This seems to be a pretty hot topic! Third thread since the other one is filling up. Guys, we need to work on pulling the discussion over here (I keep forgetting until after I've already posted! But I'll try harder next time.)

My next position is we need to have fully recognized marriage equality is this:

The lack of protected rights here, creates an environment for other infringements of rights (in some cases) or marginalization though privilege bias (in general).

Is it any surprised that this happened in NC 2 years before they just voted to codify marriage discrimination again (as they did the last time the modified their State Constitution with miscegenation laws)



People with bias and power are "shielded" in treating queer identified people as second class citizens when there is not clear images and protections to force cognitive dissonance about their beliefs.

After all, because of the ubiquity of divorce, very few of the religious who oppose full equality put up nearly a fraction of the attack on divorce something much more substantial and presumable "of the states interest to oppose"?

Next Post another example.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:17, Sat 19 May 2012.

Again...

A hotel restaurant "removed" a lesbian couple celebrating their anniversary after they shared a brief kiss.

Gay couple Kenyata White and Aeimee Diaz, both 38, were returning to Downtown Phoenix's District American Kitchen & Wine Bar in the Sheraton Hotel  - where they first met - for their anniversary when they greeted each other with a brief embrace.

Before they even had a chance to look at their menus, the manager allegedly came over and asked them to leave, saying they were making other patrons uncomfortable.

It was a table of eight elderly customers that allegedly made the complaint.
I might also point out the couple was a couple of colour and/or interracial.

Think about it.  Here we have a group that would only be more marginalized in an obvious way if they were also not fully abled.

and again...

Genter, a graduate student at Rutgers University, was refused the sale of wedding dress at Here Comes the Bride, in Somers Point, N.J., after she says its manager found out she was a lesbian and insulted her about her pending "illegal action."

Saber told ABCNews.com that when she prepared to call Genter about her order, she noticed that she had crossed out the word "groom" and put in the word "partner" instead.

Same sex marriage is illegal in New Jersey, but partnerships are recognized.

Saber told ABCNews.com that she mentioned the information on the form to Genter out of curiosity.

Genter indicated that Saber "wouldn't work with me because I'm gay, She also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and it was a shame that I was gay. She said, 'There's right, and there's wrong. And this is wrong.'"

This exchange of words ended with a refusal by Saber to sell Genter the Eden Bridals designer gown.

Genter is planning to wed her longtime partner in a civil union in New Jersey, where the couple lives, the Philadelphia Daily News reported. They plan to follow their legal union with a formal ceremony in New York and are planning a large celebration for 200 of their closest friends and family to be held next July.

Saber says business hasn't suffered because of the recent publicity.


"People have been coming in and literally throwing money at me," she said.

(Nice to see that bigotry is profitable...and it will only become not so with full equality.  Think about it, people of prominence used to be part of the KKK, serious members of the community ...generally speaking... good people used to push in to pose with the bodies of a lynched person of color!  It's only though equality that we have been able to get away from that kind of non-senes.  We haven't yet with queer identified people)

I agree with you that all of thrse acts are reprehensible.  But good luck legislating stupidity and ignorance away (even though I am in support of gay marriage)

The first two I agree with you. I'm not as sure on the third though. There's a difference between tolerating something and supporting it. The first two, the question is can the gay couple chill out in that location. The fact that they are homosexual has no real bearing on it. But in the third, if my reading is correct, the couple came to purchase items specifically for their homosexual marriage. I think there has to be some point where I as an individual can say "I do not wish to be involved in this activity". I shouldn't have to officiate a wedding I don't feel comfortable with, for instance.

To give an example (and to pick something I'm sure you would find morally disagreeable, even if it's a little silly), suppose I came into your store and said I need to buy a sack and some rope because my cat had kittens and I'm going to drown them. Ignoring that that is illegal, you as the store owner should be able to say "I cannot support this behavior, and I refuse you service."

I suppose an important differentiation here is discrimination on race or orientation is because of something you are and can't change. Discrimination on the activity is definitely something you can change. I have to accept you even though you're homosexual, but I do not need to be involved with your homosexual activities.

