Exactly, but why allow people to discriminate because of another's sexuality. If the individual is causing a scene then yes, refuse service. There is a difference between being a bigot and religious.
There is no legal difference.
It is not illegal to be a bigot - or most people would be in jail.
I agree, and I think that is wrong. What matters is the premise behind refusing service. Also, any business that is state funded/ in town limits or receives any type of government support at all, shouldn't be allowed to refuse any service offered to any (law abiding) American, based on personal opinion.
The government shouldn't be propping up businesses. So it shouldn't be an issue. Any place where it is potentially an issue needs to seriously reconsider its tax and spending structure.
Though I disagree that the premise of refusing service is even remotely relevant. Any business should be able to refuse service for any reason regardless of its premise, pithy nature, bigotry, etc.
Ughh... I hate loud sounds, that was just an example of how based on the defense put forth by religious groups, anyone could do anything under the guise of religion. The line is drawn when it's discrimination.
Religions inherently discriminate. Why do Christians not pay homage to Zeus?
Why do the Presbyterians use a different Hymnal from the Baptists?
To distinguish themselves from each other. Each seeks its on identity and that requires an element of discrimination. The baptists believe you do not get an invite to heaven unless you've been baptized. Personally, I don't think God cares if a priest ordained by man has sprinkled water over your head (or attempted to drown you) - baptism is a metaphor for the experience of realizing one's own faith in a divine existence.
But this is the nature of human institutions. Green Peace becomes increasingly psychotic to identify itself from its own sub-branches and other environmental groups. The same goes for PETA. If there was sound reasoning within those institutions at their foundation - it's long since been eroded.
Religions have simply been around longer and many of the people within them realize the hazards of human institutions because of the history attributed to religious disputes. "Modern" institutions are not just ignorant of this fact, but tend to believe they are immune to these same phenomena because they are 'enlightened' with new ways of thinking.
I personally don't care about private businesses, they can do as they please. The issue is any business that has some type of state/government affiliation. If I'm paying taxes to help your business, you will not refuse me service based on your opinion of my sexuality.
That is a change of tune.
I would question why you are paying taxes to a (somewhat) privately owned business, in the first place. If it was a legitimate business - it wouldn't require thugs to steal money from others and 'gift' it to the business.
If taxes in a region are so high that companies need to be given tax reductions to encourage them to move in - then the government is spending too much and both spending and taxes need to be reduced. If the government has to pay to keep them around - then the business needs to simply go bankrupt and let something else take its place. Else the whole city will go bankrupt trying to pick winners and losers within the business world (Detroit).
The exception to this would be government contracts. If a construction worker is taking on a contract to build a bridge - the construction worker cannot be compelled to 'not discriminate' because it is 'receiving government funding.' Contracts and funding are different things. Though a government can set forth requirements for contracted work - such as requiring background checks on all laborers, prohibiting a contract from being awarded to supremacy groups (let's say the KKK submitted a bid for the new overpass, for whatever random reason), etc.
Which is no different than how most businesses complete contracts. We require all workers in our clinic have a background check.
Why bring children into this? If you don't wish to expose your children to modern beliefs then home school them and never let them go out in public. Homosexuality isn't a crime, and will not be treated as such. Discrimination is a crime, and if that's how you choose to raise your children, then that's on you.
Oh, don't worry. They'll be trained in special operations tactics from an early age.
See my signature. It's a Red Queen's race - in six thousand years,
I will be "Human." Your genetic legacy will fade into obscurity - by my own hands, if necessary. The Queen must be served.
Most of these issues with gay people are unorthodox, and obsolete. I will promise you that in 100 years, it will be a forgotten issue and the descendants of most who needlessly discriminate against gay people, will know very little that is was ever an issue.
That's a naive view. The obvious intended behavior of males and females is to be attracted to the opposite ***.
The human race does not advance. The children born today will have to learn many of the lessons we have by their own experience and their own mishaps. This is why history is an important subject - but we are often taught history that is convenient to the various agenda-axes we are continually grinding. We always want to paint people and 'sides' as good or as evil and then pass those monochrome depictions on to our children.
While you're caught up in trying to portray homosexuality as "perfectly normal" and "Not an issue" - you're missing the obvious issue - which is that it goes against the very physiological structure of our being. It doesn't take a Sharingan or Byakugan to figure that one out. There will always be groups of individuals who disagree as to the propriety of homosexuality.
