alone and don't get involved unless someone commits violence, fraud, breach of contract or theft against someone else.

It's not the states task to force people to behave morally or even decently. Some people are huge a**holes who sadly treat other people like shit. Like parents who ostracise their kids because they are gay.

I know, these anti-discrimination laws might mean well, but I don't think it's a good thing if the state is able to hold too much power over people in general, cause it can go both ways. That's why I don't think the state should be able to dictate how people have to behave. For example, where I live, homosexuality and even straight people living together without being married was illegal up until just a few decades ago. Now, many states are restricting the right to chose for women, and they also claim they mean well.

So yes, you are a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole. You believe that women, non-whites, and LGBT should all be treated as second-class citizens. Go fuck yourself with a red-hot poker.

[DGayle]

I am wondering why a gay couple went to those bakers?

I feel pretty certain they already knew who would be cool about baking them an awesome cake.

Do you really want someone providing a personal service like your wedding cake when you already know the bakery is run by Christians who are not gonna wanna do it? Just how good a job do you think they are going to do?

For your wedding - why not just vote with your money in the first place - go to a bakery that wants your business.

Because it was never about actually buying a wedding cake, was it? It was always about punishing those who don't believe like you.

Now a business is closed. Pyrrhic victory? Teach those horrible people a lesson, and all Christians everywhere should quake for daring to continue to believe the same thing they've believed for over 2,000 years. Too bad the city is now out the taxes and revenue stream of that business.

Why would you ever go to someone who does not agree with you and ask them to custom make something personal for you? Why not just pop over to Walmart and get a cake there? Or hire someone who would like to make it?

Because. It is all about punishing someone who does not believe like you do. It's not about wedding cake at all.

How do you know that the couple knew ahead of time that the bakers are homophobic? And why should that couple just accept being treated as second-class citizens? We have anti-discrimination laws, and business-owners who don't want to follow them as welcome to close up shop.

How would you feel if you wanted a cake, and someone said, "No, you nasty Christian, how dare you ask for a cake. Get out of here, and go to hell where you belong." You'd probably bitch to the heavens about how you were discriminated against, and you're probably want that bakery punished for discriminating against you. Well, Baby, it goes both ways.

[Emkay]

I have no sympathy for the bakery owners. In a situation like this, it would have been easy for them to tell the couple they had too many orders for that particular week. They would have gotten out of making the cake, and though the couple would have probably figured they were lying, it would have been hard to prove why they refused. The owners, though, had to make it clear that the reason they wouldn't make the cake was because it was a (gasp!) *gay marriage*. They then CHOSE to close their business and be penalized with a fine, rather than make the cake and as someone else has suggested, donate the profits to a charity that aligns with their beliefs. It's all about the owners making a statement.

[Sundaymorning]

So yes, you are a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole. You believe that women, non-whites, and LGBT should all be treated as second-class citizens. Go fuck yourself with a red-hot poker.

Very mature answer, thank you very much. Did you even read what I wrote? You do realize I'm a lesbian woman?!

And that's exactly why I'm against governments involvement at all, as it causes more harm than good.

Sure, with this specific law, for once, we are on the winning side. And that's good, I'm glad. And if you have to have this law, it might as well cover all people and sexual orientations. And the whole nation. Also, no exeption for any religions, religious institutions and churches, mosques, synagogues or any other religious buildings!!

But, and thats why I'm against such laws in first place,: laws which regulate the behaviour and freedom of people are such a double-edged sword. Now, we like this particular law, and actually, it's a good law. But things can turn very, very quickly. Racial segregation was required by law not by the businesses. Homosexuality was banned by law. Women and non-whites were second class citizens by law. Gay marriage was and is banned by law.

Some people might be very optimistic and convinced that from now on, only good laws regarding peoples behaviour and freedom will be passed, and the bad ones will get turned over by courts. I'm sorry, but I'm not that confident. I think it's quite naive not to heavily misstrust the power of some law-makers aka politicians. It only takes one crazy Republican president and a few new Supreme Sourt judges. And then, you won't be talking about homophobic bakers anymore, but about the new laws, upheld by the Supreme Court, regarding banning conception, sodomy, laws which preclude minorities from elections and other stuff. And that's exactly why I think the state should stay out of these things in first place!! Sure, now this particular law has helped us, but mostly, these laws in general do women and minorities much more harm than good.