It's one thing to refuse service.  It's quite another to become insulting and demeaning about the whole thing.  If she just refused service, I wouldn't like it but I'd accept it, she has that right.  But belittling a person as you do it is just wrong.

In reply to Doulos (msg #5):

Doulos, no, I'm not interested in "legislation" against "stupidity" as you say.  What I'm rather saying is that some of "stupidity" at least becomes less brazen when there's more opportunities to experience things as "normal".

That is, could you imagine today a person being elected to any major national office, if they were pictured as a member of the KKK?  Ala Sen. Robert Byrd was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan?

Could you imagine someone getting elected who wanted to repeal the 13th amendment (outlawing slavery)?  Yet, when we fought those fights, the ideas were so "foreign" to people ...serious people opposed it.

The more that EVERY DAY people see gay married couples, the more that things like happened there will (a) slow down, (b) be seen more generally as "bigoted" and not as "principled and spiritual", and (c) extinguish into the annuls of an ugly history.

This is either a red herring or an extrapolation to miss the point.

Let me ask a direct question:  Do you think Hotels should be able to deny service to someone because of their skin colour?

We're talking about a business that PROVIDES GOODS AND SERVICES.  Now, I don't know if people print in the program at a wedding "This Dress Purchased at BUSINESS NAME" but if so, SURE they could say "Don't print our name we think you're less than us and don't want to be associated with your kind" (I think it's disgusting and I probably wouldn't want to do business with them) BUT this is not what we're talking about.

We're talking about someone NOT doing their JOB because they don't like "WHO I AM"

No actual wrong doing.

No actual "request" for her endorsement.

Just an expectation they "sell a dress" ...

And, this was EXACTLY what was done by people who didn't "believe" in interracial marriage.  And, it's WRONG (even if you think someone should have the right?)  I have the right to say all kinds of stupid things... it doesn't mean it's "smart" to say stupid things.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg #7):

Grandmaster, the "vendor" only has the "right" because the laws don't recognized queer identified people as the protected class they need to be.

IE, you can't refuse service at a diner because someone is "a Jew"

In reply to Revolutionary (msg #10):

Actually, there are places that can-- and do-- just that.  Country clubs, Yachting groups, religious stores, and so on.  The right of association is a protected right, and if you can kick someone out for not being dressed right, you can certainly kick someone out for more significant factors.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg #11):

Again, you say "can" I say "mistakenly it happens" despite the ethical disgust.

A father "in" some countries can mutilate his daughter's genitals.  That it happens doesn't mean that it "should" that he is "seen as having that right" doesn't mean the "seeing" is correct.  When it is clearly, to me, wrong.

Also, there's a huge difference between a dress code (and you're right if by implication you're asking would I argue against those!  I most certainly would) and a someone performing a bias "Crime" (again I hate talking in these terms because I could care less about "laws" as I would consider it a moral imperative to disobey immoral laws ... the same thing some Xians might say about gay marriage).

Oh, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying it's "right", I'm saying "it's a protected right".  There's nothing illegal about being a bigoted racist, so long as you don't actually act on those impulses in any illegal way.

Correct.

And it's even hard to "demonstrate" legally when mathematically it's clear as the law doesn't care about facts or truth, just their "pedigree"

Which is another reason why I have no respect for the "Rule of Law" it is only a weak improvement over the Divine Right of King.

No, because your renting a room has no bearing on his doing black activities (in fact, the concept doesn't even make sense). However, with the more recent example, I think country clubs should be allowed to deny use of their facilities for certain religiously-affiliated activities.



That's not true. If you are homosexual, you still look like everyone else. You aren't visibly different. What marks a homosexual as different is engaging in homosexual activity. I think it's important to differentiate here. Types of people aren't a good basis for discrimination. Types of activities are. If you were a homosexual buying a wedding dress because you're taking pictures of wedding dresses, discrimination there would be clearly wrong. If you were a homosexual buying a wedding dress because you're about to use it in a homosexual wedding, well ... if I can understand the vendor saying "I can't support this behavior, and so I won't".



