Gay Rights

Meh, I do see your point, a little, Im just stating as it is because as of right now it is illegal to discriminate in a business except for very specific circumstances, so good luck in the lawsuit if you do ever decide to open a bakery for real lolol

There is a point on a private property that is usually open to the public, like a store, where you have to be a certain way though and uphold at least some respect, though. This helps you and your business look better, the city look better, the businesses around you,

slightly unrelated but this was bright up earlier, You wouldnt ever shoot someone in your store, despite it being your property. It's an obvious nono. Murder is murder regardless of it being your property or otherwise. (Assuming the guy is not a threat ofc) Harassment is harassment regardless. Threats are threats. These are all things you can get in trouble for, whether you are in your home, you're in walmart, you're at your business, you're at a bank, you're in the middle of the highway. At least here, you can be lucky enough that you are allowed to be an ass for no reason anywhere else besides your business. Sigh.

The rules are set in place to avoid fights and make things run smoothly. The smoother things can run the happier people will be in general. I'd rather make business owners have to deal with serving a customer who's background they don't like, spend a few minutes being grumpy and forget about it by the end of the week, then people having the ability to deny service based upon....basically nothing.

If a black couple came in for a cake and you refused, that would be ALL over the news, and that would be an awful thing.
If you denied a person of a different religion than you, or for lack of a religion, that would be everwhere and it would be awful.
I don't know why this isn't more commonly accepted. I don't know why you have to be high and mighty and denying people service off discrimination in the first place.

People are people, gay people did nothing to you, why you gotta be like dis

 

I would never do this. I think if you do your kinda scummy. I think that people who do it should have the right to.

 

First of all, people outside of children can be harmed psychologically.

Second of all, how many times do I have to say that I'm not against free speech? I'm talking about the denial of service in restaurants, stores, etc., not about hate speech.

"Nope, it's my private gun, I should be able to shoot anyone I deem worthy of being shot."

If it's a single store, you're probably right regarding how most people would feel, but if a huge number of stores all over the country begin refusing to let people enter them because of something that they can't control about themselves, this would be an issue that could cause people a lot of harm. As Deinen pointed out earlier, it is a very realistic possibility that legalizing discrimination of this sort would not actually cause anything like this to happen, and that people who discriminate in this way would be disliked by the community. Deinen might be right about this, in which case legalizing this form of discrimination would be fine, but if he isn't, this form of discrimination should be illegal.

 

A gun actual harms someone.
You not eating at my restaurant doesn't harm you.

Same thing I said above.
If your an adult, and you can't deal with mean people, you need to grow thicker skin.

 

You're either ignoring what I said or you missed it entirely.

I agreed with you that if someone goes to a restaurant and said restaurant refuses to serve them (even if it's because of their sexuality, race, or gender), they probably won't really be harmed, but this is if it's an isolated scenario. If a huge amount of restaurants all over the country refuse to serve people on a discriminatory basis, this could very well harm the person and all people who are in the group that the discrimination is directed upon.

When you're talking about insults and such, sure, but not all psychological harm is induced by such minor things. For example, it's not that uncommon for adults to be in psychologically abusive relationships, which can severely harm them. If a whole sexuality is not allowed in a large number of restaurants and stores throughout the country, this could legitimately harm how the people with said sexuality see themselves and how other people see them, beyond the point of them being able to dismiss it like they might be able to dismiss an insult.

 

No it couldn't. They will still have food.
You also draw a false analogy with the gun. If the gun is the restaurant, following your line of reasoning, I would be forcing people to use my restaurant. If someone asks me to shoot them with my gun, I can refuse, if somebody asks me to use my restaurant, I can refuse. If I go out and shoot somebody, its bad, if I go out and kidnap someone and then force them to eat at my restaurant, its bad.

Can you cite that if it were legal it would be a "large number" of restaurants?

 

I'm saying that it could cause psychological harm, not deprive them of food.

You're missing the point that I was making, because making the type of comparison that you're trying to make is irrelevant to it. For what I was saying, the analogy doesn't have to contain a comparison along the lines of what you mentioned, because I was simply pointing out that in both scenarios, a privately owned thing is subject of the issue (which is all that is needed in order for there to be a sufficient analogy). My point with bringing this up is simply to show that something being privately owned does not automatically mean that it should be able to be used in any way.