You care about minorities? So how about the awesome "war on drugs", also based on laws, which incarcerates a huge number of people from minorities, even though statistically they don't really take more drugs than white people? vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities That's another reason why the state should just leave people alone.

Would it suck if a store owner could ban African Americans, gays and women from his store? Sure it would, big time!! But you know what's even worse and more dangerous? Being at the mercy of some law makers who are able to decide how everyone should live their life and how they have to behave. Cause most of the time, it doesn't end well.

Just look at this example. Sure, with this Supreme Court, there is hope. Some new conservative judges, and good night. thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner/

So no, I'm not "a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole." I don't believe that women, non-whites, and LGBT should all be treated as second-class citizens. That's exactly why I'm against government involvement in peoples behaviour and freedom. In some cases (like this one with the homophobic bakers), it might help us. But most of the time, it causes huge damage and disadvantages for us.

[Terrie]

I am wondering why a gay couple went to those bakers?

I feel pretty certain they already knew who would be cool about baking them an awesome cake.

Do you really want someone providing a personal service like your wedding cake when you already know the bakery is run by Christians who are not gonna wanna do it? Just how good a job do you think they are going to do?

For your wedding - why not just vote with your money in the first place - go to a bakery that wants your business.

Because it was never about actually buying a wedding cake, was it? It was always about punishing those who don't believe like you.

Now a business is closed. Pyrrhic victory? Teach those horrible people a lesson, and all Christians everywhere should quake for daring to continue to believe the same thing they've believed for over 2,000 years. Too bad the city is now out the taxes and revenue stream of that business.

Why would you ever go to someone who does not agree with you and ask them to custom make something personal for you? Why not just pop over to Walmart and get a cake there? Or hire someone who would like to make it?

Because. It is all about punishing someone who does not believe like you do. It's not about wedding cake at all.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html

It's not about Christianity, either. The same bakery agreed to make cakes for pagans, cloning, divorce, etc. Where were their Christian principles then? Oh, wait, right, they weren't there, because this has nothing to do with religion, and it's all about a bunch of people trying to make themselves look like political martyrs by saying they should have the right to violate the law because they think same sex marriage is icky.

... And did you just suggest a fucking Walmart cake to replace a custom made wedding cake? Perhaps they can replace their wedding rings with Hefty garbage bag twisty ties, as well.

[Boogalou]

I am wondering why a gay couple went to those bakers?

I feel pretty certain they already knew who would be cool about baking them an awesome cake.

Do you really want someone providing a personal service like your wedding cake when you already know the bakery is run by Christians who are not gonna wanna do it? Just how good a job do you think they are going to do?

For your wedding - why not just vote with your money in the first place - go to a bakery that wants your business.

Because it was never about actually buying a wedding cake, was it? It was always about punishing those who don't believe like you.

Now a business is closed. Pyrrhic victory? Teach those horrible people a lesson, and all Christians everywhere should quake for daring to continue to believe the same thing they've believed for over 2,000 years. Too bad the city is now out the taxes and revenue stream of that business.

Why would you ever go to someone who does not agree with you and ask them to custom make something personal for you? Why not just pop over to Walmart and get a cake there? Or hire someone who would like to make it?

Because. It is all about punishing someone who does not believe like you do. It's not about wedding cake at all.

You sure know a lot about these people. Was that in the article?

My town has exactly one bakery. There are a couple people here and there who do some baking but if I wanted a wedding cake I would go to the actual bakery. I have no idea what the owner's thoughts are on same sex marriage, religion, or anything else. And I shouldn't have to. People should be able to expect a certain level of service, no matter what their sexual orientation.

And Formergothardite, excellent post! I am using a template without a like button but I do like it!

[It'sFunToRun]

Very mature answer, thank you very much. Did you even read what I wrote? You do realize I'm a lesbian woman?!

And that's exactly why I'm against governments involvement at all, as it causes more harm than good.

Sure, with this specific law, for once, we are on the winning side. And that's good, I'm glad. And if you have to have this law, it might as well cover all people and sexual orientations. And the whole nation. Also, no exeption for any religions, religious institutions and churches, mosques, synagogues or any other religious buildings!!

