• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

HB2 Strikes Again

Junebug said:
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on this board is advocating excluding gay people from places of public accommodation. But there is a big difference in requiring Target, Lowes, McDonald's, etc., to serve gay people and requiring a bakery to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The former ensures that gay people can have basic services and be integrated in daily American life. For some, the latter goes to the heart of a moral/religious objection surrounding gay marriage. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, but I think those providing services for weddings, at least, should be afforded an exemption from accommodation laws requiring service to gay people.
Click to expand...

Using the same logic, a mom and pop pizzeria could discriminate against black people, because their faith includes white supremacy and the separation of the races, but McDonald's couldn't. There's no difference whatsoever other that those who want to rationalize their discrimination object to being lumped in with white supremacist.

Who gets to decide which faiths and which bigotry is "justified" and "legal"?
 
Junebug said:
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on this board is advocating excluding gay people from places of public accommodation. But there is a big difference in requiring Target, Lowes, McDonald's, etc., to serve gay people and requiring a bakery to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The former ensures that gay people can have basic services and be integrated in daily American life. For some, the latter goes to the heart of a moral/religious objection surrounding gay marriage. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, but I think those providing services for weddings, at least, should be afforded an exemption from accommodation laws requiring service to gay people.
Click to expand...

Aren't some states trying to pass laws that would allow people who work in places of business like Walmart to refuse to serve gay people based on their "religious freedom?"
 
wasn't jesus born in bethlehem (now currently south of jerusalem in the west bank of palestine)? guess he's subject to extreme vetting. after all he hangs with the prostitutes, money lenders, lepers etc. with shady friends like that we don't want him.

oh, wait... never mind. he's white. the pictures at church tell me so.
 
Junebug said:
My position is that the cake baker should have the exemption whether they work for a small business or a big one. The issue is the proximity to the moral/religious issues surrounding gay marriage. Non-wedding businesses/workers should not be permitted the exemption.
Click to expand...

it's not a moral decision not to serve someone. it's mean.

in fact lumping people into "gay" just diminishes and dehumanizes an entire group of people (that are as good and bad as us heteros) and allows "christians" to feel better about bigotry. (i uses the quotes because i don't find people who discriminate and hide behind the bible to be following jesus' teachings and think they should probably just choose another name).

if a christian really was following the new testament that person would want to be around people to set a good example. not judge. be there as a shiny beacon of the lord (for those heathens to learn something).

love one another.

Go forth into the world in peace;
be of good courage;
hold fast that which is good;
render to no one evil for evil;
strengthen the fainthearted;
support the weak;
help the afflicted;
honour everyone;
love and serve the Lord, rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit;
and the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
be amongst you and remain with you always. Amen.


give unto caesar what is caesar's and god what is god's (live in the world, follow laws etc)

but as we know, the reality is a little different.

feel free to dig your heals in and claim christian's are under attack. the real attack is hundred's of years of oppression being fought to maintain a status quo that jesus would not condone. his word's and all. jesus said support the weak. marginalized, oppressed, refugees. pretty sure some "on the right" are standing tall and proudly against everything jesus stood, and if you believe, died for.
 
Junebug said:
My position is that the cake baker should have the exemption whether they work for a small business or a big one. The issue is the proximity to the moral/religious issues surrounding gay marriage. Non-wedding businesses/workers should not be permitted the exemption.

ETA: If wal-mart wants to fire the employee who won't serve gay people, they should be permitted to do that.
Click to expand...

Then it should equally legal for a hotel operator not to allow an interracial couple stay at his inn if his faith theorizes that mixing the races is immoral.

There is absolutely no difference. If the red line is "closely held faith" is the barrier, anything goes if your "faith" says so.
 
I'd love to hear June's thoughts on the Civil Rights Act.

I bet he'd have been a lot of fun back in the 60's.
 
Junebug said:
You are entitled to your religious beliefs. Others are entitled to theirs. I'm not mediating that issue. All I'm saying is that religious exemptions should be granted based on sincerely held religious views. And, in point of fact, if RFRA, means what it says, that is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

You mean like how Hobby Lobby had "sincerely held beliefs" about not providing funding for contraception while investing millions into stocks producing and selling "morning after pills"? Their "strongly held belief" was very simple- If it costs us money, we are morally opposed to it, but if we can make money off of it, that's OK.
 
What if those "morals" were that non-married couples can't stay at a hotel?

Or that Christians are bad and can't be served according to another faith?
 
WFU Lurker said:
As a real life gay person who planned and participating in a real life gay wedding, I have zero issue with allowing vendors to turn down the opportunity to be involved in a gay wedding. Every time I reached out to a vendor I made it clear I was marrying a man and gave said vendor an easy out. I would certainly not want someone at my wedding who did not want to be there. A sentiment that was made clear to family as well.

