Gay community takes care of hateful bakers.

[formergothardite]

My question about my gay and Muslim friends was real. Your solution would be to allow their employers to openly fire them(if their employer now makes up a reason to fire them, they can at least fight it) and to allow all the businesses around here to ban them? That is your real answer to their fears? Because that is what will happen. Right now the Muslim people I know can go shopping at the place they can afford to buy food at and can afford to the gas to get there, even if people don't like them and give them bad looks. In a perfect world we could make people just stop being hateful, but we don't live in that world, we live in the reality.

But if you had your way, you would allow the business owners to ban them. We live in a rural area with not a huge amount of options and with things not close together. So if you had your way this is what would happen:

They would go to buy gas, they owner would say no(the owner of the closest, cheapest gas station is a Tea Party Member and scared of Muslims).

Hopefully they would have the gas in their car to drive the miles to get to another, more expensive place and hope that those people would allow them, but there is no promise that would happen. All the gas stations here are locally owned.

Once they finally found a place to sell them gas, they could go to the place they usually buy groceries. It is a small, locally owned store that surprisingly is cheap and sells lots of organic food. But the owner is also a Tea Party Member, and we all know that Fox News has convinced them that Muslim people are evil, so there is a high chance the owner won't let them shop there.

So they are going to have to drive across town to a chain store that has higher prices and no organic food and hope the chain stores haven't decided to allow the local owners to ban them.

So the reality of you getting rid of laws that say stores can't discriminate is this. Financially, it would break them if they couldn't buy gas at the closest, cheapest place or buy groceries at the cheapest place.

And just to make sure I am clear, you think that it is okay and should be legal for businesses to do this to people?

[Grimalkin]

It seems that as long as you dony physically harm someone there is no problem. I don't think she under stands what went on during civil rights. Can you imagine the kind of sexual harassment we would endure without the 1963 laws?

[Sundaymorning]

It seems that as long as you dony physically harm someone there is no problem. I don't think she under stands what went on during civil rights. Can you imagine the kind of sexual harassment we would endure without the 1963 laws?

Which kind of sexual harassment do you mean? Obviously, touching somebody body without their consent is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Words? Well, here in this thread, I got called a "homophobic, racist asshole". This insult is actually worse than I ever got harassed or insulted from any man. Where can I sue? ;)

Do you truly fear men (or women) would go berserk without such a law?

[Sundaymorning]

My question about my gay and Muslim friends was real. Your solution would be to allow their employers to openly fire them(if their employer now makes up a reason to fire them, they can at least fight it) and to allow all the businesses around here to ban them? That is your real answer to their fears? Because that is what will happen. Right now the Muslim people I know can go shopping at the place they can afford to buy food at and can afford to the gas to get there, even if people don't like them and give them bad looks. In a perfect world we could make people just stop being hateful, but we don't live in that world, we live in the reality.

But if you had your way, you would allow the business owners to ban them. We live in a rural area with not a huge amount of options and with things not close together. So if you had your way this is what would happen:

They would go to buy gas, they owner would say no(the owner of the closest, cheapest gas station is a Tea Party Member and scared of Muslims).

Hopefully they would have the gas in their car to drive the miles to get to another, more expensive place and hope that those people would allow them, but there is no promise that would happen. All the gas stations here are locally owned.

Once they finally found a place to sell them gas, they could go to the place they usually buy groceries. It is a small, locally owned store that surprisingly is cheap and sells lots of organic food. But the owner is also a Tea Party Member, and we all know that Fox News has convinced them that Muslim people are evil, so there is a high chance the owner won't let them shop there.

So they are going to have to drive across town to a chain store that has higher prices and no organic food and hope the chain stores haven't decided to allow the local owners to ban them.

So the reality of you getting rid of laws that say stores can't discriminate is this. Financially, it would break them if they couldn't buy gas at the closest, cheapest place or buy groceries at the cheapest place.

And just to make sure I am clear, you think that it is okay and should be legal for businesses to do this to people?

Look, I think your fears are not that realistic. Every time people got discriminated or couldn't shop at the places they would have liked, it way because the law prohibited them, not the businesses themselves. Businesses usually don't discriminate, the government does.