And, similarly, there will always be people who jump to legislate away everything they do not agree with. Rather than be content to let people live free - they will make it illegal to not hold doors open for women, to flip someone the bird, to call someone a dodo-head, etc.
People do not 'completely start over' as we are free to help teach our children the lessons we have learned - but our current society is suffering, considerably, from the fact that we have empowered the state to own our children and entrusted our future to state education.
I support everyone's right to be themselves. Until those individuals break the laws that stand above any religion or opinion. If you discriminate at all, it's illegal. All that gay people are fighting for is the right to exist, without being bullied because of someones obsolete thought process, that will not be relevant in the future.
It is not illegal to discriminate.
It's illegal for me to hang out in the women's bathroom.
But I'm a lesbian trapped inside of a man's body. Gender identity issues - they're medically accepted.
We have to discriminate to some degree or another as part of basic functionality. My home is for me and my family. The lock discriminates against other keys - because it's my home. Not yours. You don't get to walk in and pretend like you're part of the family unless we have accepted you as part of the family.
Discrimination rests along a continuum. It's not a "are you discriminating" and "are you not discriminating?" Didn't you watch Evangelion? When you fail to discriminate - all differentiation between all things and people becomes one big blob of nothing.
On the other end - absolute discrimination leads to complete isolation within nothing.
To try and set legal restrictions on discrimination is silly.
The only thing you need to do, from a legal standpoint, is
discriminate between functional and dysfunctional
actions.
You can't have people running around and holding each other and gunpoint as a way of life. Nor can you have them running around and killing each other. That's not acceptable within a functional society. They can't take things that don't belong to them, or lie in order to bring about personal gain (fraud).
Very simple, easy-to-understand boundaries. Cross them, and the penalty is a fine (possible community service) or death. No jails - confinement of people suspected to be a danger to society for the duration of the trial and allowed appeals - then they are promptly set free or executed depending upon the verdict.
Juries would be harder to convince to issue the death penalty, the legal system would become a minor aspect of society rather than a huge mess of news press.
I'm clearly anti-religion (main stream anyways), but I don't turn others away until they start to make anti-gay remarks. I don't care how a person is raised, an insult is an insult.
You're free to turn away all of those who offend you.
The only thing we need to come to an agreement over is that neither of us will seek to legislate the other into oppression.
My view on laws and the rights of homosexuals?
States should simply do away with marriage. Allow for individuals to file for powers of attorney, various inheritance rights/agreements, etc. Perhaps the girl I marry, and I, do not want to legally combine our assets and then have the courts get involved if we separate, later. We still want to have a wedding ceremony and exchange vows and everything - but the legal 'marriage' definition might actually be a detriment to our properties and interests. Perhaps we plan on having children, and would prefer to draft up an agreement that ensures the State will not get involved in how the children should be handled in the event we separate.
The State should allow individuals to choose their financial, legal, and inheritance agreements/arrangements amongst each other without getting involved in whether or not they are 'married.'
Of course - the way most states (and the nation) keep a hold on this is through income taxes. I would do away with all taxes in favor of the Fair Tax:
You must be registered for see links
. Though I would also cut social security, food stamps, income subsidy, medicare/medicaid, etc out of the equation. I do not want to steal from my children in order to pay for my medical expenses or 'retirement.' Particularly when the politicians attempt to convince me that the money is "mine" to begin with (but they took all the money I paid into the system... by no choice of my own... to spend on their political whims) and that I am entitled to it. It's all engineered so that when my kids come along and say: "Uh... why am I paying 10% of my paycheck into a promise to pay it back when I'm 65 years old... why can't we get rid of this?" - I will get defensive and rally to vote down the attempt to get rid of yet another tax.
.... Sorry, got distracted.
That would mean the government isn't taking away our money and handing people cookies to then argue over. No special tax privileges for anyone (with fewer taxes on the whole), and we get to freely draft of contracts that join assets, assign legal authority, inheritance policies, etc.
Brave new world where it doesn't matter if it's two room mates joining their assets because they plan to stay room mates through college and they trust each other to take care of each other's finances - or if those two people have pledged their lives to each other. The contracts make no such distinction and the state and laws no longer care while different religious institutions are welcome to recognize the vows two people take to each other or to shun them.
Nobody is oppressed, and far fewer people are upset with each other.
But it also means we can't try and write laws that force each other to do what we think is right, wrong, or otherwise. That is the hardest thing for us to deal with, as we are all little miniature dictators squabbling with each other for control without realizing what we are.