But, and thats why I'm against such laws in first place,: laws which regulate the behaviour and freedom of people are such a double-edged sword. Now, we like this particular law, and actually, it's a good law. But things can turn very, very quickly. Racial segregation was required by law not by the businesses. Homosexuality was banned by law. Women and non-whites were second class citizens by law. Gay marriage was and is banned by law.

Some people might be very optimistic and convinced that from now on, only good laws regarding peoples behaviour and freedom will be passed, and the bad ones will get turned over by courts. I'm sorry, but I'm not that confident. I think it's quite naive not to heavily misstrust the power of some law-makers aka politicians. It only takes one crazy Republican president and a few new Supreme Sourt judges. And then, you won't be talking about homophobic bakers anymore, but about the new laws, upheld by the Supreme Court, regarding banning conception, sodomy, laws which preclude minorities from elections and other stuff. And that's exactly why I think the state should stay out of these things in first place!! Sure, now this particular law has helped us, but mostly, these laws in general do women and minorities much more harm than good.

You care about minorities? So how about the awesome "war on drugs", also based on laws, which incarcerates a huge number of people from minorities, even though statistically they don't really take more drugs than white people? vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities That's another reason why the state should just leave people alone.

Would it suck if a store owner could ban African Americans, gays and women from his store? Sure it would, big time!! But you know what's even worse and more dangerous? Being at the mercy of some law makers who are able to decide how everyone should live their life and how they have to behave. Cause most of the time, it doesn't end well.

Just look at this example. Sure, with this Supreme Court, there is hope. Some new conservative judges, and good night. thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner/

So no, I'm not "a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole." I don't believe that women, non-whites, and LGBT should all be treated as second-class citizens. That's exactly why I'm against government involvement in peoples behaviour and freedom. In some cases (like this one with the homophobic bakers), it might help us. But most of the time, it causes huge damage and disadvantages for us.

Very well explained, at first I wasn't sure I agreed with your position, but you're pretty convincing. :clap:

I used to think DGayle was normal, but lately she's gone off her rocker. She seems to go crazy whenever anyone disagrees with her.

[peacelovecoffee]

This is definitely a feel-good story, but I don't think any self-respecting gay person should donate. My thought is, how will this discrimination stop on a broad scale, not just with these guys, if the discriminating people don't face serious consequences? It's important to deter future discrimination. Also, making the "offender" pay the fine best serves the restitution and retribution aims of said fine- look up "purposes of criminal punishment". How are they going to reimburse society for their harmful actions, if the bakery is not the one paying the fine?

People who discriminate need to be aware that there are real consequences, that will seriously hurt them, if they act like jerks. This really dilutes that.

Exactly! This story has made me livid at the LGBTQ folks who are raising & donating money. How dare they give money to these assholes? The LGBTQ community center where we use to live has long been a haven for gay teens who have been kicked out of their homes. Due to lack of funds they are always on the verge of having to shut down & I'm sure this situation is shared by centers all across the country on a daily basis. Rather than use their money to keep something good & positive running, these people are going to donate money to a set of outright bigots who will end up not having any consequences for their hatefulness? This makes me sick.

[Terrie]

Very mature answer, thank you very much. Did you even read what I wrote? You do realize I'm a lesbian woman?!

And that's exactly why I'm against governments involvement at all, as it causes more harm than good.

Sure, with this specific law, for once, we are on the winning side. And that's good, I'm glad. And if you have to have this law, it might as well cover all people and sexual orientations. And the whole nation. Also, no exeption for any religions, religious institutions and churches, mosques, synagogues or any other religious buildings!!

But, and thats why I'm against such laws in first place,: laws which regulate the behaviour and freedom of people are such a double-edged sword. Now, we like this particular law, and actually, it's a good law. But things can turn very, very quickly. Racial segregation was required by law not by the businesses. Homosexuality was banned by law. Women and non-whites were second class citizens by law. Gay marriage was and is banned by law.