What I'm trying to say in here for the x time is that the benefit of those anti-discrimination laws simply doesn't make up for the harm the government causes to people while it abuses its power.

Sure, you have these anti-discrimination laws. You think you need them, I think everybody (yes, also Muslims and gays) could live just as well without them, and the fears that stores suddenly wouldn't sell gas to Muslims without those laws are truly exaggerated.

However, even if you like this laws, how do you stand on the other things government does with its power?

Do you think the "war on drugs" is good, even though it hurts lots of people, especially minorities?

What do you think about the "war on terror" and the fact that government has bombed millions into ruins and death? So while government protects Muslims from being discriminated at stores in the US, its ok to kill some Muslim children cause an airstrike hit the wrong target again. Whoops, but hey, as long as you have some anti-discrimination laws in your land, government is awesome, right?

Wouldn't you agree that it would be safer to take the power out of governments hand? Even if that would mean no anti-discrimination laws, it would also mean no war on drugs or "preventive" wars for example. The blood price many have to pay for those few good laws government makes is just to high for me, sorry. I'd rather not have people jailed because of a joint or killed because of some useless and counterproduktive wars on terror, than having those laws, even if I, as a lesbian, might profit from them a bit.

[formergothardite]

If you don't think it is realistic that these things would happen, you have no concept of what it is like here. And are you really trying to claim the reason businesses wouldn't allow black people to shop there was ONLY because of the law? Those nice white people wanted to let the blacks shop there, it was just the big evil government forcing them to not allow them? Are you that clueless?

Other laws are completely not related to these. It is like whenever people start discussing the problems with the lack of homeschooling laws and other immediately want to redirect the conversation to the problems with public school.

Stick to discussing the anti-discrimination laws. If it was amazing when they did it with black people and didn't hurt society, why isn't it amazing when they do it with gay people? You were the one saying it was an amazing law that didn't harm society.

[Sundaymorning]

If you don't think it is realistic that these things would happen, you have no concept of what it is like here. And are you really trying to claim the reason businesses wouldn't allow black people to shop there was ONLY because of the law? Those nice white people wanted to let the blacks shop there, it was just the big evil government forcing them to not allow them? Are you that clueless?

Other laws are completely not related to these. It is like whenever people start discussing the problems with the lack of homeschooling laws and other immediately want to redirect the conversation to the problems with public school.

Stick to discussing the anti-discrimination laws. If it was amazing when they did it with black people and didn't hurt society, why isn't it amazing when they do it with gay people? You were the one saying it was an amazing law that didn't harm society.

No, I'm not sticking to discussing those laws. Cause with those laws themselves, I don't really have a problem. But what I do have a problem with is government involvement in general, as it causes more harm than good. So yes, we do have to discuss it as a whole one. I'd really like to hear your opinion if those laws are worth the millions of destroyed lives because of government? Cause you can't have one without the other, sadly. And that is why I'm strongly in favour of government just leaving people alone in first place. Even if this would mean no anti-discrimination laws. It would also mean no government who abuses his power to destroy peoples lives.

[Grimalkin]

Saying things like government killed my grandparents without an explanation does not help this conversation. Same with half your family being incarcerated, and government preventing you from seeing them. You still are not specific to what exact laws harm you and your family.

Your argument keeps going back to "if they want to fire you based on things like race, gender, or sexual preference they will find a way" that is not really accurate. A very small percentage might find a loophole allowing that. You seem to think it's just that easy. II can't see how legalizing discrimination would make it better, and then the tounge in cheek "wow you must think people would go berserk if they have no laws!" There would not be discrimination laws of they were not necessary. I also get the feeling you think America is one huge corrupt place and all minorities are put into prison for no real reason and they are never protected or get justice. This does sometimes happen and is unfortunate, I still cannot see how lack of laws would make life less violent and oppressive for some people. Despite all the corruption people risk thier lives every day to come here. People from Cuba bring children with them on innER tubes through shark infested waters, limited fresh water, no shelter from the sun, knowing some will die along the way, and still take that risk. Why? There is corruption, there will always be people out to gain power, and exploit others for their own gain. Weather it is government or companies, or bands of con men or gangs. I think it is more limited here despite whatever news or movies you might see about America. As a person who has family all over the world, and was not born in the states I know many people cannot imagin the scope of life in the states. It's still better than any country I ever visited. Not to say I have not enjoyed other places, ot thought other countries had great ways of doing things, and some things are better in other places, on a whole, I would rather live and raise my kids here than any other place. The only exception would be if I were extremely wealthy.

