# The real problem with gay people is simply a lack of neighborliness ... and niceness **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 5, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892 "2014-03-05T01:55:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/101 "2014-03-06T20:27:11Z")
> [@Edward\_The\_Head](#): > > I understand what protected classes are, is that the line then? If someone is in a protected class the business has to deal with them? No. Everyone is a member of one or multiple protected classes. You can refuse service to someone who belongs to any particular protected class for any number of reasons. What you can not do is refuse service based on them belonging to a protected class. You can tell a female smoking in your establishment she has to leave because you don’t allow smokers. What you can’t do is tell a female smoker she has to leave because she is a woman. > [@](#): > > What about if the owner doesn’t like fat people. Should they be forced to do a wedding for a fat couple? What if the owner doesn’t like people who smoke? People who do drugs? People with tattoos? > > That’s the part I’m having problems with, it seems it’s ok to discriminate, unless the law says one can’t. So you’re fine then with saying one don’t need to serve me if they saw me outside with a legal cigar and tattoos, when I’m done I walk in to a cake shop in search of a cake and being told “I don’t serve your kind here”. With my kind being non protected. The law is imperfect. We as a society don’t want or need the government to be involved in every potential injustice. The laws for protected classes came about because members of minorities were systematically discriminated against. The goal should be to allow everyone in our society to be able to participate equally. The can not happen if every business in town refuses to serve a particular class of people. Thus far smokers, fat people, or people with tattoos have not been so systematically discriminated against that we as a society have decided those classes warrant protection. If multiple business e’s decided putting up signs saying ‘no fat people’ I’d expect the law change to include them. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/102 "2014-03-06T20:45:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No. There is no situation in which a business owner has to do business with any one person. The business owner cannot discriminate against the entire class of people. > > Not protected classes. And some of those are behavior. Discriminating against a person based on characteristics is different than discriminating based on their behavior. (This is the distinction some conservatives are drawing, as if gay guys are going to come to the supermarket to buy a cake and just start fucking.) At the very least, the distinction between ‘behavior’ and ‘birth’ should be made, and fairly obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/103 "2014-03-06T20:47:03Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > No. Everyone is a member of one or multiple protected classes. You can refuse service to someone who belongs to any particular protected class for any number of reasons. What you can not do is refuse service based on them belonging to a protected class. > > You can tell a female smoking in your establishment she has to leave because you don’t allow smokers. What you can’t do is tell a female smoker she has to leave because she is a woman. > > The law is imperfect. We as a society don’t want or need the government to be involved in every potential injustice. The laws for protected classes came about because members of minorities were systematically discriminated against. The goal should be to allow everyone in our society to be able to participate equally. The can not happen if every business in town refuses to serve a particular class of people. > > Thus far smokers, fat people, or people with tattoos have not been so systematically discriminated against that we as a society have decided those classes warrant protection. If multiple business e’s decided putting up signs saying ‘no fat people’ I’d expect the law change to include them. To call it ‘injustice’ is incorrect. What you mean is perhaps ‘unpleasantness’ or ‘unfairness’. Life isn’t fair, not by any means. You cannot legislate and enforce perfection in human beings. The best thing to do is to give no \*reason \*whatsoever when refusing services. One could simply make excuses such as “I’m going on vacation that week”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/104 "2014-03-06T20:47:27Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > At the very least, the distinction between ‘behavior’ and ‘birth’ should be made, and fairly obvious. Protected classes include pregnancy, citizenship status, familial status, and veteran status. ‘Birth’ doesn’t cover those at all. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/105 "2014-03-06T20:49:02Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Protected classes include pregnancy, citizenship status, familial status, and veteran status. ‘Birth’ doesn’t cover those at all. Do you know what I mean by ‘birth’, though? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/106 "2014-03-06T20:53:24Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Do you know what I mean by ‘birth’, though? I assume you mean a characteristic that’s fixed at birth. But if you mean something else, please explain. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/107 "2014-03-06T21:07:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I assume you mean a characteristic that’s fixed at birth. But if you mean something else, please explain. Yes, such as ‘race’, coloration, etc. Anything relating to your physical makeup. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/108 "2014-03-06T21:09:40Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Yes, such as ‘race’, coloration, etc. Anything relating to your physical makeup. Ok, that’s what I thought. But there distinction isn’t always neat. There are aspects of protected class that can’t be described that way (I listed four), but I think it still make sense to prevent discrimination against those groups. You can’t describe pregnancy or veteran status or age as “behavior.” And while it’s useful from an anti-discrimination standup to assume that people are gay from birth, it’s probably not quite that simple. The same goes for being overweight, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/109 "2014-03-06T21:14:29Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > One could simply make excuses such as “I’m going on vacation that week”. Which I’m sure has and will continue to be done. If a protected class perceives a pattern of excuses they can challenge the business to prove it is not violating the law. As others have noted, businesses accept certain obligations when they receive government sanction to operate. This is now one of them. Deal with it, or convince a large enough group of people to change the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/110 "2014-03-06T21:15:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Ok, that’s what I thought. But there distinction isn’t always neat. There are aspects of protected class that can’t be described that way (I listed four), but I think it still make sense to prevent discrimination against those groups. You can’t describe pregnancy or veteran status or age as “behavior.” And while it’s useful from an anti-discrimination standup to assume that people are gay from birth, it’s probably not quite that simple. The same goes for being overweight, for that matter. Yes, it’s hard to describe them as a ‘class’ in the ordinary sense when what characterizes them is their voluntary behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/111 "2014-03-06T21:17:18Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Yes, it’s hard to describe them as a ‘class’ in the ordinary sense when what characterizes them is their voluntary behavior. I’m not sure what the ordinary sense of “class” is to you. The above are very specifically described as protected classes, and while some of them are not part of your physical makeup, they’re still immutable and it’s illegal to discriminate based on those qualities. