Starting a LBGT and Straight Dialogue. ....Is It Time for Idaho to do This? (Boise: credit, how much)

[KurtAngleDoesn'tSuck]

Originally Posted by boisefan88

I'm glad you agree and therefore support gay marriage.

I didn't put words in your mouth.
Please do not put them in mine.

I refuse to debate this with you further.
You are intellectually dishonest and a waste of my time.

[TohobitPeak]

KurtAngleDoes'Suck,
Are you a transplant to Idaho?

[juneaubound]

Originally Posted by boisefan88

. Their is no punishment or destruction, only the desire for respect and tolerance. No one has ever suggested you cannot have your religious beliefs nor have an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it might be. .

In one sentence there is the desire for respect and tolerance. In the second sentence this is a lack of respect and tolerance. Respectfully, that kind of thing will get nobody nowhere.

[TohobitPeak]

My youngest brother married his partner this last December down in Salt Lake City when the ban was overturned. He and his ex wife have two young beautiful children who spend time with him and his new husband. I love my brother and he has my support as well as the rest of my families support. His ex wife supports him too in his decision because he and she are best friends.


I am looking forward to the day when other close people I know can get married at the Ada County Courthouse, or the Bonneville County Courthouse over in Idaho Falls, the grounds of the Sun Valley Resort, or wherever in Idaho.

Idaho is too great for hate.

[boisefan88]

Originally Posted by juneaubound

In one sentence there is the desire for respect and tolerance. In the second sentence this is a lack of respect and tolerance. Respectfully, that kind of thing will get nobody nowhere.

Actually, read it again carefully.

I said: ". Their is no punishment or destruction, only the desire for respect and tolerance. No one has ever suggested you cannot have your religious beliefs nor have an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it might be. ."

What this second sentence is saying, is that here in Idaho, and in the US, you are free to have your religious beliefs, whatever they might be. You are also free to hold whatever opinion you may have, even if that opinion is ridiculous and/or distasteful.

This is a pretty simple, accepted, and uncontroversial statement. I realize you're trying to suggest I think religious beliefs are ridiculous, but that's not what I said or insinuated, now is it?

So, let's get back to the point at hand, instead of grasping for places to shut down the conversation.

[boisefan88]

Originally Posted by juneaubound

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It doesn't say anything about sexual orientation.

This isn't quite accurate. While the original Act says nothing, there has been subsequent federal and state legislation, as well as Court decisions, that have moved to protect LGBT rights very close to the same extent as other protected classes. This information is very easy to find.

I haven't weighed in on this issue because I honestly don't keep up with the issue, but reading this thread raises some interesting questions.

1. The perception that large businesses may or may not have about the state of Idaho, and how that impacts their decisions re: whether or not to open here. Do we even KNOW (for certain) whether that has come into play in the past re: large companies? If it has, whose responsibility is it to set the record straight re: the NID nazis (chambers, legislators, small business associations - who do we have in the state to aggressively lobby for consideration of our state to large business start-ups/expansions?)

Yes, we do know. Many businesses have spoken out on these issues and offered testimony opposing anti-gay legislation. The Boise Chamber of Commerce and Boise Valley Economic Partnership also spoke in strong opposition to the "religious freedom amendment" bill, and they both indicated that businesses have told them directly that it is a significant factor for them. HP added the words to their employee policy in 1992. The NFL, American Airlines, Delta, and a handful of other businesses were quite outspoken in similar legislation in Arizona and stated their affirmation of LGBT rights and anti-discrimination policy.

There are any number of local and state economic development and commerce organizations. Very easy to look up.


2. Should private businesses (that do not receive government funding) be forced to provide services or sell products to those they do not want to do business with?

Nothing to do with "force." This has been addressed fairly substantially beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public facilities, organizations, and accommodations cannot discriminate. I would encourage you to carefully trace the judicial history in cases dealing with this since 1964, and especially the gay marriage cake and photographer cases, since I gather that's what you're concerned about here.

It is somewhat sad to me that everyone frames this topic with regard to LGBT folk, but almost NEVER with regard to denying service to women, or to a certain race. Do you think any private business should be able to deny service to Christians simply because they are Christian?

