Which is why you let Bricker call other posters dishonest (“there is no honest way to look at that…”).
A+ moderation.
Here’s what I’d do if I owned, say, a pizza shop.
I’d advertise a “voters special”, with half price on any order for a customer who presented his voters registration card. But then I’d instruct my employees to look at each card, and if the person was registered Republican, to politely say “You look gay, I’m sorry, we will not serve you”.
Um, cite? Last time I checked, that wasn’t the case.
That is absolutely untrue.
in 1968, in the case Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arkansas’s statutory prohibition against teaching evolution. This ruling applied to all states, including Texas. Substantial jurisprudence since then, testing schemes like “creation science” as an in-name-only substitute for the religious belief of creationism, has been attempted with no real success. See particularly Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), a Supreme Court holding that a requirement that public schools teach “creation science” along with evolution violated the Establishment Clause.
So were you just making stuff up to support a point you really thought was a good point to make, and did you feel that since the point you were making was a good one, it was okay to fabricate evidence to support it?
Or did you actually have a source of some kind for your assertion?
As far as I can see, nobody else broke any rules but you.
If you have any further concerns or questions about other posts, the rules, or the moderation here, you’re free to make a thread in ATMB about it.
This law really highlights the hypocrisy of gay groups and political correctness zealots though.
When these groups pressure private businesses into firing people for their thought crimes they hide behind the justification that it isn’t censorship because it’s not the government doing it and a private company can hire and fire who they want.
Yet when a private company decides they don’t want to serve them then they are a poor persecuted little minority, and it’s so unfair it makes them wanna scream like the little cry-babies that they are
I don’t agree with this analysis.
There’s no question that a private company can hire or fire who they wish, as a general principle.
But as a society, we have made certain findings that some reasons are off limits.
So we’re fine with a private company firing someone for “thought crimes” if those “thought crimes” are not tied into an expression of racial identity, national origin, religious belief, or gender. But those categories of people – classes, if you will – are protected.
The only question is: to what extent, if any, will society recognize sexual orientation as also deserving of such protection?
You attempt to analogize boycotts of companies (I assume that’s what you mean) and perhaps the firing of individuals who have expressed sentiments that have sparked such boycotts, with a business’ right to refuse service. But the two are not that closely related. A business can arbitrarily refuse service, except when the reason is based on membership in a protected class. When a business fires someone for doing something that sparked a boycott, it’s generally not because the targeted person was a member of a protected class.
You can, of course, take the position that sexual orientation should not be a protected class. But you cannot, in any exercise of intellectual honesty, claim that this question is on-point with the question of businesses firing people in response to “thought crimes,” because – so far as I’m aware – that simply isn’t happening when the targeted person is a member of a protected class AND the firing is triggered by his membership in that class.
In shorter words: your analogy is sorely lacking.
But perhaps I crafted your argument for you and failed to appreciate a saving nuance. So explain to me, clearly and distinctly: how are the two related?
Of course the two are related. In both cases they want to boycott a person (or persons) who they dont agree with politically or philosophically. They just have slightly different reasons.
And I dont know where you get this “protected status” from. Just because I dont belong to a minority group, does that mean I should have my career destroyed by the PC police if I say something they dont like??
And if you say yes to that, why can I not boycott a gay person if I dont like what they have to say.
Oh, and I’m just arguing as devils advocate.
I dont believe anyone should be refused service or boycotted, and that includes homophobic people as well as homesexuals
Good. I have sex at home as often as possible.
The word “boycott,” traditionally refers to a concerted effort to avoid patronizing a given business as a statement about a particular cause. I don’t agree that the mirror image – a business refusing to serve a particular client – is analogous.
Because the two situations are fundamentally different. As a business person, you typically offer services to all comers. But as a patron, you are not required to patronize all businesses.
Ha ha, nice catch.
And that was after I proofread my post twice before posting :smack:
They might not be exactly the same, but they are definitely similar IMO. If you decide to boycott someone and refuse to do business with them, then dont act all butthurt if someone else decides to stop doing business with you
The difference is that the law requires that if you offer public services that you offer those services equally to all the public. Again, nobody is required to shop at all stores.