"It is a very realistic possibility that legalizing discrimination of this sort would not actually cause anything like this to happen, and that people who discriminate in this way would be disliked by the community. Deinen might be right about this, in which case legalizing this form of discrimination would be fine."

I have said multiple times here that I am not claiming that it would be a large number... I've simply been saying that it is a possibility (potentially a small one) that it would be a large number, but if it is, then restaurants shouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

Then they need to learn to deal with mean people.
I'm native american, I've dealt with individual rude people, you've got to learn to deal with it, its part of interacting with large groups of people.

Do you not think I can chose who I give my services to? I think its pretty straightforward on property rights and regulating private property. If it physically harms other people, it can be regulated and repressed. If it doesn't harm anyone else, go for it. So you need to prove that a handful of pizza shops or something discriminating against trans and gay people causes legitimate harm.

 

You sell it to straight couples for a straight wedding. Pretty different from selling it to a gay couple for a gay wedding.

--- Double Post Merged, May 14, 2017, Original Post Date: May 14, 2017 ---

Not even remotely similar and you know it.

 

Why?
Selling it to different people for the same price, same effort, same end result.

 

Yah but by making the cake and supplying it to them, you are supporting that behavior. If you think that behavior is immoral, the government shouldn't force you to do it.

 

Selling a gun to someone who you suspect is going to use it to commit a crime is illegal; what they do with it matters. It's a little different because a gay wedding doesn't really hurt anyone, but from the hardcore Christian perspective it's still pretty bad.

 

If discrimination gets to a certain point, it's not just "mean people."

No, I don't need to prove that because as I have already said, I'm not claiming that allowing this type of discrimination to be legal will in fact cause legitimate harm. All I've been saying is that if legalizing it does in fact cause more harm than good, it should not be legal.

You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. In regards to the point that I was making, the comparison isn't flawed or inaccurate at all, because all I was doing is pointing out the issue with basing how something can and cannot be used on if it's privately owned. MeepLord keeps citing the fact that restaurants and stores are privately owned as his seemingly main justification for his claims, so bringing this up was relevant. Guns, while privately owned, should not be able to be used in whatever way they want simply because using them is certain ways harms other people. If making it legal to use something in a certain way would cause more harm than good, even if said thing is privately owned (such as a gun), using it in said way shouldn't be legal. If we can admit that we should prevent private guns from being used in harmful ways, the same should apply to everything. If any private things, restaurants included, are being used in a way that is more harmful than not, using them in said way shouldn't be legal.

Obviously, with the exception of absurd hypotheticals, shooting someone with a gun causes way more harm than refusing to serve them at a restaurant does, which is not something that I denied at any point. Furthermore, I have said many times so far that it might be fine (and possibly even better) to allow the owners of private businesses to discriminate in this way. The only thing that I've been arguing is that if it is in fact true that legalizing this type of discrimination will cause society more harm than good (something that I am not claiming), then it should remain illegal.

 

That goes down to the person, not really the religion. Even the majority of Christians accept same-sex marriage. You can easily argue that God would prefer a loving atheist over a hateful christian.
Christians by definition are supposed to not be judgmental... Judge not lest ye be judged.
It's not the gay couple's fault that the owner of the store has a stick up their butt.
It's equally not okay for a Christian store to not serve a Muslim couple a cake due to their religion, why would we allow you to turn down one group and not the others?
Why would we allow this to happen and it will just end up causing more and more separation in the world?
We could all stand to be a bit more accepting, really

 

its just a bunch of people collectively being "mean people".

I can use my private property however I want until it actually physically harms someone.

A persons interpretation of whatever religion they chose is valid. They have religious rights.

Some christians don't, there religious beliefs prevent them from using there private property in a way that would support gay people, so they should be aloud to choose to who they grant there private property.

Christians by definition are supposed to follow christianity. You've already said that peoples interpretations of religion can differ, so your version of christianity isn't relevant to a homophobic persons version.