About finding ways to kick kids out of schools.....

I don't think you understand how the legal system works. It is nearly impossible to kick a kid out of public school, even if he does drugs or gets into a brawl, or cheats.

[Grimalkin]

No, I'm not sticking to discussing those laws. Cause with those laws themselves, I don't really have a problem. But what I do have a problem with is government involvement in general, as it causes more harm than good. So yes, we do have to discuss it as a whole one. I'd really like to hear your opinion if those laws are worth the millions of destroyed lives because of government? Cause you can't have one without the other, sadly. And that is why I'm strongly in favour of government just leaving people alone in first place. Even if this would mean no anti-discrimination laws. It would also mean no government who abuses his power to destroy peoples lives.

It's hard to discuss without specific laws and examples of interferences. Also, please say why and give reasons why lack of goverment would be better. Not just statements. I would like to see your point, but am struggling with your vision.

[Sundaymorning]

Saying things like government killed my grandparents without an explanation does not help this conversation. Same with half your family being incarcerated, and government preventing you from seeing them. You still are not specific to what exact laws harm you and your family.

Your argument keeps going back to "if they want to fire you based on things like race, gender, or sexual preference they will find a way" that is not really accurate. A very small percentage might find a loophole allowing that. You seem to think it's just that easy. II can't see how legalizing discrimination would make it better, and then the tounge in cheek "wow you must think people would go berserk if they have no laws!" There would not be discrimination laws of they were not necessary. I also get the feeling you think America is one huge corrupt place and all minorities are put into prison for no real reason and they are never protected or get justice. This does sometimes happen and is unfortunate, I still cannot see how lack of laws would make life less violent and oppressive for some people. Despite all the corruption people risk thier lives every day to come here. People from Cuba bring children with them on innER tubes through shark infested waters, limited fresh water, no shelter from the sun, knowing some will die along the way, and still take that risk. Why? There is corruption, there will always be people out to gain power, and exploit others for their own gain. Weather it is government or companies, or bands of con men or gangs. I think it is more limited here despite whatever news or movies you might see about America. As a person who has family all over the world, and was not born in the states I know many people cannot imagin the scope of life in the states. It's still better than any country I ever visited. Not to say I have not enjoyed other places, ot thought other countries had great ways of doing things, and some things are better in other places, on a whole, I would rather live and raise my kids here than any other place. The only exception would be if I were extremely wealthy.

About finding ways to kick kids out of schools.....

I don't think you understand how the legal system works. It is nearly impossible to kick a kid out of public school, even if he does drugs or gets into a brawl, or cheats.

You don't really seem to read what I write. Obviously, the government should treat all people equally, so yes, they shouldn't be able to kick a kid out of public schools. And a private school will just find a reason if they want to get rid of someone.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to insult the US at all! Obviously living in the US is much better than living in Cuba and most other places!

But, yes, I do think government in general is corrupt. Some places might be better than others.

And yeah, I do think government in the US is pretty harsh towards its people. You have, as far as I'm informed, one of the highest incarceration rates of the world, and minorities are much more likely to get convicted or treated unfairly than whites. I'm actually curious too what you think about the death penatly? If I weren't really wealthy, I wouldn't ever wanna be put before a trial in the US. Ever. The war on drugs destroys millions of peoples lifes. The war on terror also.

Don't get me wrong, I think the US are a really great country! Other governments aren't any better than the one that you have. I'm just trying to show with these examples why I'm against government involvement in general. The people in Cuba flee from there, cause their own government is way worse than the one you have in the US, not because there is no government and they are left alone!

[Sundaymorning]

It's hard to discuss without specific laws and examples of interferences. Also, please say why and give reasons why lack of goverment would be better. Not just statements. I would like to see your point, but am struggling with your vision.

