Gay Rights

Legal rights should revolve around what benefits society/people the most. Someone might labor and pay for a gun, but this doesn't mean that they should be able to use the gun in whatever way they deem fit and kill people with it. Legal rights are important, especially rights to free speech and ideas, but if a legal right causes more harm than good, it should cease to be a legal right (again, to clarify, when it comes to this specific topic, I am not saying that allowing service to be denied on whatever would necessarily cause more harm than good).

The wedding cake scenario is not as extreme as what I'm talking about. Sure, the wedding cake scenario isn't that harmful to gay people, but allowing service to be denied based on sexuality can be. If restaurants could legally refuse service to people based on sexuality/sex/race, this would be more significant than not making a cake for them.

Nope, I'm from the United States.

 

Sorry for being too lazy to read the whole debate, but here's my take on this.

I completely agree with your ideals, but forcing people together will cause a violent reaction, if you will. I used to think the exact same things that you do, but in all honesty, homosexuality is weird. Not to me, I have many homosexual friends, but it's definitely weird on a societal level. It has always been seen as sort of a closet fetish. Imagining that you could possibly be a love target of a "freak" makes people uncomfortable. And you are probably thinking that this is just dumb. I agree, but you can't change how people are. Once people begin to see that homosexuality doesn't make people all that weird, once people realize that homosexuals have become the modern scapegoats for our society, I believe we can have more change.

For that matter, there have always been scapegoats. It has been the Irish, the Germans, the Japanese, the African Americans, and now the homosexuals. I hope this goes away at some point in time, but the majority of humans are incredibly weak creatures.

 

I never said that we should force anyone to get together with or get along with homosexual people if they'd prefer not to. What I was saying is that it might be better to not allow restaurant owners and such to kick homosexual people out on the basis of their sexuality.

 

Better in what way? You have to let society decide these things, not the law. Otherwise, you get a backlash.

 

Letting society decide things isn't good if more harm is going to come from doing so. It wouldn't be a good idea to legalize murder and just let society sort it out for themselves, because this would cause a lot more harm than keeping murder illegal, which only benefits society. In the case of denying service based on sexuality, I'm not even saying that it necessarily would be better to not allow it, I'm just saying that it might be.

 

Oh god, this debate has been going since so long.
For my part, I 100% agree w/@Supreme_Overlord

Agreed.

Riri

 

I just saw this
tbh think how you like, but the majority of people aren't going to see it like this so that's not how the policies go

 

Murder and whether or not you can eat in a restaurant are completely different. Since you brought up such a stupid point, I have no choice but to shut it down.

Murder has been a part of human societies forever. With that, it has been something that we have grown to fear. This was before civilizations were even created. That being said, when civilization began to arise, murder was deemed illegal. Remember, this was thousands of years ago. On the other hand, looking at homosexuality from a historical perspective... it has been quite normal. Many people have sexual desires for someone of the same sex.

One thing you have to understand while reading my post is that the currently upcoming generation is much more liberal than those in the past. Our generation doesn't know why we fight in wars, we question dumb cultural activities (really, why the hell is the Queen of England still popular?), we question why people of a different skin color are mistreated, we question why homosexuality and gender inequality is even a thing.

Yes, change is coming about. Trump is trying to ignite another world war, and we can all see this. In my last post, I said that discrimination will always be a thing, but I can't help but wonder what my generation will do during this war. We are not as hateful as our ancestors. I honestly hope that a world war comes about, and we begin to see how dumb nationalism and patriotism really are. How dumb hating in general is. Unfortunately, and I'm not sure why, but people in the Southern USA can be quite hateful. They are the group that hated African Americans, they hated the Irish, they hate homosexuals, and they will soon be jumping on the anti-Mexican bandwagon. Yes, they are the main population that supported Trump, even though they would benefit more from Hilary. I'm going on a bit of a tangent.

Now, banning homophobia/homophobic acts, in my opinion, will only create more conflict. I'm hoping that homophobes die with the generations that are living in their 50's right now. I believe that soon, we will be able to ban this, just as we did with racism. All I am saying is that, right now, the change you want will not be realized.

 

This contradicts itself.

How exactly does speech = lynching? You prevent people from lynching people with strong law enforcement, not censoring people.

If I am physically hurting you, you can stop me. If I'm being discriminatory, I.E. I'm being a ****, just walk away. If I have a private business, I should be able to deny you service based on whatever whim I have, even if I'm being a ****.

If restaurant's deny you service based on behavior they find immoral, don't give them your money.
Its not that hard.
You don't have to infringe anyones rights because some homo will get mad.

Your no true american

 

It's kind of ironic that you refer to the point that I brought up as stupid, because you seem to have entirely missed what I was actually saying. You're going way too far into the causes of why murder was originally deemed to be illegal; the history here is irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. My point in bringing up murder was not to say that murder and denial of restaurant service are the same thing (I know that they are very different), but to point out that it isn't always good to let the people sort things out for themselves by making the relevant action(s) legal, because in examples like murder, this would cause more harm than good (even if people originally sorted murder out and made it illegal, legalizing it right now would still cause a lot of harm). As I have said, you might be correct in claiming that it would be beneficial for denying service in restaurants and such to be legal, but my point is simply that it's also possible that it wouldn't be, and if it is more beneficial for the discriminatory denial of service to be illegal (which is not something that I'm claiming to know), it should be.