Some people might be very optimistic and convinced that from now on, only good laws regarding peoples behaviour and freedom will be passed, and the bad ones will get turned over by courts. I'm sorry, but I'm not that confident. I think it's quite naive not to heavily misstrust the power of some law-makers aka politicians. It only takes one crazy Republican president and a few new Supreme Sourt judges. And then, you won't be talking about homophobic bakers anymore, but about the new laws, upheld by the Supreme Court, regarding banning conception, sodomy, laws which preclude minorities from elections and other stuff. And that's exactly why I think the state should stay out of these things in first place!! Sure, now this particular law has helped us, but mostly, these laws in general do women and minorities much more harm than good.

You care about minorities? So how about the awesome "war on drugs", also based on laws, which incarcerates a huge number of people from minorities, even though statistically they don't really take more drugs than white people? vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities That's another reason why the state should just leave people alone.

Would it suck if a store owner could ban African Americans, gays and women from his store? Sure it would, big time!! But you know what's even worse and more dangerous? Being at the mercy of some law makers who are able to decide how everyone should live their life and how they have to behave. Cause most of the time, it doesn't end well.

Just look at this example. Sure, with this Supreme Court, there is hope. Some new conservative judges, and good night. thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner/

So no, I'm not "a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole." I don't believe that women, non-whites, and LGBT should all be treated as second-class citizens. That's exactly why I'm against government involvement in peoples behaviour and freedom. In some cases (like this one with the homophobic bakers), it might help us. But most of the time, it causes huge damage and disadvantages for us.

Sundaymorning, you are not from the US, and had to have US anti-discrimination laws explained to you numerous times before you stated that you understood how they work. This just shows you STILL don't understand how they work.

[formergothardite]

SundayMorning, public businesses have been forced to not ban people because of the color of their skin for decades now, can you show how most of the time this has caused huge damage and disadvantages to society? I would think making public businesses not be able to discriminate would most of the time help society. I would hate to see what a racists society we would still be living in (especially here in the South) if these laws had not been past. There were short term problems, but in the long term it helped society see that having black and white people shop and eat at the same places is normal. I think that in a decade or so the idea that a store can choose to not serve a gay person will be as preposterous as the idea that they don't have to serve black people.

[Sundaymorning]

Sundaymorning, you are not from the US, and had to have US anti-discrimination laws explained to you numerous times before you stated that you understood how they work. This just shows you STILL don't understand how they work.

I think many of you here don’t really understand what I’m trying to say.

It’s not about these anti-discrimination laws in particular, but about the whole system.

I don’t think the government should be able to force people to behave a certain way at all. Even if I absolutely support the purpose of this particular law. This particular law hasn’t harmed anyone. It’s, in fact, an awesome law. And it would serve me personally. But a government which can install good laws, also has the power to install really bad ones.

I realize that this is more of a philosophical question than an actual, practical one, since the government gets involved in everyones life all the time and sadly, I don’t expect that to change soon.

If the state has the power to decide that business owners must serve everyone, it also has the power to decide that business owners aren’t allowed to serve certain people. Just a few decades ago, that was the law, which demanded segregation.

And now it demands that businesses have to serve everybody. And I think the thing we all can agree on is that businesses, or people in general, shouldn’t discriminate. Now, you might think, what the hell is my problem? I claim that I want businesses to serve everyone, so why on earth I am against this law?? You might think that now, since this is the current law, government involvement and power is good, since it helps people. Businesses are obliged to serve anyone, discrimination is outlawed, so all is good. But things might not stay that way. Things can change very quickly. Some new politicians in an important office (think Santorum, Cruz or even bigger nutjobs). And then, the now useful government power, which now punishes homophobic bakers, can become the living nightmare of many people, especially minorities.

These anti- discrimination laws in some states have been passed by the legislation which consists of politicians. How would you feel if a few years down the road, some new, crazy officials would be in the majority, would use the power they have over the lives of people and decide to scrap those anti-discrimination laws, and instead make some new ones? Laws which ban contraception, ban gay people getting married, living together or even engage in a homosexual relationship, laws which clearly say that a wife should submit to her husband in all things, which make divorce nearly impossible or flat-out illegal, which say that gays should be stoned. I am not joking, this could happen sooner than you think. Most of these are all ideas which are supported by some pretty powerful political groups all around the globe and also in the USA.

Now, you could hope that the courts would stop these laws. But since the politicians the President get to decide who will be a judge, they can also easily install people who think just like them. Sure, they might would have to wait a bit, until the old judges retire, but just look at the Supreme Court, the liberal/independent “majority†(if there even is one) is fragile and many judges aren’t that young anymore, and a conservative Republican President could install some new Antonin Scalias. And then, good luck.