Ok, I have to go to work, so I have to make this short. I will look up the specitic laws later if you want.

I've already written in here that I do think we need some kind of government. Sadly, cause an anarchy would be my dream. I just don't think that would be realistic. But I do think too much government involvement is harmful, as government will much more often use its power for bad things than for good things.

Some recent, concrete examples:

- the war on drugs. Very unfair, while it doesn't stop people from taking drugs, it destroys millions peoples lifes and minorities are much more likely to get incarcerated than whites, even if they don't really do more drugs.

- the war on terror. Your government, together with others, invaded countries, caused millions to suffer and die. Destabilizised a already very insecure part of the world, just look at it now.

- the fact that government is restricting the right to chose for women in many states

- the fact that government is giving out huge subventions to some big agricultural companies, subsidising harmful stuff like corn syrup, all while forbidding citizens to grow vegetables in their own front yard in some areas.

- The way government just has to power from getting into peoples lives and prohibiting them from doing trivial things like opening a lemonade stand and so on to really bad things like banning people from living together beause of a morality clause. Some great examples: dumblaws.com. Sure, some of them might be funny and not really implemented anymore. But it still shows how much power government has over the lives of people. And many probably won't find it so funny anymore if a conservative governor together with a conservative legislation will ban some contraceptives, make getting an abortion more difficult and so on.

- and don't get me started on the ways government bureaucracy makes lives difficult for small businesses and people who want to open one.

These are just some few examples. There are many, many more. In general, I'm absolutely convinced that such government involvement does much more harm than good.

[formergothardite]

No, I'm not sticking to discussing those laws. Cause with those laws themselves, I don't really have a problem. But what I do have a problem with is government involvement in general, as it causes more harm than good. So yes, we do have to discuss it as a whole one. I'd really like to hear your opinion if those laws are worth the millions of destroyed lives because of government? Cause you can't have one without the other, sadly. And that is why I'm strongly in favour of government just leaving people alone in first place. Even if this would mean no anti-discrimination laws. It would also mean no government who abuses his power to destroy peoples lives.

You ignored the first part of my post. If you really don't think those things would happen in some regions of the US, you don't understand what it is like here. And do you really think that the only reason black people were banned from stores was because of laws?

I called this morning and my dad answered. I asked him, since he was around when the desegregation laws were started if it was only the laws that kept white people from allowing black people from shopping and going places. His reaction was literally this: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: and "Where did you get that from?" I asked him what he thought would happen if the laws were done away with and people could legally discriminate against black people. He said that racism is still here, but the laws keep it from flaming up. Doing away with the laws would be like dumping gasoline on a small flame, racism would come roaring back to life. In his opinion people might protest racist companies at first, but convenient, cheap prices would win out and we would eventually go back things being like they were.

Voting for equality laws is not the same of voting to give money to big farms or to bomb people in other countries. You actually can have one without the other. You are reminding me of all the fundies I know who claim we can't have marriage equality because then we will have to have toaster marriage and car marriage and cat marriage. Nope, doesn't work that way. Having laws against discrimination doesn't mean we have to have laws saying we can hurt people. You don't seem to grasp that you can defend the equality laws while fighting the laws that cause harm.

[Terrie]

Because when the government forcibly integrated schools in the US, it was the LAW that stood around and shouted and threw things at young black children and teens.

Personally, I'm giving up on Sundaymorning, because she keeps changing her argument. Remember, her first argument was anti-discrimination laws are bad, because they would force her to serve fundies in her business. :roll:

[Sundaymorning]

Because when the government forcibly integrated schools in the US, it was the LAW that stood around and shouted and threw things at young black children and teens.

Personally, I'm giving up on Sundaymorning, because she keeps changing her argument. Remember, her first argument was anti-discrimination laws are bad, because they would force her to serve fundies in her business. :roll:

That argument still stands. Sorry, but I don't want government to decide who I have to engage in business with. I'd still like that to be my decision. Same goes for other areas where government makes my life very difficult right now.

