dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote:

I think I have decided I'm fine with a business not serving someone. I'm not fine with discriminatory law.



After 50 years with the Civil Right Act it is time for repeal eh?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Yes. Religious rights are civil rights. Any other uncontested points you care to argue? My point, that I plainly wrote, was that some people don't see homosexual rights as civil rights, thus complicating this issue. The fact that sexual orientation isn't a protected class makes it even worse, and is IMO, wrong.

Also, I'd like to make clear my "lack of understanding" about religion. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I have a fairly strong understanding of religious beliefs, especially Christian beliefs. And I want you and everyone to be able to have the freedom to choose your religion, unequivocally. To suggest otherwise is offensive and absurd.

What I do not "understand" -- and really, it's that I don't sympathize with such causes -- is when a group over-uses their "rights." For example, I think the wedding cake thing is unbelievably stupid. You're gay. I don't want to make your cake. Your solution is to force me to make your cake, thus giving me patronage, as if there aren't Nth more bakeries that would be happy to do so? Stupid.

Where you and I (and apparently most everyone else) differ is that you think your religious rights can and should be used to discriminate. You can think that, of course. But you would be wrong. "It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." I think it's freedom from discrimination and if you want to use your religion to do that, I think this is the wrong country for you.



And as usual, you are ASSuming things I didn't say.


So in essence, all of you are insisting that we allow anyone, anywhere in to wherever:

So the non-nudist can sue to get in the nudist colony with his/her clothes on.

The non-religious can sue to get married in the mosque/temple/church just because it looks nice.

The homeless can sue to be allowed to eat or sleep anywhere. Even in your front-yard.

We no longer have Boys and Girls teams, just teams. Ignore that there are indeed, physical attributes that allow each to excel at different sports.

And if I want meat at a Vegan establishment, they need to serve meat!!

Otherwise, it's discrimination!!!


I think this may be the wrong country for you, if you haven't grasped the basic concept of liberty. And just why the 1st Amendment is there.


The main issue seems to be most of the states trying to invoke these laws (Kansas, AZ, etc.) are being too broad in their attempts to protect their religious populations. It's also mostly a small business issue, in that most of the targeted "problem areas" have been wedding related, although one, a Hawaiian B&B is housing related.

According to the article, another business has gotten out of hosting weddings as a result.


So it seems the solution is to not stay in that business if you are religious, or close up that part of your business. So no wedding cakes (even though that probably is the main part of your business) or hosting weddings.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

RIP Harold Ramis

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:So in essence, all of you are insisting that we allow anyone, anywhere in to wherever:



Nah, I don't think it's an all-or-nothing deal. We just have to find a balance. I'm going to ASSume here, that the protected classes were designated as such for a reason.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:And as usual, you are ASSuming things I didn't say.


So in essence, all of you are insisting that we allow anyone, anywhere in to wherever:



Mark, while reacting to Kyle you seem to have accidentally turned your "Ridiculous" knob to 11 ;)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I appreciate the fact that some people adhere very strictly to their religion. When it comes to their private behavior, that certainly plays a major role in what they do.

The religious rights enshrined in the Constitution are limited to the free exercise of religion, and there is no provision that this right is paramount and unlimited. There are other rights we enjoy in this country, and religion does not trump them. I tell my kids all the time that life is in the tradeoffs, and this is true of our civil life as well as our individual lives. The right to be treated as a member of society of equal standing with others is not something I would like to give away, solely on the basis of the religious beliefs of some other individual. And, for that matter, that the religious beliefs of some other individual can drive the treatment accorded me by “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization”. That sounds like a mighty wide range.

Let’s do a hypothetical. Here in Sioux Falls, one grocery chain controls almost 100% of the market. There’s a single-store place and the food co-op, but other than that, that one chain rules this town. Could they decide that they won’t sell to homosexuals? That “mighty wide range” mentioned above covers a lot of ground, not just restaurants and bakers. If someone declares that I should be refused service at a bookstore because I have a tattoo (note: I don’t have any tattoos – this is another hypothetical), would that be OK? See Leviticus 19:28 for that, by the way. And, am I the only person who thinks it odd that under the Arizona bill, only atheists wouldn’t have the right to discriminate?

