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.
What logical basis do you use to conclude ANY "court" could determine "REAL DISCRIMINATION"?
"Courts" decide NOTHING, except what is or isn't based upon the "code" in whatever particular jurisdiction they are in.
They do NOT determine what is "REAL DISCRIMINATION".
If it actually was, as you say, that "courts decide"...by that logic...a Sharia court, in a jurisdiction where they have authority, determine what "Real Discrimination" is.
Real discrimination is not determined by YOUR philosophical viewpoint. It does not exist outside of the "law of the land."
Who makes the law of the land? Mostly lawyers. I think the last time I looked 38% of sitting Congress is composed of attorneys. They make the laws. Then when laws are questioned and taken to court--they are argued for and against by MORE lawyers. The judges who listen are also attorneys--they decide what is and what is not discriminatory under the laws that primarily lawyers composed. Other lawyers are the ones who look for ways to skirt existing law and thereby results in further laws being created to clarify ones that have been avoided through legal maneuvering.
That's the way it goes. But "real discrimination" according to you and Wallflash, is whatever YOU decide is discriminatory.
But that aint the way life goes round in the US of A.
You can try to keep track of Sharia law if you wish--its hard enough to figure the ever changing landscape in this country. And I spent 30 years in the insurance business, the last fifteen doing compliance work and dealing with lawyers' interpretations of state laws.
Lawyers determine the role of quite a bit of this nation's culture and business. And unless you can significantly--and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY--change the political landscape, lawyers will still call the shots.
Now if you and Wallflash wish to argue from a different perspective, you might ask the question "What is moral." That's all together different from what is discriminatory and must be argued from another point of view.
Incidentally, the idea that "lawyers" determine what the law is was from a paper I wrote in Constitutional Law class while studying to get a legal assistant certificate back in the early nineties. I got an A from the judge teaching the class.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-05-2016 at 12:35 AM..
Real discrimination is not determined by YOUR philosophical viewpoint. It does not exist outside of the "law of the land."
Who makes the law of the land? Mostly lawyers. I think the last time I looked 38% of sitting Congress is composed of attorneys. They make the laws. Then when laws are questioned and taken to court--they are argued for and against by MORE lawyers. The judges who listen are also attorneys--they decide what is and what is not discriminatory under the laws that primarily lawyers composed. Other lawyers are the ones who look for ways to skirt existing law and thereby results in further laws being created to clarify ones that have been avoided through legal maneuvering.
That's the way it goes. But "real discrimination" according to you and Wallflash, is whatever YOU decide is discriminatory.
But that aint the way life goes round in the US of A.
You can try to keep track of Sharia law if you wish--its hard enough to figure the ever changing landscape in this country. And I spent 30 years in the insurance business, the last fifteen doing compliance work and dealing with lawyers' interpretations of state laws.
Lawyers determine the role of quite a bit of this nation's culture and business. And unless you can significantly--and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY--change the political landscape, lawyers will still call the shots.
Now if you and Wallflash wish to argue from a different perspective, you might ask the question "What is moral." That's all together different from what is discriminatory and must be argued from another point of view.
Incidentally, the idea that "lawyers" determine what the law is was from a paper I wrote in Constitutional Law class while studying to get a legal assistant certificate back in the early nineties. I got an A from the judge teaching the class.
"Lawyers" determine what is and isn't "Real Discrimination".
That's a joke, right?
The group that are stereotypically known to be some of the most shifty people there are?
Look...it seems you do not understand that who "calls shots" does not equate to what is "real".
It isn't a matter of me or Wallflash or anyone else claiming "objective knowledge" of what "real discrimination" is. What is trying to be explained to you...is that, like "What is moral?" is subjective and relative, so is "What is Real Discrimination?"
Based upon the logic you are using...a Saudi lawyer could tell you what "Real Discrimination" is...simply on the basis that he is an attorney.