[Sundaymorning]

You ignored the first part of my post. If you really don't think those things would happen in some regions of the US, you don't understand what it is like here. And do you really think that the only reason black people were banned from stores was because of laws?

I called this morning and my dad answered. I asked him, since he was around when the desegregation laws were started if it was only the laws that kept white people from allowing black people from shopping and going places. His reaction was literally this: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: and "Where did you get that from?" I asked him what he thought would happen if the laws were done away with and people could legally discriminate against black people. He said that racism is still here, but the laws keep it from flaming up. Doing away with the laws would be like dumping gasoline on a small flame, racism would come roaring back to life. In his opinion people might protest racist companies at first, but convenient, cheap prices would win out and we would eventually go back things being like they were.

Voting for equality laws is not the same of voting to give money to big farms or to bomb people in other countries. You actually can have one without the other. You are reminding me of all the fundies I know who claim we can't have marriage equality because then we will have to have toaster marriage and car marriage and cat marriage. Nope, doesn't work that way. Having laws against discrimination doesn't mean we have to have laws saying we can hurt people. You don't seem to grasp that you can defend the equality laws while fighting the laws that cause harm.

Ok, so about the thing people marrying their cats and dogs and cars: as far as I'm concerned, for a marriage you need the agreement of both parties involved. Might be pretty difficult to ask your cat or dog, if they would like to marry you ;). What what door gay marriage might have helped open is the door to polygamy.

And good luck fighting those bad laws while keeping the good ones. I just don't think that will work, that's why I'm against government in peoples lives in first place.

What I'm truly interested in is that what exactly do you fear would happen in the South if there wouldn't be any anti-discrimination laws anymore?

Just to be clear, it would still be illegal to harm other peoples property or body. The only thing that would change is that people could actually say: I'm sorry, but I don't want to do any business with you. Do you really think that then many stores would have signs: only for whites, or only for blacks? Would they willingly lose about half of their costumers? Which company could even afford that? I'm serious, I'm really curious about how things are in this area.

In my country,the majority of people is against gay marriage. And many are against gays in general. But they do remain civil about it. And we don't have any anti-discrimination laws which cover gays. I've never had any problems with businesses, even if they knew I was gay, even if they were small businesses with a conservative owner. They were just really glad I was their costumer, and never ever gave me a hard time. I only ever had problems with the government.

[FoxyMoxie]

That argument still stands. Sorry, but I don't want government to deciding who I have to engage in business with. I'd still like that to be my decision. Same goes for other areas in my life government makes my life very difficult right now.

You realise that your argument is exactly like those of people who don't want marriage equality? That they should be able to choose to not have same-gender marriages in their state/country? Newsflash - you're not the only LGBTQ person out there and anti-discrimination/hate speech laws SAVES LGBTQ LIVES. As an LGBTQ person, your POV is unbelievably selfish and myopic. Your POV is all me me me, what about my rights!!! It's not about your rights. It's about ALL OF OUR RIGHTS.

Edited to correct spelling.

[Grimalkin]

Ok, I have to go to work, so I have to make this short. I will look up the specitic laws later if you want.

I've already written in here that I do think we need some kind of government. Sadly, cause an anarchy would be my dream. I just don't think that would be realistic. But I do think too much government involvement is harmful, as government will much more often use its power for bad things than for good things.

Some recent, concrete examples:

- the war on drugs. Very unfair, while it doesn't stop people from taking drugs, it destroys millions peoples lifes and minorities are much more likely to get incarcerated than whites, even if they don't really do more drugs.

- the war on terror. Your government, together with others, invaded countries, caused millions to suffer and die. Destabilizised a already very insecure part of the world, just look at it now.

- the fact that government is restricting the right to chose for women in many states

- the fact that government is giving out huge subventions to some big agricultural companies, subsidising harmful stuff like corn syrup, all while forbidding citizens to grow vegetables in their own front yard in some areas.

- The way government just has to power from getting into peoples lives and prohibiting them from doing trivial things like opening a lemonade stand and so on to really bad things like banning people from living together beause of a morality clause. Some great examples: dumblaws.com. Sure, some of them might be funny and not really implemented anymore. But it still shows how much power government has over the lives of people. And many probably won't find it so funny anymore if a conservative governor together with a conservative legislation will ban some contraceptives, make getting an abortion more difficult and so on.