Maybe I’m misreading something in the (now vetoed) bill. As usual, I am at risk of being uninformed on any topic, no matter how heavily covered in the media. Heck, being uninformed is my normal way of going through life.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Coynedj,

My friends and I were talking about three of the points you raised just a little while ago.

First, that while the wording of the Arizona law was ridiculously broad, it did have one limitation -- the person refusing service had to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" to justify refusal of service. Which of course means that atheists, having no "sincerely held religious beliefs," would be exempt from 'protection' under the proposed law.

Second, I said I didn't like the basic premise that the government could compel somebody (photographer, baker, etc) to act contrary to their beliefs or risk criminal charges, and pointed out that the happy couple getting married would probably be better off going with a baker, photographer, etc that wanted their business in the first place. My friend, having lived in some very small towns in the past, pointed out that there are plenty of places in the U.S. where there aren't alternate options. i.e., Only one or two wedding photographers in a reasonable driving radius, or an equally limited number of bakeries. If both of the wedding photographers and all three places that bake wedding cakes have owners of a similar mindset, what's one to do?

Third, having mentioned the prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus, you raise a different point. Various religions have prohibitions against LOTS of things, not just homosexuality. If the pious baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake for Tom and Gary, their sincerely-held religious beliefs should also prevent them from making cakes for people with tattoos, people who eat shellfish, people who've had heterosexual relations prior to marriage, married people who use birth control of any type, etc.

But it seems like the only moral objections we hear about in the news are to homosexuals.

This really is messy in a lot of ways.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Snip



I don't think you understood my point at all (which may actually change now). My point was that I am OK with private businesses choosing not to serve a person for whatever reason. I am not ok with a law that is discrimination. People can, and unfortunately will, discriminate. The gov't should not. So, beat up the straw man all you want. I think we actually agree, though. And chem countered the absurdity of your examples quite well. I'm also generally not a fan of the "slippery slope" argument.

dlschier wrote:After 50 years with the Civil Right Act it is time for repeal eh?


I'd like to make clear that a) I see homosexual rights as civil rights, 100%, unequivocally b) I am a huge supporter and advocate of gay rights (my wife has published on the subject). I am also a fan of allowing private businesses to be run privately. I understand cmaldoon's point that protection against the "tyranny of the masses." I think these businesses are in the minority (luckily).

The reason my original point may change, making all of this pointless is what Ed said. In what is a functional monopoly, that minority ends up with too much power, causing what amounts to total discrimination.

Also, I realize that no one will be "forced" to do anything. I stand by my word choice, though I didn't mean it literally. The "over-reaching" with their rights was in reference to the religious group using that card for everything all the time.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:Second, I said I didn't like the basic premise that the government could compel somebody (photographer, baker, etc) to act contrary to their beliefs or risk criminal charges, and pointed out that the happy couple getting married would probably be better off going with a baker, photographer, etc that wanted their business in the first place. My friend, having lived in some very small towns in the past, pointed out that there are plenty of places in the U.S. where there aren't alternate options. i.e., Only one or two wedding photographers in a reasonable driving radius, or an equally limited number of bakeries. If both of the wedding photographers and all three places that bake wedding cakes have owners of a similar mindset, what's one to do?



This is where I'm at now. And why I appreciate this forum so much. I have an opinion and it sometimes changes, hopefully for the better.

As to your #3, Sparky said people can't pick and choose which religious aspects to follow. Obviously, that's absolute BS. While he may not, MANY MANY do, as you so efficiently point out.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:And as usual, you are ASSuming things I didn't say.


So in essence, all of you are insisting that we allow anyone, anywhere in to wherever:



I can't see where you got that from anything Kyle said...

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
kylemittskus wrote:The reason my original point may change, making all of this pointless is what Ed said.



We've talked about this before. My name is not Ed.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:We've talked about this before. My name is not Ed.



Sorry, Doug. Typing too fast and too much on my mind.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

This is an old story, but Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

Here's an example of some sincerely-held religious beliefs. Anybody want to defend this?

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
coynedj wrote:We've talked about this before. My name is not Ed.