That’s why I think we should heavily limit the states power over people in general.

I don’t want to have to fear the next elections, where some lunatic, right-wing nutjob politicians, who could get voted into office, would get too much power over my life.

[Sundaymorning]

SundayMorning, public businesses have been forced to not ban people because of the color of their skin for decades now, can you show how most of the time this has caused huge damage and disadvantages to society? I would think making public businesses not be able to discriminate would most of the time help society. I would hate to see what a racists society we would still be living in (especially here in the South) if these laws had not been past. There were short term problems, but in the long term it helped society see that having black and white people shop and eat at the same places is normal. I think that in a decade or so the idea that a store can choose to not serve a gay person will be as preposterous as the idea that they don't have to serve black people.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've understood my post about that. I'm not saying at all, that this particular law was harmful for society! In fact, it's an awesome law! What I'm talking about is government involement in peoples behaviour and lives in general. Cause if government has the power to install good laws, it also has the power to install bad laws.

I think the example of non-white people is a great way to show how government involvement truly harms people.

They got these anti-discrimination laws a few decades ago. And don't get me wrong, that's really good.

But, we have to keep in mind that those anti-discrimination laws became mostly necessary because government itself first allowed slavery, and then installed some awful segregation laws. So, I'm pretty sure most people in this situation would wish that government would have left them alone in first place. Or to quote Harry Browne: "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

And it doesn't stop there. Nowdays, you might have some anti-discrimination laws. But at the same time, non-white people are much more likely than white people to get terrorized by some police force in general or to get incarcerated because of some ridiculous drug laws, even though they statistically don't consume more than white people.

So yes, such government involvement, if you look at is as a whole one, harms people in more cases than it actually helps them.

[formergothardite]

If the laws saying that a business can't discriminate against someone because they were born with darker skin is an awesome law, why isn't the laws saying that a business can't discriminate against someone because they were born gay also awesome and going to benefit society greatly? Maybe I have misunderstood, you but I thought you were against the laws saying that businesses must serve black people and gay people.

[Sundaymorning]

If the laws saying that a business can't discriminate against someone because they were born with darker skin is an awesome law, why isn't the laws saying that a business can't discriminate against someone because they were born gay also awesome and going to benefit society greatly? Maybe I have misunderstood, you but I thought you were against the laws saying that businesses must serve black people and gay people.

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand what I'm trying to say. Maybe because I can't describe it in English so well, I don't know.

Ok, I try again. So yes, I think the purpose of any anti-discrimination law, whether it's for non-whites, gays, women, or any other minority is a great one and society will benefit.

But, and that is why I'm against such laws in first place, is because a government, which has the power to pass such a good law like a discrimination law also has the power to pass really bad laws which harm people greatly. So I'd rather don't have any laws which regulate peoples behaviour at all, than to being exposed to the huge risk of having some policitians which will force some awful laws at me. That's why I want to prohibit governments from passing any laws. They should only have very limited power in very specific areas. Adn certainly not about questions of how people should live their life or behave.Cause it's not like I myself can chose which laws will pass, and make sure there will be only good laws like anti-discrimination ones, it all depends on the policiticans which often are simply stupid and evil and want to please their sometimes pretty brain-washed voters.

I try to make an example: Imagine having to sit in a bus, which can drive you to great places, but also can drive you into the ocean where you will die painfully. It all depends on the driver, which you can't really chose. Some drivers are great people, but others are really racist or/and homophobic and many hate women. You do have one vote to elect the driver, but there are many other, sometimes not very clever, people with you in the bus, so your single vote doesn't count as much. All you can hope is that the new driver isn't some lunatic who will drive you into ruin or abandon you somewhere in the desert cause he found out that you are gay/black/white/ whatever he doesn't like.

The other option is that every single person gets her or his own car. So everyone can decide where they want to drive, and they aren't at the mercy of some crazy bus driver aka politician. Sure, some people will voluntarily drive into the ocean, and some places to drive to might be banned for you. But you would still have many other great options to drive to, and you wouldn't have to fear that someone will force you into a bus which will drive you into the ocean.

I don't know about you, but I would definately chose the car option.