As per Anderson Cooper’s interview here, do you agree that this law could be used to discriminate against divorced people? Could say a wedding photographer refuse to photograph a wedding if one of the parties was previously divorced?
Could the Kansas law be used to protect the photographer in that situation? No, probably not. The law is specifically directed at objections based on one’s belief about sex and gender and marriage. It’s why I tend to agree with Bricker that’s it’s unconstitutional.
However, what makes you think that a wedding photographer is required to photograph a wedding with a divorced party? I don’t believe “previous marital status” is protected, is it?
The flaw in your statement, though, should be obvious. “The public” – or even “the gay public” is no t a monolithic entity. (Admittedly, the liberals here often seem to march in lockstep, and think in lockstep, but disappointing though it may be, one cannot legislate policy for the country based on the population of one message board).
In other words, when Joe the baker refuses to serve a gay couple, the harm that’s being done is not a direct tit-for-tat: perhaps that gay couple held no particular opinion about the firing of Ed from a company in another state in response to Ed’s ill-considered Tweet involving a gay-themed slur. Perhaps they took no action at all; perhaps they even felt that as distasteful as Ed’s comment was, he should be left alone with his own opinions. Perhaps, in other words, they simply wanted a nice cake for their civil union ceremony.
Moreover, in this country we have always treated an individual’s right to refuse to patronize a business as worthy of much greater protection than a business’ right to refuse service to an individual. You may wish that the two were identical, but our history does not support this view.
Yes.
You seem to think otherwise?
Do you literally see no difference between the producer/supplier of a service or a consumer of a service?
Can you point to a single person who lost their job due to “thought crimes”, or who people pushed to boycott for “thought crimes” against homosexuals ? Just one? Note that I don’t consider “openly using a public venue to attack and insult others, or express disgusting points of views” ‘thought crimes’. On the other hand, the conservatives who are arguing that it’s a good thing that people can be fired for their unrelated jobs just because they’re gay do seem to be encouraging the idea of ‘thought crimes’…
Who gets to decide what a “disgusting point of view” is?
Whoever is deciding it’s worth reacting against. If a group wants to boycott cheerios because they dared to put an interracial couple in an ad, that’s not a ‘thought crime’, it’s just being a disgusting bigot. They have a right to boycott - I’m not going to act like rightwingers and demand people give their money to corporations they don’t want to. I’ll just think poorly of them.
The point is, I don’t consider a backlash against a public figure using their position to speak out against people ‘thought crimes’. I do consider punishing a private figure for who they are when it in no way effects others WAY closer to thought crimes. And I doubt Esco will be able to name a single figure who suffered from this “backlash” who was not a public figure using their position as a soapbox.
Actions and speech != thoughts.
Also, nobody buys the “devil’s advocate” bull. Don’t try to hide behind a flimsy cover.
Well, I agree that Esco’s position is poorly supported, and I said as much in post 107 and its progeny.
But I also think that your analysis is suspect, here. Perhaps a set of hypothetical situations will help to draw it out.
Andy is the manager of a local restaurant. He contributes $2000 of his own money to a group that asks for donations to support his state’s “Proposition Y,” which would amend the state constitution to explicitly forbid the recognition of same-sex marriage. The contributions to the campaign are made public, and a boycott is begun by local LGBT activists against the restaurant. The restaurant owners fire Andy, and announce that they did so not because of his political views, but because the negative attention the restaurant was receiving, and in an effort to end the boycott.
Is this justified? Should it be legal?
1200 miles away, Bert is the manager of a local restaurant. He contributes $2000 of his own money to a group that asks for donations to oppose his state’s “Proposition Z,” which would amend the state constitution to explicitly forbid the recognition of same-sex marriage. The contributions to the campaign are made public, and a boycott is begun against the restaurant by Christian church groups. The restaurant owners fire Bert, and announce that they did so not because of his political views, but because the negative attention the restaurant was receiving, and in an effort to end the boycott.
Is this justified? Should it be legal?