At one time, in this country, "The Law" determined that having someone as a slave was not discrimination against them. "Lawyers" at that time would have told you that.
Does that mean it REALLY was not discrimination?
See..."Discrimination" IS a philosophical/ethical issue. And "The Law", is not a proper arbiter of that. "The Law" only determines what "lawyers" (the legislating body in a jurisdiction) have decided what is and isn't legal at any given time, in any given place.
You were right about "lawyers" determine what the law is. But fail to understand that is not equivalent to a determination of what is "Real" beyond anything but criminality in that jurisdiction at that point in time.
I think if I was the Walton family I would change the stores name to Walmart's Chirstian Store and be able to discriminate fully and never have to pay any taxes because the store has the word Christian in it and taxing it or making it follow laws governing businesses would be attacks on religion.
Anyone who complains about being discriminated is considered a militant and therefore if we got rid of the militants blatant discrimination would be allowed. It seems like some of the opponents of the ruling figure that a private for profit business can decide who is a Christian and who is not and if they rule a gay or a Baptist as not a Christian then that person can be discriminated against by that business. Why all the acceptance of businesses being able to go back to the pre civil rights days with the NO WHATEVER YOUR GROUP IS signs like they had for the blacks, Jews or Chinese.
Vizio, the largest Protestant Church in Canada for example has a different take on gays then you do , are you in the position to state that they are wrong? That the second largest denomination is also wrong. Why do you get to decide who is and who is not?
Heaven forbid a Christian website want to keep their membership exclusive to Bible believing Christians. I suppose you think churches should allow gay members as well, right?
The website is a for-profit business, not a religious organization.
What if I want to launch a for-profit porn site and call it "Christianporn.com"? Does that entitle my site to the special treatment of religious organizations? Of course not.
I have admitted that legally they likely have a case . I am talking about the principle behind this and the motivation of the gay men . So answer me these questions .
Why would two gay men want to list their names on a Christian site that obviously had no other gay men on it, since they were arguing for the right to be the first ?
Why, if your desire is truly to just find a site to meet other gay Christians, wouldn't you simply go to one of the already existing sites that cater to gay Christians and enroll there ? It's not as if it would require extra effort on your part . When you see this one doesn't seem to have a gay option, you enter gay Christian dating sites in the search forum of your computer , click , and then choose from the existing . How much trouble is that ?
Why should someone be allowed to force a business to create something they don't offer just to cater to a couple of militant gays who can't stand it that there way of life isn't listed ? There is NO evidence that gays were actively being discriminated against . The site simply didn't offer the " men wanting to meet men" option. So now we have decided we can dictate to business what services they have to offer , and if one that a minority wants isn't offered , they can sue and demand it on the basis of discrimination .
Do you relay believe the motive here is a concern that there was a dearth of dating sites for gays so this one had to be forced to offer this so that gays wouldn't be harmed by the lack ? Be honest . Do you not get that this is simply targeting a group because you can and you have past grudges to settle , and you now have the law on your side ?
Christian Mingle does not offer any services other than providing access to their site for a fee. Can you please explain how providing that access to a paying gay customer is different from providing that access to a paying straight customer?
You cannot illegally NOT offer a line of service . That's a business's prerogative .
To put this in real world perspective , answer me this .
A normal everyday baker decides to start making Jewish baked goods to supplement the business because they see an unfulfilled need . The baker is not religious but just trying to increase business . It goes over well , and so the baker adds Catholic baked goods to their product line . This too works well so they add some Eastern Orthodox pastries as well . One day a Muslim comes in and wants some Muslim style pastries . The baker says that she doesn't make them . The Muslim gets angry , states that she makes pastries for Christians and Jews , and so she should have to make them for Muslims also . The woman states that she sees no real market for them,doesn't know how to make them , and doesn't want to have to learn them or bake them .
Can the Muslim force the baker to start baking him Muslim pastries because the woman has found a niche she chooses to fill among some other religious groups ?