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/112 "2014-03-06T21:20:37Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > The best thing to do is to give no \*reason \*whatsoever when refusing services. Interesting that you think the “best” thing to do is mask your bigotry with uncertainty so as to fool your victims into thinking you denied them service for some other reason. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/113 "2014-03-06T21:27:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Discriminating against a person based on characteristics is different than discriminating based on their behavior. (This is the distinction some conservatives are drawing, as if gay guys are going to come to the supermarket to buy a cake and just start fucking.) But just to play devil’s advocate and illustrate how some of this is in a murky grey area: traditionalists would say that marrying someone of your own sex is a behaviour, and one they strongly object to. As far as I know, none of the bakery owners at issue are in trouble for refusing to sell a birthday cake or a box of cookies to a gay couple, even an obviously gay one, right? I think also that it would be rather presumptuous of us to assume that the protected classes that exist now are all there ever will be, that the question has been settled for all time. They have been expanded in the past, and most likely will continue to be expanded. In the future, they will likely include some of the groups you are dismissing now as just representing behaviour. You may even find yourself at 70 thinking that they have carried it too far, while the twentysomethings of that time period think you are just old and out of touch. 😉 Personally, I would like to see society somehow address the rampant discrimination against nocturnal people like me (about 10% of the population, similar in size to, or slightly larger than, the percentage that is gay). At the same time, I recognise that it can be difficult to make things fair for a minority when the majority finds the status quo operates smoothly for them. And those of us who are both idealistic and logic oriented must struggle to confront the reality that there will never be a perfect system that is internally consistent and fair to everyone. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/114 "2014-03-06T21:32:03Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Yes, it’s hard to describe them as a ‘class’ in the ordinary sense when what characterizes them is their voluntary behavior. What characterizes them as a class deserving of protection is their history of being abused and discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/115 "2014-03-06T21:32:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > If there were a branch of Christianity that used a Bible that contained only the Gospels, or better yet some reconstructed version of [Q](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source), then I’d give them some latitude. But as long as they are carrying around a book that in many passages makes _Mein Kampf_ look tame, yet insisting they can at the same time be as tolerant and accepting as any secular progressive, I’m going to keep calling bullshit on them. > > If I thought doing this might push some of the liberal Xtian crowd into the right wing fundie camp (and thus tilt elections in a direction I’d abhor), I’d consider stifling my expression of this view. But I find that highly unlikely and think it is far more likely, over time (especially if a lot more atheists adopt my stance) to shame such progressives into fully deprogramming themselves from religion altogether. I feel fairly confident that it won’t do either one. Progressive Christians are fully aware of what the Bible contains, and what fundamentalists believe. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/116 "2014-03-06T21:40:02Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > But just to play devil’s advocate and illustrate how some of this is in a murky grey area: traditionalists would say that marrying someone of your own sex is a behaviour, and one they strongly object to. As far as I know, none of the bakery owners at issue are in trouble for refusing to sell a birthday cake or a box of cookies to a gay couple, even an obviously gay one, right? Why are we only talking about marriage? > [@](#): > > I think also that it would be rather presumptuous of us to assume that the protected classes that exist now are all there ever will be, that the question has been settled for all time. They have been expanded in the past, and most likely will continue to be expanded. I agree, since some states view sexual orientation as a protected class and I think the federal government eventually will, too. > [@](#): > > In the future, they will likely include some of the groups you are dismissing now as just representing behaviour. I didn’t dismiss anything. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/117 "2014-03-06T21:41:21Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > “Most sacred?” Have they ever seen _Bridezillas?_ Note that the behavior of some clergy in regard to how their services are conducted rivals anything you’ll see on TLC. Trust me on this. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/118 "2014-03-06T21:45:50Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > I feel fairly confident that it won’t do either one. Progressive Christians are fully aware of what the Bible contains, and what fundamentalists believe. Plus we’ve already worked out ways to indicate that we were wrong about what the Bible said about homosexuality. I have no problem with thinking the Bible was just against homosexuality as it was practiced in that day, and not the entire concept. I had to do a lot of soul searching when I realized that homosexuality wasn’t evil, and reading alternative interpretations of the anti-homosexual verses was a part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/119 "2014-03-06T21:59:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > In the future, they will likely include some of the groups you are dismissing now as just representing behaviour. > [@Marley23](#): > > I didn’t dismiss anything. I guess a slightly longer response would be OK. 😉 Smoking and doing drugs are behavior. In many places you can’t smoke indoors, and of course doing drugs is illegal (for practical purposes anyway). That’s behavior. Any business can discriminate against you for doing things that are illegal or that offend the owner or are likely to make customers walk out. That’s always going to be safe ground. Are tattoos behavior? Yes and no. I chose to get a couple of tattoos on my arms, for example, and if it’s not too cold I usually choose to wear clothes that don’t cover them. They’re immutable for practical purposes, since I could in theory get them removed but I certainly can’t take them off just because a store owner doesn’t like them. Then again a person who isn’t me could have tattoos that express, say, political view that the business owner finds abhorrent. So saying you can’t discriminate against someone with tattoos could get tricky. Saying what being overweight “is” on that continuum is also somewhat complex, but again, you can’t just _become_ not overweight to go into a store. I can imagine that being added to a list of protected classes and that’d be fine with me, although it’s probably less of a sure thing than LGBTQ status making that list. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892/120 "2014-03-06T22:04:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I had to do a lot of soul searching when I realized that homosexuality wasn’t evil, and reading alternative interpretations of the anti-homosexual verses was a part of it. I’d be curious to see some, if there’s a link handy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-problem-with-gay-people-is-simply-a-lack-of-neighborliness-and-niceness/682892.md?page=7)