Her selling you that item knowing what you're using it for is a form of endorsement. To be fair, if you came to me and said "sell me a gun, I'm going to kill my dad" and I sold you a gun, I should reasonably expect to go to prison for that, even if no other laws were broken. And if I came to your store and said "I need spraypaint so I can paint neo-nazi signs on this billboard we rented", I'd like to imagine you would refuse me service (and be right in doing so).




Most certainly. Being insulting, while not illegal, is morally wrong.

Really?  First off, who I AM is only what I look like?  Do you not think Xians would say "being xian"is "who they are?"  Are you also trying to say, someone isn't gay (or heterosexual) UNTIL they have sex?  How much?  Do fantasies count?

This is a false distinction or somehow it requires the wisdom of Salomon to split this baby.  The problem I'm having with your whole justification is...

...vendors don't NEED to know why I'm buying a Dress.
...vendors just NEED to sell one when a buyer is there.

The vendor is not being asked to bless the union.
The vendor is not even (as I stated) being "recognized" in the wedding announcements, etc.  And again, surely you don't think EVERY belief is sufficient to deny service...so why is ANY belief at all sufficient?  IE What is the vendor objected because the marriage partner ...not same-gendered... were of different ethnicity?



This is all red herring again.

First, no one is coming in "describing" an action that hurts ANYONE.  In this case the VENDOR inquired, as a good sales person might. Then she let her bigotry and Semitic superiority fly.

Second, do you mean even a little to equate wedding with an at this point unjustified, premeditated murder?

Last, selling an item is NOT endorsement.  IF you think that, you need to read the terms of service of almost ever product you buy.  AS WELL AS, the disclaimers on about ever DVD movie commentary.  Those specific disclaimers are NOT required.  But they would certainly BE sufficient.

You're putting words into my mouth. The point is, there are what people are and what they do, and those two sets are not identical.



Being homosexual is based on attraction, not actions. I was heterosexual LONG before I had sex.



They don't, you're right. In the case you mentioned though, the customer voluntarily gave up that information. If I walk into your store and buy rope, you have no business prying further. However, if I walk into your store, loudly proclaim I'm tying my children to a tree overnight because they've been disobedient, THEN buy rope, you now have an obligation to intervene.



Um ... really? I think a vendor has the right to run his shop as he likes, whether it's effective or not. If I sit in my shop with the doors unlocked and the lights on, but don't unlock the register, are you going to call the police to force me to sell you things?



Yes, I believe every belief is sufficient to deny service, and in fact I'm rather surprised that you, self-avowed revolutionary, would take any other stance. If you come into my hardware shop and say "I'm buying lumber to burn crosses", or "I'm buying rope to tie up my children", yes, I feel quite justified in saying "my beliefs prevent me from assisting you in this, and in fact, the police are on their way".

We *have* to accept "all beliefs" for two basic reasons;
1) I don't have God almighty sitting next to me when I'm running my shop to tell me which behavior is appropriate and which is extremely dangerous and destructive. I have to rely on my own best judgment. And this is the same for me and you and every other person in that position.
2) I have a right to exercise my beliefs with my property however I like! Are you proposing that, if I buy property and say "this property is only open to people who agree with me", that the police should bust down the doors so anyone at all can come in? That's ludicrous.




Who is responsible for determining what action is harmful? Remember, we're not talking necessarily about criminal harm here. If I run a store and you come in and put a sticker on my window or rearrange my flowers, I can reasonably call that harmful and toss you out.



I am selecting an event that everyone can agree is bad, so we have a baseline of agreement. It's not intended to be a comparison of 'badness' or anything of the sort.



There's legal endorsement and moral endorsement. You're confusing the two. Knowingly selling paraphernalia for an activity is a form of moral endorsement, even if you hold no legal liability.

Do you believe God is going to punish the homosexuals for getting married?

How should I know? That's between them and God.

(I think though most Christians would say 'yes', so I'll go with that if it helps your argument.)

Ok, assuming God will punish the homosexuals for getting married, will God punish you, or the "endorser" of gay activities who sells the dress so that they can get married?  If that is a fair characterization of what it means to sell someone something for their own uses, when you have knowledge of the intended use and to which you morally object.