Are you suggesting these don’t exist?
Augusta National, a very “public” private club didn’t admit it’s first black member until 1990, and JUST admitted its first female members. Those guys have been in the public eye for decades, as a Whites only Men only club.
Yes, it’s like that. But they can’t just say “we’re not a photography business, we’re a photography club.” They really have to have a club or something similar.
Right. That’s all correct and it seems totally fair.
That’s correct. It’s not hard to find the definition of protected class; I think it’s been posted a couple of times.
Buddhists can be atheists, so no. I think the general answer to this question is that they would need to be recognized as a religion.
You can play Devil’s Advocate and you’re much more rational than GEEPERS, but it’d be nice if you saw that a lot of this stuff - maybe all of it - was addressed already. Otherwise you’re asking people to repeat themselves.
Who needs to recognize “Die Verehrung Nationalsozialist”?
Thank you.
I’m not sure how that works- I’m not positive there is a layer of official recognition (like the kind that comes with tax-exempt status). I will say, before we go too far with this scenario, that neo-Nazis don’t really like being around Jews or giving them their money.
You pretty authoritatively stated that “… they would need to be recognized as a religion”
But, you don’t know who has to recognize them.
This castes a shadow of doubt on your reputation as an erudite bulwark.
Who would have thought that a gay couple just HAD to have an extremist Xtian photographer shoot their wedding? I would have thought that’d be as likely as the Nazi wedding/ Jewish photographer scenario.
What advocate? To be an advocate, you need to take a position. You’re not making any kind of point in this thread, you’re just coming up different ways of restating the issue at hand without adding anything to the conversation.
On Preview: “erudite bulwark?”
Just to be clear, sexual orientation is not a protected class everywhere, but it is in New Mexico (the site of this case), and some other states, and I think in some cities.
It’s also well-established that the “religion” aspect of being a protected class includes atheists. Basically, a public accommodation can’t discriminate because of someone’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. I have seen a cite where this has been explicitly ruled on by the courts, I’m sure I could eventually supply it if anyone challenges it.
The courts have already ruled that you can’t use the “private club” approach to limiting free access to commercial services.
One example was an all-men’s breakfast club. No women allowed. But since the men would discuss business opportunities over breakfast, a judge ruled that women had to be granted equal access. If the men had only talked about movies and golf and stuff, no problem, but when they talked about investments and advertising and the like, they crossed the line.
Another example was “The Christian Yellow Pages.” This was an advertising directory, aimed at Christian businesses, to encourage Christian customers to patronize those businesses. A non-Christian business owner tried to buy an ad, was told he couldn’t, and sued. He won, and the Christian Yellow Pages had to be open to non-Christian advertisers.
(At the moment, I don’t have cites for either of these. They’re news stories I remember hearing.)
There are folks who’d rather not associate with, or subcontract to, certain other folks, by their admission for religious reasons.
Law says, “No dice.”
Galahad wonders, “Could a persistent and motivated devotee circumvent the spirit and intention of said law by pointing to an unprotected aspect of the potential business entanglement, or by manufacturing a status (that could pass legal muster) that would allow the devotee to avoid a relationship with the previously mentioned taboo customers?”
If that’s not a point, grits ain’t groceries.
If you want to, you could probably do so. But I’m not sure why the person in question is even going into business if they’re determined to limit their potential customer base that way.
I’ll never wark in this town again.
I don’t think you have thought this comparison all the way through. Are you saying you believe conservative Christians view gays the way the Nazis look at Jews - as an evil existential threat that needs to be wiped out?
In any case, the plaintiffs didn’t go to all this trouble because they need Elane Photography to photograph their wedding. I imagine they had their ceremony six or seven years ago. What they want is for Elane Photography to stop discriminating against gay couples because it’s against the law for them to do so.
So far, your wonderings suggest you don’t understand the actual legal issue.
You’re really going to have to spell out your point a little more clearly, because right now the grits ain’t groceries side is winning.