- and don't get me started on the ways government bureaucracy makes lives difficult for small businesses and people who want to open one.

These are just some few examples. There are many, many more. In general, I'm absolutely convinced that such government involvement does much more harm than good.

I need to get on with my day so a few points- war on drugs, pot is legal in a couple states, more states are likely to follow and are looking into it. I don't think legalizing heroine and meth are a good idea.

The right for women to choose- What would no limits or restrictions on abortion look like to you? Just curioise.

What would happen if nothing at all was done on terror?

Who cannot grow vegetables in thier front yard?

government might make it hard for some small businesses, but for some reason it has not prevented my husband from running one. There is not a lack of them in my area. I generally dislike unions , but do realize the need for them. Imagine no protection for workers. People being forced to work long hours against thier will for little pay in terrible conditions.......

What would happen to small businesses if government had no dealings in how large corporations were run?

What if farmers had no restrictions on the kinds of pesticides used, or the quality of the food produced, tainted meat- who cares right?

If you have to go look up obscure dumb laws to prove your point I don't think this is worth talking about. I guess I would like how lack of these laws would play out in your mind. Your going from one extreme to another and not looking at the shades of gray. You have one mindset, and don't seem to be considering the alternatives.

[Grimalkin]

You realise that your argument is exactly like those of people who don't want marriage equality? That they should be able to choose to not have same-gender marriages in their state/country? Newsflash - you're not the only LGBTQ person out there and anti-discrimination/hate speech laws SAVES LGBTQ LIVES. As an LGBTQ person, your POV is unbelievably selfish and myopic. Your POV is all me me me, what about my rights!!! It's not about your rights. It's about ALL OF OUR RIGHTS.

Edited to correct spelling.

Ding ding ding! A million gold stars to you.

Your rights are more important than everyone else's. It is called egoism, which I should be studying for my Ethics class.

[Terrie]

That argument still stands. Sorry, but I don't want government to decide who I have to engage in business with. I'd still like that to be my decision. Same goes for other areas where government makes my life very difficult right now.

Which is why I'm giving up on you. Only an idiot would think that their own personal comfort is an acceptable way to run society.

[formergothardite]

Ok, so about the thing people marrying their cats and dogs and cars: as far as I'm concerned, for a marriage you need the agreement of both parties involved. Might be pretty difficult to ask your cat or dog, if they would like to marry you ;). What what door gay marriage might have helped open is the door to polygamy.

And good luck fighting those bad laws while keeping the good ones. I just don't think that will work, that's why I'm against government in peoples lives in first place.

What I'm truly interested in is that what exactly do you fear would happen in the South if there wouldn't be any anti-discrimination laws anymore?

Just to be clear, it would still be illegal to harm other peoples property or body. The only thing that would change is that people could actually say: I'm sorry, but I don't want to do any business with you. Do you really think that then many stores would have signs: only for whites, or only for blacks? Would they willingly lose about half of their costumers? Which company could even afford that? I'm serious, I'm really curious about how things are in this area.

In my country,the majority of people is against gay marriage. And many are against gays in general. But they do remain civil about it. And we don't have any anti-discrimination laws which cover gays. I've never had any problems with businesses, even if they knew I was gay, even if they were small businesses with a conservative owner. They were just really glad I was their costumer, and never ever gave me a hard time. I only ever had problems with the government.

You still didn't answer the question. Do you really think that the main reason white store business owners did not allow black people was because of the law? You are coming off that is what you believe. If you are basing your beliefs around that idea, then you misinformed.

What would happen if there was no discrimination laws in my area? Bad things. You are uneducated about what things are like here if you don't think that minority groups would be treated like they were before there were laws protecting them. It might not be all black people, it could be black people who don't look and act "white" enough for the store owners or people who are Muslim, Hispanic, or Middle Eastern.

