If I find someone that actually follows every rule in Leviticus, then I will feel more sympathy toward them. I still won’t agree it gives them the right to discriminate, but I’ll at least believe them when they say it’s a “deeply held religious belief.”
Of course, plenty of times.
Where the situation is such that an individual or couple running their own business cannot afford to turn down customers, they will probably find some sort of compromise they can live with on the matter of customers who offend their moral or religious code or whose attitudes they just plain find annoying as heck or they will be out of business soon. However there are plenty of entrepreneurs and especially part-timers or retirees who are only looking to support their hobby (a lot of musicians come in here) who can afford to pick and choose their customers. Threatening them with a law-suit because they don’t want to have someone as a client strikes me as grandiose infringement on their rights. Anyone whose feelings are too fragile to hear, “No, I am not interested in working for you”, needs to grow up.
Straight up, a person who regards an offer of a handshake as tantamount to rape is not the best situated to criticize others for the fragility of their feelings. It’s a bit rich to hear you criticize others for overreacting to social slights.
In any case, unlike your beliefs about handshakes, the rationale behind protecting minorities from discrimination (i.e., being treated differently from others) is solidly based on the cumulative effects of such aggression. It’s perfectly rational, nowhere near histrionic.
Interesting, you decide to criticize me rather than my arguments. Straight up, a person who regards economically blackmailing other people into participating in activities that do not wish to perform is not the best situated to criticize others for the fragility of their feelings. I find it a bit rich to hear people praise boycotting businesses when if the same tactics were applied to minority owned businesses to drive them out, the result would be screams of oppression. Furthermore, if I can put up with a man trying to intimidate me into touching him, an act which I consider a grievous insult and is considered a divorceable offense in my culture, the more outspoken minorities can go on Yelp and find a vendor that doesn’t find them a hassle to deal with. Capitalism is a two-way street. Someone has to be willing to sell you the product before you can buy it.
Interesting. I manage to run a business, I can afford to be selective in who I work for yet I manage to do so without descriminating based on these attributes. I find it a rather bigoted of you that you can’t manage to do the same.
Are you aware that a passage in the New Testament discusses the fact that Gentile Christians are no longer bound by the laws laid out in Leviticus?
This, I presume, is why you disapprove of the Montgomery bus boycotts?
You must find a lot of things in the world rich, then, such as the police use of handcuffs on rapists when if the same tactics were applied to innocent Roma mothers, the result would be screams of oppression; or the use of computers to write articles when if the same typing skills were used to write death threats you’d be upset by it.
Me, I’m perfectly capable of recognizing that the goal of the tactics is at least as important as the tactics themselves, so I am not all aflumadiddle at such things.
The difference is, you want to be treated differently from everyone else, whereas gay folks want to be treated the same as everyone else. Too bad for you.
Not that this is probably shocking, but I fully admit my bible study is not exactly up to date. And I’m not sure if you say this to add or remove support for using the bible as justification for being against SSM. It seems people could use that in whatever way is most beneficial for them.
Anyway, I shouldn’t have started the tangent in the first place. The source and validity of these “deeply held religious beliefs” isn’t really important to this discussion.
Different types of businesses require different types of screening of clients. Entertainment, especially a performance combined with religious and authentic cultural traditions, is not the same as selling potato chips.
We don’t live in that pure market-driven environment and we don’t want to. Government exists (amongst other reasons) to impose limits on those occasions when capitalism would like to do something shitty.
If expecting people to leave you in peace is being treated differently, what kind of 1984 Big Brother dystopia do you dream about? One of the aspects of being treated like everyone else is rejection. You don’t always get what you want and adults sometimes have to change the object of their desires. Apparently some gay folks and other minorities seem to believe they should be immune to this.
Do you feel selling a wedding cake or a pizza is somehow different than selling potato chips?
You mean like a multi-state campaign to ruin a small business not because of the quality of their product, but because someone doesn’t like the opinions of the owners.
I think you’re conflating two different things; [getting everything you want] vs [getting fair and equitable treatment].
Nobody here is arguing that people should always get what they want.
We are arguing that people should not be denied what other people may freely obtain, just because of their sexuality or skin colour etc.
It depends. If for example that campaign is doing something such as making false claims about the quality of a product, then I would support government intervention.
The potato chips come premade from a factor. A wedding cake can be a serious artistic effort on the part of the baker and decorator requiring hours if not days of hand work. I fully support a craftsman or craftswoman putting limits on for whom and why they will put that kind of effort into creating a product even if it is for sale. And while most pizza is fairly generic and mass-produced, I fully support the independent restaurant with it’s special cherished sauce and recipes being particular about who they choose to sell to. As I said before small businesses aren’t the same as large corporate businesses, and the law should make exceptions for that.
In the case of many of the things, especially wedding related items such as special cakes, venues, musicians, etc., these are not necessarily things that other people may so freely obtain. As far as I know no straight couple can compel anyone to make them a cake or play music at their wedding if the artist (yeah, that’s what craftsmen and craftswomen are, despite the humble origins of our mediums) doesn’t want them as a client.
So you admit then to violating federal law?
Also, would you be okay if local businesses refused your custom solely because you’re Roma?
The people who claim Biblical law as the basis for their prejudice obviously aren’t.