The idea that a “persistent and motivated” person could circumvent the spirit and intention of a law is not a point, it’s an observation, and it’s true of just about every law devised by man.
So, to put a blunt point on it, just what IS your point? If your point is that someone could break the law… bravo, I suppose you “win”, or something.
I don’t think there were any cases where an all-male club had to admit women simply because some members talked business - after all, people sometimes talk business in all-male bowling leagues. But there were some that were required to admit women because they were not at all selective and/or were business-oriented , like the Jaycees
This was most likely because it was too broad and didn’t involve membership in a particular organization. If it had been a directory of businesses owned by members of St Theresa’s parish it almost certainly would have been permissible. BTW a Google search shows a lot of Christian Yellow Pages and business directories still in existence and the only reference to a lawsuit I could find dates back to 1977
If your “private club” is open to all males or all females or all Christians, it is probably not going to be selective enough to be permitted to discriminate on the basis that it is a private club.
Sure they could, once or twice or a few times. But not indefinitely.You can refuse to play music at the gay rodeo, but if you play at other rodeos , that reason will be suspect. And if the only gay (or Christian or atheist or female) customers who aren’t rude or uncooperative are the ones who want a service that you don’t offer anyway well , that’s the whole reason statistical evidence of discrimination is allowed. Because you can come up with some reason why you didn’t want any particular customer , but it’s a little harder to explain why every single gay customer had some attribute that you don’t like- unless , of course, that disliked attribute is the one they share. And eventually, someone will make a complaint to a government agency or even sue , not because that will force you to provide the service to them but to make a point.
YES!!
ETA: suck it all you third rate religions!! WooHooooo!!!
I don’t think you’re reading my posts, or all of them, very carefully. See, I grew up in a Gay capitol (Laguna Beach,in California) and my family and I had as many gay friends and gay colleagues as straight. I said in this thread I like Gays , but not rodeos. You’re not reading carefully. I don’t think you want to read carefully. I think you want to read platitudes and buzz words, and easily tell friend from foe by the pink ribbon on their lapel.
If you want to quote me, I’ll presume you want to engage me in conversation, which won’t happen very effectively if you don’t read my posts for comprehension. If you can’t be bothered to read my posts for comprehension, you oughtn’t to quote me and then make allusions and assume positions that have nothing to do with what I said.
Sorry I wasn’t clear- it wasn’t actually meant to be an allusion to you specifically. It was an example. Change “gay rodeo” to “Christian ( or atheist or female or male or straight) Tupperware party” and my point remains the same. If someone ( of course not you) refuses to play at a straight Tupperware party , claims it’s because they have some objection to Tupperware parties and proceeds to play at gay Tupperware parties, that refusal is going to be suspect.
And BTW, if you’re going to object to assumptions that exist only because I didn’t word my example carefully enough for you , then you ought not make so many assumptions of your own.
Fair enough, let’s be friends.
I don’t think you’re getting my sense of humor, which hardly should affect your understanding of my gist, which includes the following:
I think I alluded pretty clearly to this, but I will spell it out … seems at one time, it was pretty easy to discriminate against folks in this country; because they were Chinese, Black, Jewish, Irish, Catholic. Fast forward, the laws gradually change and there are more and more protected “classes” of people. As we improve, we reach a cliff of sorts: we’ve attended to Gay rights, as well we should, but in doing so we’ve run headlong into the metaphoric wall of Xtian values and the Republican party that politically subsidizes those values. The country is divided, Democrats vs Republican in ways that cast each as the mortal enemy of the other, gridlock, if you will.
I read this OP by GEEPERS who seems to be banned, but I think it’s an interesting point, and one that is bound to cause debate and rally opposing opinions on many political and social fronts. I don’t agree with GEEPERS, but I can clearly understand why he feels the way he feels … no one likes to be forced to do something they honestly believe is wrong.