And how could businesses afford it? Because we are talking about minority groups. So they wouldn't be losing a huge customer base, if, for example, they banned all people who are Muslim. Sure there might be a little bit of a fuss at first, but in the end, most people would overlook the banning and continue supporting the stores if that was what was most convenient. In the town my sister lives in people fought Walmart coming like crazy. They claimed they would never shop there, they knew it was not a good company and would hurt the local stores, they were going to take the moral high road and keep on supporting local businesses. What really happened when Walmart came? They packed out the parking lot and dumped the local businesses for the convenience and cheap prices at Walmart. That is exactly what would happen if stores started banning minority groups, there would be a bit of a fuss, but in the end most people just aren't willing to give up a good deal.

Great that in your country people wouldn't do that to you. But we aren't talking about your country, we are talking about mine, where there is a reason we need laws saying you can't discriminate against minority groups.

[browncoatslytherin]

Great that in your country people wouldn't do that to you. But we aren't talking about your country, we are talking about mine, where there is a reason we need laws saying you can't discriminate against minority groups.

i can definitely vouch for everything fomergothardite is saying. any initial fuss will eventually be glossed over and people will forget. americans tend to have adhd when it comes to issues, i've found. they'll rally behind this cause or that one until the enthusiasm wears down or something else catches their eye, then it's on to another bandwagon. just something i've noticed in general, something will absolutely blow up in the news, nobody can stop talking about it, and then maybe a month later, nobody's talking about it anymore.

the thing is, i believe part of being a mature adult is allowing a certain inconvenience (i.e. servicing fundies) in order for a greater group of people to be allowed benefits of that. there's always a double-edged sword. and believe me, i don't particularly like fundies and i wouldn't like providing service for them. but if it means that people like my brother (and myself, if i were in a relationship with someone other than my fiance who is an obvious male) don't have to face discrimination, then i will do it. i might not be glad about it at the time, but hell, servicing people in general is not something i'm always glad about, because people in general can be total idiots and make my life inconvenient. :P so, really, i figure the small sacrifice i make is agreeable to me in serving a greater good.

[Grimalkin]

i can definitely vouch for everything fomergothardite is saying. any initial fuss will eventually be glossed over and people will forget. americans tend to have adhd when it comes to issues, i've found. they'll rally behind this cause or that one until the enthusiasm wears down or something else catches their eye, then it's on to another bandwagon. just something i've noticed in general, something will absolutely blow up in the news, nobody can stop talking about it, and then maybe a month later, nobody's talking about it anymore.

the thing is, i believe part of being a mature adult is allowing a certain inconvenience (i.e. servicing fundies) in order for a greater group of people to be allowed benefits of that. there's always a double-edged sword. and believe me, i don't particularly like fundies and i wouldn't like providing service for them. but if it means that people like my brother (and myself, if i were in a relationship with someone other than my fiance who is an obvious male) don't have to face discrimination, then i will do it. i might not be glad about it at the time, but hell, servicing people in general is not something i'm always glad about, because people in general can be total idiots and make my life inconvenient. :P so, really, i figure the small sacrifice i make is agreeable to me in serving a greater good.

My dirty mind thinks your talking about prostitution when you say servicing people. HEE.

And because I am taking a break from studying ethics this is all I can think about, that is utilitarianism. Doing what's best for the greater good. I am willing to give up some of my own rights because it would serve the greater good.

About to study the veil of blindness and some Aristotle. I might work that in too. Thanks guys, your helping me.

[browncoatslytherin]

My dirty mind thinks your talking about prostitution when you say servicing people. HEE.

And because I am taking a break from studying ethics this is all I can think about, that is utilitarianism. Doing what's best for the greater good. I am willing to give up some of my own rights because it would serve the greater good.