Not at all.

I never said anything against free speech, nor did I say that refusing to serve people is equal to lynching..

What I said is that lynching should be illegal because keeping it illegal causes a lot more good than harm, so if making discrimination in the form of refusing to serve someone illegal would cause more good than harm as well, this should be done.

Psychological harm is a thing, which we can see from bullying and psychologically abusive parents (both of which can severely harm someone). The fact that an action doesn't cause physical harm doesn't inherently mean that it should be permitted. Using a privately owned gun to shoot someone isn't justified simply because said gun is privately owned. If it is true that it would cause more harm than good to permit the denial of service based on sexuality (something which I have already explained that I don't know to be true), then it shouldn't be legal.

 

Thats an entirely different situation from me using "hate speech" against some gay person.
If I'm rude to you, and your so fragile that you break down, you weren't long for the world anyway.
If a parent is mean to a developing child, the child will break down because they are a child.

Nope, Its my private store, I should be able to deny you service based on any behavior I deem immoral.

Thats physically harming someone.
If I don't let you in my store, your not gonna walk away questioning your self worth, your gonna go away questioning my worth.

 

You should be able to deny a select service under select circumstances.

Say you own this wedding cake shop. You're a normal weddingcakeshopowner. You do custom cakes and you also have a book of more generic normal wedding cakes that you say you know heres x cake for x price.

Say a gay couple comes in and they're getting married, they want a rainbow gay pride cake. You should be able to refuse making the cake itself, as that is your opinion as well as your business, and it is a service you are uncomfortable with offering.
Say the same gay couple come in and instead of wanting a custom rainbow cake they look through your book and say I want THIS cake. This is a cake you offer to everyone, and you sell it to straight couples all the time.
You should not be able to deny the gay couple the generic cake you offer everyone else, because then you are turning down the service based upon discrimination of their sexuality.

In short: You should be able to turn down a specific service that goes against you/store owner/store policy's beliefs. You should not be able to turn down the people themselves.

This goes for religious based services as well - hypothetically If you were a Muslim cake shop owner and you wanted to refuse to make a baby Jesus cake for Christmas, that would be okay. But you are not refusing the customer a Jesus cake because of their religion, its because it's a service you just don't want to offer. But again, if the same customer goes through your book and says "Hey I want this one you sell regularly" then you have no right to deny that customer that cake, without it being for sure labeled as discrimination. I dunno of any real-world examples of this, bet it's happened somewhere, but I highly highly doubt that people were to be angry over a Muslim saying we will not offer any services related to Christianity.

This is all assuming they are perfectly upstanding customers who just want to go in, order the cake, pay and leave.
If the gay couple or the christian customer are being complete jerks about the situation about not being offered the custom cakes they wanted, then you absolutely have the right to shut them down and kick them out. But if they just go "Ok okay, how about this one that's in your book?" then there's no reason to deny them the service except just pure discrimination.

 

I'm aloud to discriminate (not endorsing it though).
Its my store.
You can leave if you want. I'm not the only supplier of wedding cakes.

 

It is illegal to discriminate based upon race, sex, race, religion national origin, etc. as a business that provides goods. That would include your cake shop. It also is illegal when hiring in a business of over 15 employees.

The original Civil rights act of 1964 made it illegal to discrimate against the above, but did not list discrimination against sex and sexuality.
The Equality act of 2015 ammended that to include sexuality, gender, etc.
H.R.3185 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Equality Act

 

Race and sex are not behaviors.
religion, "gender identity", and sexual orientation are all behaviors, and therefore could be against someones morals.
I should be able to deny you service based on any behavior you exhibit.
It being illegal doesn't matter, it shouldn't be illegal.

 

Again, it's not really about refusing a single service, its about refusing a service to a person purely because they are against what you believe.

If you're anti-gay, you can't just refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay people despite selling the same cake to a straight couple 10 minutes ago as that is discrimination.
In other words, suck it up.

"It shouldn't be illegal" doesnt really matter when you put it in the real world, and when the high majority of americans (~70% of nonreligious are accepting, 65% of christians and 60% white protestants, and drops to 40% for black protestants and 30% for evangelicals. All the numbers rounded to the nearest 5) I dont think you're gonna win this fight lol

And this is just.. not... nice.
"I will not do this." Is freedom.
"I do not like this and therefore you should not be able to" is overreach and gets ridiculous.

 

?
Yes exactly, the government shouldn't prevent people from being jerks.

Look, can you explain to me why the government should regulate who I give my services to?

 

They arent protecting your right to be a snowflake and kick people out because you dont like who they are. They are protecting the groups that are often discriminated from being even more discriminated in a place that is stupid.

Why cant we just treat people like people

 

Look, any business or service you have is private property, you should have absolute control over your private property.

I agree, we should treat them like people. Not be government mandated to treat them like people. I think anyone who discriminates against gay people is being a jerk, but I think you have the right to be a jerk using your own private property.

 

i dont have a problem with gay people but dont be extra gay around me & i dont HATE transgender people i just choose to not associate with them dont hate me.