Wilbur?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:This is an old story, but Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

Here's an example of some sincerely-held religious beliefs. Anybody want to defend this?



I think this is significantly different for a couple reasons. There are non-Muslim cab drivers all over places where cabs are everywhere (New York). Even applying the small city/single business argument, it's still different. These cab drivers aren't excluding people or discriminating against a specified group, just objects that aren't necessary to normal survival. The only exception is guide dogs and in that case, I assume you would know about this religious battle being fought.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
coynedj wrote:We've talked about this before. My name is not Ed.


That's not what the Mayor of Brook Park told me! (I keed, I keed)

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

With respect to the cab driver story… anti-discrimination laws apply to protected classes. "Travelers carrying alcohol" isn't a protected class.

However, those with disabilities are a protected class, and denying a disabled person a cab ride simply because they have a service dog could cause real legal problems.

In this case, the cab drivers aren't discriminating against all members of a protected class, as they (presumably) would only be turning away those with service dogs. Nonetheless, the ADA is written to protect individuals, and it seems like at least three or four times a year a news item pops up about business owners getting in trouble for kicking somebody with a service animal out of their store/restaurant/place of business.

So, like many of the other examples previously discussed, it's messy. Who's rights are protected? The cab driver with a sincerely held religious belief that dogs shouldn't be in his cab, or somebody with a seizure disorder who has a service dog?

The practical resolution to the conflict is most likely to be what Kyle said -- the traveler ends up in a different cab with a driver who doesn't have the same religious objection. But I don't know what the legality is. It's probably still a violation of the ADA for the first driver to turn away the disabled traveler.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I've also read that some Muslim cab drivers want to be able to refuse any woman not accompanied by a man, or immodestly dressed.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
coynedj wrote:I've also read that some Muslim cab drivers want to be able to refuse any woman not accompanied by a man, or immodestly dressed.



Ed, Ed, Ed... ;)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:I've also read that some Muslim cab drivers want to be able to refuse any woman not accompanied by a man, or immodestly dressed.



That one is far more problematic.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
coynedj wrote:I've also read that some Muslim cab drivers want to be able to refuse any woman not accompanied by a man, or immodestly dressed.



My feeling about this is that it's unreasonable to insist on receiving all the benefits of society, while refusing to contribute to it. If you don't want to have to deal with women, or homosexuals, or whatever else you find unclean, working with the public is probably not a good choice for you.

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
coynedj wrote:I've also read that some Muslim cab drivers want to be able to refuse any woman not accompanied by a man, or immodestly dressed.



My two cents on the cabbie thing, and this includes the dogs, the booze, and the women:

The cabdriver made a choice to become a cabdriver. (I won't get into "choice" with religion.) as part of the choice to be a cab driver, they know that they will be serving a broad populace. At the airport there will be dogs, there will be single women, and there will be alcohol. If these things are unacceptable to them then it is their choice to find a different job or to perform the job that they have chosen while putting aside their religious compunctions.

To put it a different way: cabdrivers have two contracts of service. The first one is with their fare, But there is also an overarching one with the municipality/airport. They are obligated to meet the terms of both contracts.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk

I'm just glad that "Romulan" is not a protected class. I hate working/interacting with Romulans. I also no longer do work that requires me to interact with the masses. Dealing with IT and business people is bad enough!

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
joelsisk wrote:I'm just glad that "Romulan" is not a protected class. I hate working/interacting with Romulans. I also no longer do work that requires me to interact with the masses. Dealing with IT and business people is bad enough!



Romulan doesn't fall under race, creed, religion, nor national origin? ;)

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
mother wrote:Romulan doesn't fall under race, creed, religion, nor national origin? ;)




not when it is a woot filter for ID10T.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
joelsisk wrote:not when it is a woot filter for ID10T.



Wow, fail on me. lol

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
joelsisk wrote:I'm just glad that "Romulan" is not a protected class.



Not YET.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I just read an interesting story saying that the whole "Muslim cab driver" thing was the end point of a game of telephone. It started as a purely hypothetical scenario, with the hypothetical cab driver refusing to drive a hypothetical passenger to a hypothetical Hindu temple. It then morphed inexorably to where we/I thought it was an actual occurrence with far different specifics.