Yes, it's discrimination. That's fine. It is also not a big deal in the scheme of things. Now if I was fired for being gay that would be a big deal. But sometimes you have to pick your battles. I have no interest in trying to make a wedding photographer a better person. That is not why you hire a wedding photographer.
Click to expand...

MysteryMen said:
Wait, why are these different? They are both, by definition, places of public accommodation. It's hard for me to see a principled way for making different rules for low-brow commoditized businesses and smaller, artisanal businesses.

Or to flip it around, if we're worried about the individual religious freedom of the person making the cake (which I think has to be the justification for these laws), why should an individual cake-maker's rights differ based on whether he works at Publix or a smaller bakery? Or if we're worried about the religious freedom of the owners, what would be the justification for exempting a small bakery but not a place like Hobby Lobby (if it made cakes)?
Click to expand...

This is where I get stuck personally. I feel like if someone owns and operates a business, like the commonly cited bakery, and they don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, the fuckwads shouldn't have to. They would hopefully bear the consequences of being social pariahs and they would lose business.

But at what point does the "freedom" to be a fuckwad end? I can't pin the tail on that in my head currently. Because I don't think places like Hobby Lobby or Walmart or Target should be allowed to deny the same gay couple service. But I acknowledge that my position is controversial to both sides of the argument....RJ would obviously put me in with the bigots, and oldmandeac would obviously say I'm not being tolerant of the fuckwads of the bigger business variety.

PS - oldmandeac is an old, pathetic fuckass....I'll claim that one.
 
What about the bands, singers that refused to play Trump's inauguration? Could a Christian band make the same decision when we elect a gay President?
 
awaken said:
What about the bands, singers that refused to play Trump's inauguration? Could a Christian band make the same decision when we elect a gay President?
Click to expand...

Would that President also be a complete piece of shit person?
 
Junebug said:
You are entitled to your religious beliefs. Others are entitled to theirs. I'm not mediating that issue. All I'm saying is that religious exemptions should be granted based on sincerely held religious views. And, in point of fact, if RFRA, means what it says, that is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

just pointing out the hypocrisy. bigotry may be "religious beliefs" but it's not "spiritual" in the way you claim it is. the people in charge of those religions have conditioned people to listen to them and only them. science is bad! war on religion! lefty liberal! gay agenda! pro life! let's go to war and kill people! america is good! you should do as we say not as we do world! kids died in a drone strike? the terrorists should not have put them in harms way!

it's interesting that so many who voted for trump said "it's not about what he says... what he really means is..."

it's all designed to keep those owg's in power and getting those donations. tax exemptions for everybodyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! by the way i'm not telling you who to vote for but... wink wink... i think you know who jesus loves!
 
we need more churches like this one in DC

Pilgrims_04.png


They also used to (still do?) have a giant Black Lives Matter banner hanging up
 
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
This is where I get stuck personally. I feel like if someone owns and operates a business, like the commonly cited bakery, and they don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, the fuckwads shouldn't have to. They would hopefully bear the consequences of being social pariahs and they would lose business.

But at what point does the "freedom" to be a fuckwad end? I can't pin the tail on that in my head currently. Because I don't think places like Hobby Lobby or Walmart or Target should be allowed to deny the same gay couple service. But I acknowledge that my position is controversial to both sides of the argument....RJ would obviously put me in with the bigots, and oldmandeac would obviously say I'm not being tolerant of the fuckwads of the bigger business variety.

PS - oldmandeac is an old, pathetic fuckass....I'll claim that one.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, Walmart isn't getting much gay wedding business.

But, really, if you aren't making something specific to the event then you shouldn't care.
 
Junebug said:
There are impediments to racial integration that do not exist for integration of gay people, including easy identifiability, genetic homogeneity (i.e., a black couple is not going to give birth to a white child whereas a straight couple can give birth to a gay child), and the long and sordid history of this country's systemic mistreatment of blacks (i.e., slavery, Jim Crow, etc.). Although I am sympathetic to religious exemptions, these impediments cause me to conclude that the societal interest in promoting full integration outweighs the individual's interest in religious liberty. Moreover, and related, practically speaking, anti-miscegenation statutes were pretty clearly about maintaining white supremacy. The social opposition to gay marriage is more of a morality-based objection, whether you view that objection as correct morality or not.

So, no, I would not support religious exemptions if you replaced black for gay.
Click to expand...

How about if you replaced Christian for gay?
 
If I had a business, I'd be reaching out to gay couples not shunning them. So far, it seems like those who are getting married are older and wealthier than straight couples. They have more money to spend.

If I had a venue, I'd feel much safer as well as the wedding parties would be older and understand they can't act out.

After I delivered good service and products, I'd be opening a big, new market.

Besides being immoral to shun our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, it is the very definition of anti-capitalistic.

Plus there is absolutely no difference between not serving gay people and not serving black people. The exact same Bible was used as justification for both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top