Your example does not reflect the situation in this lawsuit. Here is an example which does:
A normal everyday baker decides to start making Jewish baked goods to supplement the business because they see an unfulfilled need . The baker is not religious but just trying to increase business . It goes over well. A Catholic enters the store and wishes to purchase the baked goods being offered for sale, but is told "no, we don't serve your kind".
There was a fixed set of services offered on the dating service . Men looking for women, women looking for men . It chose not to cater to homosexuals , and you are insisting it is illegal for them to choose NOT to offer this service . How then is it OK for a baker who bakes goods for Christians and Jews to NOT choose to create and bake them for Muslims ? Can a department store refuse to carry certain goods that blacks like if some blacks request they do ,or can blacks sue if the store refuses to invest the time and money to cater to them ? Where does this end ?
This is militant activism that simply goes around creating trouble .
I likely owe an apology to folks like Jeff and Viz . I think I declared once that it would never come to the point gays would try to force churches to marry gays . I see now I was probably wrong. They likely will, and with the blessing and cheering of many liberals .
This is not about justice for homosexuals , it is about sticking it to the stupid Christians .
Have you ever used a dating website? It sounds like you haven't. Selecting options in a profile is something you do yourself, so that other users can search your profile. The only service offered by the site is to provide access to the site itself. Forcing users to identify themselves as either a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man forces those who are neither to misrepresent themselves. Allowing other options to answer that particular profile question does not change the service being offered.
Again, I'm not arguing the legality of the case , but the moral legitimacy of it . Two men passed over a hundred dating sites that caters to gays to find the one labeled "Christian" and then proceeded to force them to offer a product they previously did not offer , that being men wanting men . There was not harm done , as the men had numerous other sites to use , and they weren't being denied a product simply based on them being gay . Their complaint is not that the site refused to sell them a product they already sell , as in wedding cakes that are indistinguishable between gay cakes and hetero cakes, but " since you're gay we aren't selling you a cake" . Their complaint is that the site simply didn't cater to them as homosexuals . Can you understand this point ? There is a difference , at least if common sense is invoked . I'll go back to the baker and the Muslim everyone here avoids . Since the baker chooses to make ready made goods for Christians and Jews to buy , can a Muslim claim discrimination because the baker doesn't offer ready made Muslim pastries , and force her to start making them for him?
In the end, we are making NOT having a service the homosexual community wants into an act of discrimination . This is idiotic .
Lol. The site does not offer men wanting men, that would be human trafficking. It simply offers a site whereby people can interact, very much like the message board forums here on City Data. The plaintiffs aren't asking to be "catered to", they are asking to not be forced to identify themselves on the site as either a man searching for a woman or a woman searching for a man.
Christian Mingle does not offer any services other than providing access to their site for a fee. Can you please explain how providing that access to a paying gay customer is different from providing that access to a paying straight customer?
You pay a fee to join for the services they already provide . If they don't provide a service you desire , that is not discrimination , it's simply choosing not to provide a product some people want . There is nothing discriminatory about that .
Again , how stupid would it be for a gay guy to go into a strip club and demand that the owners provide male strippers since he is gay, and every time he comes here he sees only women strippers ? You want male strippers, go to a place that HAS male strippers . You want a dating service that connects gays , go TO a dating service that provides that service . It's not rocket science .
I'm going to say I disagree with this ruling . This is a Christian site that is basically a club for Christian to find other like minded Christians on ..
Yes, but there are TONS of christians who are fine with gay people and are horrified at the idea that some christians are so horrible to gay people.
Just like there are muslims who are horrified that some of their people bomb things.
So who is more or less christian and deserves to be represented on that site?
Christian does not equal ostracizing of gays.
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.
It simply offers a site whereby people can interact, very much like the message board forums here on City Data. The plaintiffs aren't asking to be "catered to", they are asking to not be forced to identify themselves on the site as either a man searching for a woman or a woman searching for a man.