It is ok.
Why does the government have the right to regulate my behavior if my behavior isn't going to harm anyone but myself?

Because it starts us down an authoritarian path. We should confront social issues (like homophobes) with social solutions. Don't like homophobes? Boycott them, don't like what a news/radio show has to say about gay people? Call there advertisers and try and get them banned! There are many solutions to this (non) issue that don't involve the government.

If this is a direction to the entirety of society, fine, but if you are talking specifically about people in this convo, nobody is advocating for discrimination.

 

Not at all, and I would respond with: You can control who enters your home; shouldn't you be able to regulate who enters your business?

--- Double Post Merged, May 15, 2017, Original Post Date: May 15, 2017 ---

And?

I never said we should force anyone to work for anyone else.

Because it's not within our rights to dictate to others who they choose to provide services to and who they don't.

 

Research Heart of Atlanta Motel v US, 1967

Takes down that point right there.

 

I'm not making a legal argument.
Why does the government have the right to tell me who I can and can't serve?

 

Regulations kiddo. Saying that someone cannot do something because of X is discrimination. Replace "gay" with "black" then see how long it holds in terms of logic.


TLR discrimination is bad.

--- Double Post Merged, May 15, 2017, Original Post Date: May 15, 2017 ---

Because if someone wishes to use a service, the fact they like to f*** someone of the same gender shouldn't prevent them from getting the damn groceries.

 

You seem to be assuming that psychological harm isn't something that we should be legally concerned about in cases involving adults, which isn't true at all. The reason that I said that psychological harm can be beyond simply being offended/hurt by "mean people" is that many forms of it cannot be so easily dismissed. In the same way that someone that gets a paper cut can essentially just shrug it off, people can usually do the same with random insults and such. Psychological harm, however, can come in much more serious forms that can't just be dismissed. Things like blackmail, harassment, and stalking are issues not because they inherently cause physical harm (they don't), but because they cause psychological harm. Furthermore, many forms of sexual harassment should remain illegal because of the psychological harm that they induce on someone. Physically, "minor" forms of sexual harassment don't exactly cause harm; squeezing someone's rear end is unlikely to physically hurt them any more than shaking their hand or tapping on their shoulder is. Nonetheless, we have laws against this type of thing because of the mental harm that comes from being randomly groped by people.

TLR - We have to consider mental harm in determining what should and should not be allowed.

You have a good point with this, but it's not contradictory with what I was saying. Should we be able to control who enters our homes? Yes. Should we be able to control who enters our business? Maybe. In both cases, however, these conclusions do not inherently follow from the fact that the relevant thing is privately owned. In other words, privately owning something doesn't inherently mean that we should have total control over how it's used, which is what I was using the gun comparison to point out.

When it comes homes, my reasoning for agreeing that we should have complete control over who enters them is not based solely on the fact that they are privately owned, but instead on what's most beneficial. It's important that people can feel comfortable, secure, and stable in their homes, and it is thus important that people have control over who and what is allowed inside. If we were to make it illegal for everyone to decide who is and isn't allowed inside of their own homes, this would be detrimental to society. This doesn't apply to businesses, however, because what situation causes the most harm is a lot more iffy. In the case of homes, I think that it's very clear that society benefits most from allowing people to decide who is allowed in their own homes. In the case of guns, I think that it's also very clear that society benefits most from banning the act of shooting people. In the first case, it's good for a private thing to be able to be used in x way (it's good for people to decide who can enter their homes) and it should thus remain legal; in the second case, it's bad for a private thing to be used in x way (it's bad for people to shoot others with guns) and it should thus remain illegal. Whether or not society will benefit more from keeping it illegal to discriminate in deciding who can and cannot enter businesses is a lot more unclear, I'd say, and it further depends on the specific society and what the culture within it is like. In our modern-day society in the United States, would it be beneficial to legalize business discrimination? Would it cause more good than harm? I'm not sure, but I have admitted that it is a very fair possibility and I am not arguing for the opposite. It might be best for us to legalize this type of discrimination, but I think that this should be based on the claim that it would cause more harm than good, not on the fact that the businesses are privately owned.