3. Where is the line between core personal beliefs and values, and discrimination? I know that's moving away from a specifically Idaho issue but citizens of this state are going to have to ask that question eventually.

I think this question has been pretty much vetted. You can hold core personal beliefs and values, and they can be whatever you want them to be. You can choose who you associate with based on those beliefs. But it moves beyond a personal core belief when it enters the public realm, whether you're talking about law, policy, service, accommodation, and in many cases, business.

Answers in bold, above.

[juneaubound]

Originally Posted by boisefan88

Actually, read it again carefully.

I said: ". Their is no punishment or destruction, only the desire for respect and tolerance. No one has ever suggested you cannot have your religious beliefs nor have an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it might be. ."

What this second sentence is saying, is that here in Idaho, and in the US, you are free to have your religious beliefs, whatever they might be. You are also free to hold whatever opinion you may have, even if that opinion is ridiculous and/or distasteful.

This is a pretty simple, accepted, and uncontroversial statement. I realize you're trying to suggest I think religious beliefs are ridiculous, but that's not what I said or insinuated, now is it?

So, let's get back to the point at hand, instead of grasping for places to shut down the conversation.

Look Boisefan88, as an atheist I am the last person to be defending any specific religious beliefs or doctrine.

You can cut and slice and dice and parse what you said any way you want. The bottom line is that you specifically said that you wanted respect and tolerance for your thoughts and belief system while at the same time not giving respect and tolerance to someone elses thoughts and belief system in return. Ridiculous and/or distasteful, remember?

My point is not to demean whatever positions you hold. My point is that IF there is to be dialogue, even the remotest hope of greater understanding (which is the real beginning of gradually moving someone from one position across the spectrum to another position) and the possibility of changing the culture of an entire state.........insulting someone who holds a position or belief system that is different from your own is not the way to go.

Making a "simple, accepted and uncontroversial statement" that calls someone elses position ridiculous and distasteful is being deliberately and consciously confrontational. Hardly the climate to establish open dialogue, no?

[juneaubound]

Boisefan88 - thank you for the information you posted in bold. I will review, and I appreciate you taking time to post it.

[boisefan88]

Originally Posted by juneaubound

Look Boisefan88, as an atheist I am the last person to be defending any specific religious beliefs or doctrine.

You can cut and slice and dice and parse what you said any way you want. The bottom line is that you specifically said that you wanted respect and tolerance for your thoughts and belief system while at the same time not giving respect and tolerance to someone elses thoughts and belief system in return. Ridiculous and/or distasteful, remember?

My point is not to demean whatever positions you hold. My point is that IF there is to be dialogue, even the remotest hope of greater understanding (which is the real beginning of gradually moving someone from one position across the spectrum to another position) and the possibility of changing the culture of an entire state.........insulting someone who holds a position or belief system that is different from your own is not the way to go.

Making a "simple, accepted and uncontroversial statement" that calls someone elses position ridiculous and distasteful is being deliberately and consciously confrontational. Hardly the climate to establish open dialogue, no?

Lolz, okay.

In the US, I can hold opinions that are pretty much universally repugnant. I can believe that children are worthless beings not worthy of life and that infanticide should be legal. I can believe that all people who aren't exactly like me are second class citizens not worth having any rights. It can get even more ridiculous and distasteful, but I'd probably get banned.

(Note, I don't actually believe these things).

Unless you're a relativist of the most extreme sort, it is not controversial to suggest that there are some opinions out there that are ridiculous and distasteful. It is important to emphasize that I did not suggest ANYTHING of what those views might be, just that they are out there. I mean, some people hold opinions that are so far out there that it is unlikely that any dialogue is ever going to matter.

Now, if you want to continue to waste time on this particular sub-issue, I suppose we can, but it's completely missing the original point. Are you really going to argue that there are no opinions out there that might be pretty universally ridiculous and distasteful?

[BusyBunny]

I don't understand why anyone needs to be forced to recognize any group or race. Who sees color until it's forced upon them? Who cares about gay couples until you force them to be recognized? If you want a group of people to become hated, force acceptance of them. Why do people have to accept anyone just because of their race, religion or lifestyle? You start doing that and you are only turning the tables and forcing your beliefs on someone else. So that makes it right?