See, I’m not satisfied just saying, “You don’t agree with me and do the things I think are proper, so you’re stupid and evil and a bad person.” I’m interested in the issue beyond “law says you must shoot the gay wedding (and the gay bachelor party, and the gay pool party, etc) so do it or get out of the photography business!” That’s too cut and dried. I’m interested in analogies, what ifs, alternate versions. By labeling Gays as bad people, some religious folks and conservative traditionalists have written them off as “the enemy”. If we label the Religious Right off as evil or stupid people, we have written them off as the enemy. But, they’re not going away. These elections are too close to decide that as soon as a few more old GOP die off, the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs.
“Are you saying you believe conservative Christians view gays the way the Nazis look at Jews - as an evil existential threat that needs to be wiped out?”
I know that there’s no love for Conservative Xtians around here, and frankly, I’m surprised you asked this question … yes I think plenty of right-wing Xtians would like to have a gay-free world. I gather many of them, and not just the lunatic fringe, would be perfectly comfortable with AIDS killing off the Gay population. I don’t doubt that there is a huge percentage of left wingers, especially gays, that would be thrilled if all the “holier than thou” hypocritical Conservative Xtians self-destructed. In terms of love lost between the opposing sides, I think it was an apt analogy.
I don’t think the feeling that Xtians have for the quandary set forth by GEEPERS falls under the heading of, “They’ll moan and groan like the bigots did when Blacks were desegregated, and then we (progressives) will prevail.” I think there are a lot Xtians out there and things like accepting alternate lifestyles won’t be as easy as “wait for them to lose a few more elections”. So, I want to consider different perspectives to these events. It’s sort of easy to label a point (Xtians and Gays are like Nazis and Jews) an observation, and so dismiss it( thank you Cheesesteak), and it illustrates a disconnect of some proportions when my facetiousness re: “Who would have thought that a gay couple just HAD to have an extremist Xtian photographer shoot their wedding? I would have thought that’d be as likely as the Nazi wedding/ Jewish photographer scenario.” falls on blind eyes (thank you, Marley). “Ooh, he seriously thinks the Gay couple wanted a Xtian photographer … hee, hee … he doesn’t know minorities take stands on principle, hee, hee.” Plu-eese. You’re not that dense,
When the members here take two sides … the enlightened progressive and the either dim-witted or stodgy and stubborn traditionalists, we miss out on the nuances of the multitude of shades of gray that occupy the minds of the rest of the world and the rest of the voters. Elections aren’t decided by Black and White, Right and Left, they’re decided by the Moderates, the Swing Voters, the Undecideds. It’s rewarding in a way to preach to the choir and enjoy a mutual admiration society, while denigrating anyone stupid or evil enough to actually disagree with us, but really, things like gun rights or gay rights, they aren’t that simple to an awful lot of our fellow citizens as they are to the relatively few active posters here.
If you think my position that there is a huge segment of our population that has a different world view(from you) and that these people aren’t going quietly into the night, so I try to examine everyone’s motivations and try to see other points of view, whether I agree with them or not, is some sort of simplistic misunderstanding of how Progressives are gradually taking over the nation, your not only missing my meaning, but underestimating the potential of the vast unwashed in all those fly-over states. They aren’t the Confederacy, they haven’t lost any wars.
Usually when I read a thread like GEEPERS’, there are two sorts of posts diametrically opposed to each other: the Liberals saying how wrong he is and quoting the law that will soundly punish the evil Xtians, and the few token right-wingers and Xtians that get shouted down, but try to raise issues of Religious Freedom and Libertarian rights, as wrong headed as these ideas may be. My “observations” don’t match the talking points of the Left or the flailings of the Right. I’ll weather the condescension, the obtuse misgivings, the veiled (and bald faced) insults. I just want to hear both sides and take some different viewpoints.
Religion was used to justify racial bigotry, too. So there’s no difference there. Racial bigotry based on religion doesn’t deserve any more respect than anti-gay bigotry based on religion.
True. But nobody likes being judged or being excluded from full participation in their society either.
And that’s all well and good- but based on your questions I keep wondering if you grasp the legal issue here.
Actually they’re decided by the disengaged and the ignorant. “Swing voters and undecideds” just sounds nicer.