Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At one time, not very long ago, it was legal to discriminate against people based on skin color. Certain State & Local laws sanctified. Those oppressed petitioned the Federal Government to remove the oppressive laws & were successful.
Exactly. One must ask themselves why Obama, Pelosi, and Reid didn't do so for LGBT when they had the chance.
So, it's fine for a business to refuse to do business with say women, or African Americans, or Asians or...? That's not a problem in your opinion? The Government should stay out of it?
Those are Federally protected classes. LGBT is not.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Those are Federally protected classes. LGBT is not.
Part of the argument many of you on the right claim is religious freedom, if that is actually the case, then federally protected classes dont matter.
And to be clear,t he argument that LGBT isnt a federally protected class because it is named specifically is like saying the same of marriage as a liberty.
Part of the argument many of you on the right claim is religious freedom, if that is actually the case, then federally protected classes dont matter.
And to be clear,t he argument that LGBT isnt a federally protected class because it is named specifically is like saying the same of marriage as a liberty.
LGBT isn't a federally protected class. You're wrong to suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not they're specifically mentioned. otoh, they're protected under Colorado law, making this a valid issue for the SC to decide.
So, it's fine for a business to refuse to do business with say women, or African Americans, or Asians or...? That's not a problem in your opinion? The Government should stay out of it?
Given we have the internet and plenty of review sites, I'm all for this if the businesses put up signs saying who they refuse to serve. Just a simple sign and all will be solved.
That already exists. Strip clubs, already titled (Gentleman's Club) is an environment dedicated to heterosexual men, but there are occasional women or lesbians who like to go for the entertainment or cheap drink specials, but are often discriminated against and won't be allowed inside if they don't have a male escort.
Heck, lets look into sports. Why do male sports teams make so much more money than the female sports teams? Why isn't this practice in violation of any anti-discriminatory laws? Why are restaurants and bars allowed to discriminate against hiring certain sexes (Twin Peaks, Tilted Kilt, Hooters) not to mention the "All Girl Staff" which in a sense, is a direct violation of anti-discriminatory laws, but the restaurants, bars and gentleman club owners get away with it by advertising "auditions" instead of direct (food service and bartender help wanted).
What about Hollywood? How much you want to bet if they were to make a movie with Will Smith and Beyonce Knowles as co-leads, Will Smith would get the bigger paycheck despite Beyonce having a much, much higher net worth, because the industry is entitled to discriminate all it wants and hides behind some customer demand marketing scheme. I wonder how many times female writers were turned down because the book publishers secretly discriminate against female writers (I bet all those publishers who turned down J.K. Rowling are kicking themselves in the head) or all of the producers who slammed the door on Eminem because he is a white rapper, get passes. It's sick that those in the entertainment industry are constantly getting passes. Like, there is a movie coming out in August called Detroit. It's based on a true story and the lead character is an African American, but the role went to not an African American, but a British Black man. Where is the outcry against this? (No hate towards John Boyega from me, he's a fine actor) but seriously, they couldn't find an African American actor for the role?
Seriously, where are all the activists protesting against these establishments? Why do they only go after the Christian based businesses instead of ALL of the businesses who discriminate one way or another? I bet you ten bucks that most Muslim bakeries will refuse to do a same sex wedding cake, but there will be no lawsuits or complaints about that.
In fact, some sad truth here. All of my homosexual friends on social media will put up memes against Christianity, but won't even touch the subject of Islam. One friend in particular is always bashing Christians, but when I point to him the religious belief of the shooter behind the Pulse night clubs shooting, he will just delete my post instead of answering it. Lot of double standards going on. Or is there a secret agenda of the extreme liberal leaning democrats using the LGBT community to destroy Christianity in America once and for all? It seems to be the only time they cry discrimination. They turn a blind eye against all other religions and businesses that continue to do so.
Last edited by warhorse78; 07-07-2017 at 07:03 AM..
So... it wasn't a Justice or Civil Rights thing for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, it was just a numbers game to them?
The 1965 Civil Rights Act wasn't popular either but the Congressional Republicans passed it anyway.
Quote:
"When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).
When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays)."
Part of the argument many of you on the right claim is religious freedom, if that is actually the case, then federally protected classes dont matter.
And to be clear,t he argument that LGBT isnt a federally protected class because it is named specifically is like saying the same of marriage as a liberty.
Maybe that's what you believe, but I've already posted an example of a Federal Court specifically dismissing an alleged discrimination case due to LGBT not being a "suspect class" subject to judicial review, citing other Federal Court rulings stating exactly the same.
Part of the argument many of you on the right claim is religious freedom, if that is actually the case, then federally protected classes dont matter.
And to be clear,t he argument that LGBT isnt a federally protected class because it is named specifically is like saying the same of marriage as a liberty.
Some seem to be asserting that businesses, including corporations, should be considered as a federally protected class?
This is the thing, they already are. De facto & in many instances, de jure. Corporate overreach. Enough already with the business-worshipping libertarian religious freedom.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
LGBT isn't a federally protected class. You're wrong to suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not they're specifically mentioned. otoh
It is federally protected for the same reason marriage is.
If the argument is that the service offered by whoever(individual, business) are faith based, then federally protected classes dont matter, because religion is one of them.
That is exactly why a priest can deny your marriage if you are an atheist or if he just doesnt think you and your partner are ready to be married yet.
Quote:
,they're protected under Colorado law, making this a valid issue for the SC to decide.
except, the lawyer in this case is arguing artistic freedom, not religious freedom.
The problem, as I stated in a previous post, is that both defenses have the same problem. its an argument of conduct(getting married) over status(being gay).
The problem is,"gay" is the part you are supposed to be against , not the marriage part. Like in the New Mexico case, all they are going to ask is if this cake maker has ever made a cake for a birthday party for a gay person.
When he answers yes, they are going to write in the majority opinion(which may be 9-0) is that he didnt have an artistic problem with a gay birthday cake, so why would he with a marriage ????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
