Gay Rights

There slightly different, gay is a behavior, black is a appearance.

It shouldn't, but the government shouldn't be the ones fixing the problem. Use boycotts, yell at them on social media, protest, etc.

Blackmail isn't psychological harm, its used to diminish your liberty or steal your property. Stalking is a threat to someones physical wellbeing.

Not really. I'm aloud to be mean to you. I should be ostracized from polite society for being a jerk, but I'm aloud to be mean to you. You are not entitled to use my store.

--- Double Post Merged, May 16, 2017, Original Post Date: May 16, 2017 ---

Violating the right to private property harms society more than any benefits it could give.

 

Blackmail often only causes psychological harm. A lot of blackmail occurs in the form of forcing someone to do x by threatening to reveal some type of information about them, which will likely just hurt them mentally by affecting some type of their social lives if it does get out.

Also, since you bring up stealing one's property, it should be mentioned that stealing itself usually only causes psychological harm. With the possible exception of stealing medications and such, stealing is something that doesn't really cause physical harm itself. Imagine that someone breaks into another person's house and steals a lot of their stuff. What are the effects of this situation? The victim feels violated, they're sad and angry because they've lost a lot of they're stuff (some of it might be irreplaceable from sentimental value), etc., but they aren't physically harmed.

Not necessarily, stalkers can stalk without actually going further and harming someone physically. Stalking itself might make the victim feel threatened, but this shouldn't be legally relevant if we don't consider mental harm.

Also, do you think that sexual harassment should be legal? You neglected to respond to that example.

What makes you say that we should have laws regarding physical harm in the first place? What's the problem with physical harm? Is it that it damages us? Is it that we feel the pain from it? If it's only the former, then why shouldn't plants and animals be treated equally? As functioning organisms, they can be physically damaged in the same way as us. If it's the latter, then many animals should still be treated equally, as they too feel pain. Furthermore, the issue with you using this reason would be that feeling pain is something that happens in the brain. If we were to say that it's bad to do something that causes the brain to feel pain, then why would it matter if said thing is physical harm or some type of mental harm?

Why? I have said that this conclusion might be correct, but if it is, I don't see how it wouldn't be because of the mental harm that is caused. Shopkeepers and restaurant owners aren't physically harmed by being forced to let anybody inside.

 

I think that's kind of part of opening a business or working for a business, especially one that services the public.

Much smaller things would be okay - Like me, as a freelance artist, you say I want a hella gay photo, I can tell you my large homophobic vocabulary all I want, because of the type of business I am doing.
If I'm selling custom cakes off my etsy shop or some crap, online store stuff (idk how it all works exactly tbh but there's my point) and you wanted a hella gay cake, again long big homophobic insults go to hell the whole shebang, I'm not really a public service in the same way a bakery downtown is. If I open a lemonade stand on the corner of downtown and refuse to sell lemonade to whatever group, no one is going to get mad at me in the same way as I'd be mad at you and your bakery for refusing me and my wife a cake. I'm not a 'real' business in the sense that I got my licenses, my land, I uphold any and all rules of that business and/or location, I'm just selling cake from home or lemonade from a street corner. Whatever.

Part of owning a business and a building that is open to the public, is to serve the public. If the public is not doing anything that would get person normally thrown out, there's no reason to refuse their business. The only few exceptions I could think of were if it were a religion based shop, which a bakery certainly isn't. As a business you have to follow the rules of the business and workplace - That includes the inability to discriminate because you don't like something.

I don't really see any harm done here -
If more people stop acting on this, if people stop with that or at least lessens the amount of overall discrimination, people become more accepting as a whole. It''d be nice if you could see people instead of sexuality or beliefs

 

First off, sexual orientation is most likely genetic.

Second off, boycotts are used to get the attention for the government. The Civil Rights movement, for example, kept trying to get the attention of the FBI. It only happened once the Freedom riders were firebombed. How many gay people have to die before you give a shit, and let the government do it's job.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

Affecting your social life (and very frequently your professional one) has the end result of physically harming you.
I am not going to change my morals because you have an eggshell skull. (the royal "I", I don't support discrimination)

--- Double Post Merged, May 16, 2017, Original Post Date: May 16, 2017 ---

Who was dying by not being let into the boycotts???

Also, its interesting that you bring up the governments job. The government is supposed to protect your rights, what right of yours am I violating by not letting you eat at my pizza parlor?

--- Double Post Merged, May 16, 2017 ---

Your supposed to glorify god in everything you do (if your a christian). A bakery very much is part of someones personal religion, because its part of there life and religion governs how you run your life.

 

Why is physically harming someone bad?

