Somehow you’ve managed to skate by under my radar for the almost 13 years I’ve been posting here, as a conservative Christian (which I knew) but not as a serious bigot (which this post has just proved to me). It’s kind of disappointing to find this out. Not that you’d care…after all, I’m no better than a pedophile, apparently.
Consensual adult incest.
Oh please. Just because I don’t believe you should be considered a race doesn’t mean I believe you are a criminal, much less a capital one. (Yes, I believe that in a perfect justice system, child rape/seduction would be a captial crime.) I’m just pointing out that “sexual orientation” isn’t some magical formula that immediately demands respect.
That’s not a sexual orientation, though. And as far as the case goes: if they were to set up a private club, they could discriminate. If they offer their business to the whole public, they can’t.
Because I want to live in the world where I can just go out and exist without worrying about that. Do you think people like having to worry about whether a business “objects to their sexuality”?
Could I have a cite for the idea that there are people who have “incest” as an orientation, that is, that they are specifically and predominantly attracted to members of their own family?
Are there any laws on incest on the books/being enforced for reasons other than genetic threat to offspring or coercion risk? In my state, for example, prohibited incest involves either an implied age/authority gap (uncle/aunt with niece/nephew is prohibited, as is parent/adopted child, but first cousins are not) or very close consanguinity (siblings, parents, step-siblings).
I look upon both of those things (coercion risk and genetic threat) as matters separate from the morality of the sexual act itself, and I doubt I’m alone in saying that in the context of a non-coercive relationship that incest should be permitted insofar as it doesn’t produce genetically at-risk offspring (dealt with by long-term birth control, sterilization, or genetic testing, I don’t care).
Race is a protected class. So race is different than sexual orientation and the two cannot really be used interchangably.
Discriminating against sexual orientation on the basis of religion is no different than discriminating against Republicans on the basis of religious beliefs.
New Mexico law appears to treat sexual orientation as a protected class, and the law seems to be moving in that direction anyway.
You make an interesting set of points. I’m a musician … a full time pro, I work in public and private venues. Years ago I refused to take a booking at a rodeo because I think rodeos are animal cruelty. Under the laws as they are presented in this thread, could the rodeo have forced me to perform at their event?
Forcing stores that sell staples or restaurants that serve food to deal with every possible customer seems somehow different to me than forcing artists to create art against their will.
No. In certain contexts you can’t discriminate on the basis of “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.”
“Coercion”. Heh. Why, yes; yes, I do endorse the “coercion” of federal law against those who think their religion entitles them to special privilege to discriminate against protected classes. I also support coercion against those who refuse to pay taxes or insist on driving drunk. Religion is no excuse for bigotry.
"You make an interesting set of points. I’m a musician … a full time pro, I work in public and private venues. Years ago I refused to take a booking at a rodeo because I think rodeos are animal cruelty. Under the laws as they are presented in this thread, could the rodeo have forced me to perform at their event?
Forcing stores that sell staples or restaurants that serve food to deal with every possible customer seems somehow different to me than forcing artists to create art against their will."
How about if it’s a gay rodeo?
It’s like that old joke, “We already know what kind of girl you are, now we’re just haggling on price.”
You put up your shingle, advertise yourself as an “artist for hire” you don’t get refuse clients on the basis of their inclusion in state/federally protected classes. If you can’t manage that, don’t be an artist for hire, let someone who can be a professional do the work instead. I promise, nobody is going to force you to be an artist for hire, it’s entirely your choice.
Okie dokie.
You can still object based on the animal cruelty aspect. Your reasoning just can’t be because it’s “gay.”
There’s a terrible joke to be made about steers and queers here, and I am not a good enough person to ignore it. For that matter “gay rodeo” can be interpreted a couple of different ways. But like Sinaptics says, the deal is this: you can refuse to play rodeos if you’re opposed to them. People who go to rodeos are not a protected class. If you market your services to the public, you cannot refuse to play this one rodeo because it’s for gay people.
This just now reminded me of the long-ago SDMB thread where folks debated whether a prostitute could legally say “I won’t have sex with black people”.
Well that’s a relief cause I like gay people, but I don’t like animal cruelty. I’m still on the fence regarding gay cowboys.
I hate myself a little for disagreeing with you here, but…I’m about to.
I believe that my goods/products/services belong to ME and who I choose to sell/give them to should be 100% my choice. If I as an individual choose to discriminate against left-handed Anabaptists, I should have the freedom to do so.
I also realize that, in the real world (as opposed to my quasi-libertarian ideal above) that this wouldn’t work and would lead to much suffering and hardship among…um…less popular (for lack of a better term) minorities.
That said, it is (IMO) coercion. That’s precisely the right word. It’s necessary to keep society working and to protect minorities, but let’s not tapdance–forcing someone to work for a person/group they don’t want to is, pretty much, the definition of coercive. So’s being forced to pay taxes. That they’re coercive doesn’t change the fact that both of those rules are needed.
Yes, of course I think that people of all sexual orientations should be protected by law. Note that “incestuous” is not considered a sexual orientation by anyone, include (so far as I’m aware) people who commit incest.