About to study the veil of blindness and some Aristotle. I might work that in too. Thanks guys, your helping me.

heehee, i have a dirty mind as well :D

and just to be clear, i don't think everyone should give up all of their rights for the "greater good" because i think it gets to a point where there really is no greater good that is being served. but, i consider serving a fundie to be small beans as far as my comfort level goes, despite being not straight and formerly fundie. i think there are small things like that that people might not necessarily "like", it might make them slightly uncomfortable, but it ultimately benefits everyone. being able to be selfish by saying "i don't want to help you because i disagree with your ideology" i think does more harm than good, ultimately, because while the individual might feel good about it, there is greater harm done to more people because others are also able to utilize that attitude against other people.

i really do love the wiccan rede in this regard. "and it harm none, do what ye will" key words there "harm none." by being able to refuse fundies service gives them the tools to further discriminate, and i think because that does more harm, that is why i'm willing to give up my ability to say no to them so that they can't say no to others.

eta: and by "harm none" i don't think just physical assault type of harm is included, i think it also includes things like emotional or mental abuse or anguish caused by selfish discrimination. not to try to say that we shouldn't try to not offend anyone, but discrimination carries more harm than just physical violence (or the threat of).

[Sundaymorning]

You realise that your argument is exactly like those of people who don't want marriage equality? That they should be able to choose to not have same-gender marriages in their state/country? Newsflash - you're not the only LGBTQ person out there and anti-discrimination/hate speech laws SAVES LGBTQ LIVES. As an LGBTQ person, your POV is unbelievably selfish and myopic. Your POV is all me me me, what about my rights!!! It's not about your rights. It's about ALL OF OUR RIGHTS.

Edited to correct spelling.

It would be nice if you would take the time you read some of my postings. About saving lives, obviously, the non-aggression principle saves lifes. Not some anti-discrimination laws. Hate speech is, as far as I know, legal in the US.

And you don't seem to understand the concept of freedom: should people be able to forbid other people to get married? No, of course not. No one should be able to force his or her religious or other views on other people.

Should people be able to say, I'm sorry, but I don't want to do business with you. Yes, I believe they should have the freedom to do so.

[Cartmann99]

My question about my gay and Muslim friends was real. Your solution would be to allow their employers to openly fire them(if their employer now makes up a reason to fire them, they can at least fight it) and to allow all the businesses around here to ban them? That is your real answer to their fears? Because that is what will happen. Right now the Muslim people I know can go shopping at the place they can afford to buy food at and can afford to the gas to get there, even if people don't like them and give them bad looks. In a perfect world we could make people just stop being hateful, but we don't live in that world, we live in the reality.

But if you had your way, you would allow the business owners to ban them. We live in a rural area with not a huge amount of options and with things not close together. So if you had your way this is what would happen:

They would go to buy gas, they owner would say no(the owner of the closest, cheapest gas station is a Tea Party Member and scared of Muslims).

Hopefully they would have the gas in their car to drive the miles to get to another, more expensive place and hope that those people would allow them, but there is no promise that would happen. All the gas stations here are locally owned.

Once they finally found a place to sell them gas, they could go to the place they usually buy groceries. It is a small, locally owned store that surprisingly is cheap and sells lots of organic food. But the owner is also a Tea Party Member, and we all know that Fox News has convinced them that Muslim people are evil, so there is a high chance the owner won't let them shop there.

So they are going to have to drive across town to a chain store that has higher prices and no organic food and hope the chain stores haven't decided to allow the local owners to ban them.

So the reality of you getting rid of laws that say stores can't discriminate is this. Financially, it would break them if they couldn't buy gas at the closest, cheapest place or buy groceries at the cheapest place.

And just to make sure I am clear, you think that it is okay and should be legal for businesses to do this to people?

Your comment reminded me of an article I read about a guide published to help African-American motorists during the days of Jim Crow. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negr ... Green_Book

From the link:

African-American travelers faced a variety of dangers and inconveniences, ranging from white-owned businesses refusing to serve them or repair their vehicles, to being refused accommodation or food by white-owned hotels, to even facing threats of physical violence and forcible expulsion from whites-only "sundown towns".

Sadly, some would like for us to go back to those days when everyone "knew their place". :(

[formergothardite]

Sundaymorning seems to be missing that it wasn't the laws that made people do these things. People wanted to do them and it is the current laws that keep it from happening now. She acts like it is no big deal if stores don't want to do business with a minority group or that if the laws were not there businesses would not ban minority groups, but that isn't the reality of some regions of the US. Minority groups in some areas would be completely screwed if all the businesses could refuse them.

Where she lives these laws might not be needed, but where I live, they are.