 

thanks for ignoring most of the post, but
A religion based shop is not the same as a shop with a religious owner
I'm talking like a christian place, christian based books, music, toys, wtfever, that's not the same as "I love god welcome to my bakery except you get out"
(You're also supposed to not be judgmental if you're a christian, if you wanna play that game)

 

"Who was dying by not being let into the boycotts"

Apparently you have to die to be harmed in @MeepLord27's alternate reality.


Kiddo, you realize how injustice works? If there is something wrong, like being denied something based on something that does not affect the thing and you cannot change, it should be fixed. We shouldn't allow this shit in a civilized society.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

Because it infringes your rights.

If you buy into the idea that your religion should govern everything you do and everything you do should be in service of your religion then they are.

Your right but religion is up to personal interpretation. I know that while your interpretation is a popular one, glorifying god in everything you do is another interpretation.

Who was being harmed?
The boycotts have a standard, you must be a boy to be a boy scout.
I'm not going to deny reality because someone is so much of a snowflake that if everyone doesn't deny reality for you your gonna have a meltdown.

Social justice solutions for social justice problems. Lets boycott them, protest them, yell at them on twitter, the whole nine yards. I will protest them right along with you. I just don't think its the governments job to decide how I apply my religion to my private property. While I don't like using a slippery slope argument, I think its a very real possibility here. Theres a general hostility among the atheist+ movements toward religious institutions, I have no confidence that once the door is open for them they won't attack.

 

I have the same response to both points - A religious based store that specifically were to serve a specific set of people with a specific stock would be fine to turn down other groups, IMO, even though the law may currently state otherwise - A christian owning a cake shop is not the same as a christian owning a store where everything inside is based on christianity.

It was never about applying religion to property - it's about making sure everyone gets as equal treatment as possible in as many places as possible.
Religious freedom is applying your religion to yourself. I cannot do that, my religion forbids it. Okay, whatever, you do you boo
Once you start pushing those beliefs onto others there is a problem, regardless of whether or not you are religious, aren't religious, or what group you are discriminating.

Is verbal abuse and mental harm just not so bad, or? Cause people feel bad when theyre kicked out of doing what they want because of something they are.

 

The government needs to treat everyone equally.
I don't.

Following this line of reasoning, lets outlaw "verbal abuse".

This is your own interpretation of how religion is applied in your life.

 

Legal rights or moral rights?

 

Verbal abuse is a crime... It's harassment...

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

Laws are instituted to defend rights.

Sounds good. Arrest people for harassment. Me telling you to leave because I'm a homophobe isn't verbal abuse though right?
The reason I put "verbal abuse" in quotations in a joking manner wasn't out of ignorance, I understand that harassment is illegal. I was talking about people being mean.

 

Why should it be? What if I open a lawn care business? Can you force me to come work for you if I don't want to just because I provide a service? That's called slavery.

Neither is a baker... they just provide a good, and if they don't want to give you that good you shouldn't be able to force them to.

You seem to think that other people's outrage is a justification for forced labor.

You still need a business licence to do that, at least in California...

Um, no. Businesses are built to provide you, the owner, with a means of sustaining yourself, usually at the highest standard possible. It comes, or should come, with no 'public duty'.

Those would be?

Actually as a business owner you are able to discriminate against anyone, for any reason, except on the basis of Race/ethnicity and sex (I think there's one more). But how the law is now has no relevance to how the law should be.

 

Yeah, so you're talking about moral/natural rights. Physically harming somebody is bad then and should be illegal because it infringes on someone's moral/natural rights, correct?

 

could you explain what you think a legal right is?

 

A legal right would be a right that's given to people by law, not one that they have naturally. Even if our laws are correctly based around protecting moral/natural rights (for the most part, at least), different societies have contradicting laws, so the same cannot for all of them.

I'm just trying to get an understanding of what you mean when you say that physical harm is infringing on someone's rights. To summarize, moral/natural rights would be rights that someone has by default, by just existing, etc. Furthermore, these rights would exist regardless of the society and any society could be mistaken about what those rights are and/or the best way to protect them. Moral rights are things that people are believe to have based on objective ethical theories. Legal rights, on the other hand, are simply the rights that someone's legal system gives them.

 

Moral rights then I guess? I don't really understand the concept of "legal rights" though.

 

Legal rights are just the rights that a government gives to its citizens. If a nation were to legalize all and any murder, then the citizens of this nation would have a legal right to kill, even if they don't have a moral right to do so.

Anyway, it seems that we can agree that moral rights exist independently of the law and that the law should be based on protecting them. I do, however, definitely disagree with what you seem to think that we have moral rights to. Do we only have moral rights to not be physically hurt? If so, why? If it can be said that we generally have the moral right to live without being physically harmed by others, why don't we also have the right to not be harmed in mental ways? Do people not have the right to be happy? To not be stolen from? To not be sexually harassed? Etc.

If I could magically make you depressed, would it be perfectly moral for me to do this as long as you don't harm yourself? Should me doing this be legal?