One can draw many conclusions from how quickly this spread, and how willingly people have accepted it as the truth. Mea culpa.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Now they're trying to ban e-cigarettes. Why? The children, of course! Think of the children!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 168 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Now they're trying to ban e-cigarettes. Why? The children, of course! Think of the children!

It's all the cradle~grave mentality; we know what's good for you and you don't...

Ok, that was a bit terse.

CT

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
rjquillin wrote:It's all the cradle~grave mentality; we know what's good for you and you don't...

Ok, that was a bit terse.



compare/contrast that to Prohibition and the recent wave of marijuana de-criminalization/regulation

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Now they're trying to ban e-cigarettes. Why? The children, of course! Think of the children!



I saw that. So stupid. What is wrong with people?

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Not saying I agree with it, but the argument against e-cigarettes is that they are basically a drug-delivery system that hasn't been vetted by the FDA. The nicotine patch had to be thoroughly tested/studied prior to approval. E-cigarettes didn't go through the same approval process.

I have no skin in this game, as I've never been a smoker (and don't plan to start in middle age).

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:Not saying I agree with it, but the argument against e-cigarettes is that they are basically a drug-delivery system that hasn't been vetted by the FDA. The nicotine patch had to be thoroughly tested/studied prior to approval. E-cigarettes didn't go through the same approval process.

I have no skin in this game, as I've never been a smoker (and don't plan to start in middle age).



I think your argument is related, but separate from the report I heard earlier. The FDA approving e-cigs is likely something that should happen. The people who were trying to get them banned in the story I heard wanted them conpletely gone because teenagers were smoking them (even though there is the same age-resctictions as cigarettes). They also made, what is IMO, an illogical connection between teens smoking e-cigs and teens smoking real cigarettes. I think I'm ok with the FDA checking them out. I'm not ok with banning them because we have to think of the children.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:They also made, what is IMO, an illogical connection between teens smoking e-cigs and teens smoking real cigarettes.



24 hours ago I'd have agreed with this statement. I saw a headline from an actual scientific publication stating there's a correlation there. Obviously not causal, and I didn't read the article, but I could dig it up if there's interest.

That's beside the point of whether they should be banned. I think anything that reduces the prevalence of tobacco smoking is a good thing.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 168 Private Messages rjquillin
klezman wrote:That's beside the point of whether they should be banned. I think anything that reduces the prevalence of tobacco smoking is a good thing.

I'd be interested in reading it, however;
I have a problem with the above statement, even as a never-smoker.
Perhaps it's my libertarian showing, but we have entirely too much government in our daily lives as it is.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:I'd be interested in reading it, however;
I have a problem with the above statement, even as a never-smoker.
Perhaps it's my libertarian showing, but we have entirely too much government in our daily lives as it is.



While I fully agree, nicotine is a drug and I think I'm ok with it being scrutinized like any other drug. And yes, I'm very pro-e-cig since it is an ostensibly safer alternative to smoking and it feeds both addictions, the nicotine and the act of smoking.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 168 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:While I fully agree, nicotine is a drug and I think I'm ok with it being scrutinized like any other drug. And yes, I'm very pro-e-cig since it is an ostensibly safer alternative to smoking and it feeds both addictions, the nicotine and the act of smoking.

I think I'd need to read some article that started this to further hone my opinion of what is proposed. Not been following anything about it in the news lately.
While some things need to be regulated, and perhaps banned/restricted, DDT wasn't one of them. That was bad "science" based on an agenda.

CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
rjquillin wrote:I'd be interested in reading it, however;
I have a problem with the above statement, even as a never-smoker.
Perhaps it's my libertarian showing, but we have entirely too much government in our daily lives as it is.



I'm not advocating banning it (although occasionally I'd love it if smoking were outlawed), but creating market pressures to reduce it are fine by me. It's my health too, after all...

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
rjquillin wrote:I think I'd need to read some article that started this to further hone my opinion of what is proposed. Not been following anything about it in the news lately.
While some things need to be regulated, and perhaps banned/restricted, DDT wasn't one of them. That was bad "science" based on an agenda.



Don't get me started on "science" with an "agenda"...

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT