Who is ‘they’? Your statement makes no sense.
No, for several reasons. Maybe you simply don’t feel like it. You don’t have to have a reason at all. Is there a ‘reason’ you go to one store rather than another? Same idea.
He’s probably referring to gays and lesbians, since that’s who the thread is about.
This is true as it applies to individuals, but you’re kind of risking your ass if you wind up regularly discriminating against members of a protected class.
What class? There is no ‘class’ here. If you choose to brush your teeth a certain way, why should I care?
How does that make you a member of a class without invoking tautology? The class of people who behave in a certain way? Hardly!
I said “if.” There’s no need to act flummoxed. You can refuse to do business with people as you see fit. If you have a pattern of discriminating against members of a protected class, then it could become a problem for you and your business.
There’s so much out there it’s hard to pick a good one. The Wikipedia article is a decent primer, with the New Testament stuff being more relevant. Basically, there are better words Paul could have used that would commonly be translated to homosexuality. Instead he used words that are poorly understood and merely assumed to be about homosexuality. One is even assumed to be a word Paul made up.
The Wikipedia article has the advantage of also giving the traditional side, so you can make up your own mind.
I wish I still had my old bookmarks that would give you a lot more. I’m having trouble finding the sites that made the best arguments.
Because the law defines what is and is not a class, and legislators apparently didn’t ask you what “class” meant.
I have often wondered if the Apostles weren’t ‘especially friendly’ to one another, if ya know what I mean.
I do not believe that you are confused by my post.
To say ‘we’re different’ and then deny that you are different seems rather odd, don’t you think? Simply asserting that you are members of a class does not make it so.
Nobody’s doing that.
That’s true in a sense, since this is a legal protection that is offered by our society. But at least a few states already recognize that gays are a protected class and pretty soon I expect the federal government will do the same. So no, a class does not become protected just by asserting that it’s protected. But it’s also triflingly easy to see why gays are/will be considered a protected class. And no, it’s not just behavior. We’re talking about sexual orientation, not public displays of affection.
Okay, Melchior, you’ve made your opinions quite clear in here already…let’s take the hijack of whether gay marriage is really marriage or not out of this thread. If you want to start your own thread in Great Debates, that’s fine…but this topic has veered off far and long enough. Let’s get back to discussion the OP.
Everyone else: Let’s also get back to the OPs discussion, please.
Yep, tortured pretzel logic, as I figured.
I don’t really understand what you are asking here. Could you be more specific?
Nevermind, I withdraw my request. I tried reading page 2 of this thread after my post, and you know, nevermind.
Both parties have to be on equal footing, have equal freedom.
George Will, as I understand lives in Washington (at least, the Washington metro area) and can’t conceive of there being only one of a particular type of business in an area. Also, many if not all the bills apply to doctors and emergency personnel, but that makes for a much less reasonable-sounding argument somehow.
Fun fact: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a libral wearing a bowtie, except for Occasions.
Well, my father, but he was appearing on Fox News, so that doesn’t count.
Actually, it’s providing the service to people you assume (admittedly, often with probability on your side) have gay sex, or at least plan to.
I most certainly can describe pregnancy or veteran status as behaviors (though I agree they should be protected classes, if we are to have protected classes). Moreso than race and, probably, sexual orientation, at least
They aren’t on equal footing one is standing on property he owns and can call upon law enforcement to remove the other. I’d prefer bigots not be able to use our police force to enforce their bigotry.
Behavior is something you’re doing: walking, talking, drinking, smoking. Pregnancy and veteran status are the result of behaviors, but that’s not quite the same thing. You may have joined the military 20 years ago, but after that, veteran status is a characteristic, not a behavior.
As does the Supreme Court. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
My reasoning is that if there’s discrimination against veterans – this doesn’t quite work for pregnant people – people can take that into account when deciding whether to enlist. There’s no opportunity to do the same for discrimination on the basis of race – or sexual orientation.
Again, I’m not arguing in favor of discrimination against veterans.