didnt the farm turn them away because they were already booked solid

no big deal to randomly record phone convos huh

[Edited on November 11, 2014 at 4:07 PM. Reason : -]

11/11/2014 4:05:47 PM

Quote :

"no big deal to randomly record phone convos huh"

For most states it isn't. Surprisingly (or perhaps not given the history of organized crime) New York is not a two party state.

11/11/2014 5:12:36 PM

Quote :

"didnt the farm turn them away because they were already booked solid"

doubtful, they are probably just saying that now because their arguments didn't hold up (actually they don't even say that's the reason in that story, the author float a fact out there about booking and let people come to that conclusion).

It's doubtful that they turned away this couple because they were booked because of a few things:

1) when they originally appealed they did so citing constitutional rights to free speech and religion, not using the defense that they were booked.

2) they testified in the trial that in their religious beliefs marriage is between a man and a woman and that this is their own private space where their rights should be determinate.

and most conclusively;
3) they acknowledged to Judge Pares that they wouldn't have refused service if the couple was opposite-sex

[Edited on November 11, 2014 at 5:28 PM. Reason : since it's a public space, fine is reasonable]

11/11/2014 5:25:12 PM

^ sup, troll?

Quote :

"So when you open up shop, where are you hanging your no blacks sign? I mean, I agree with the idea, but in reality it doesn't work. That's why we have laws against it. We've already tried that little experiment... it didn't go so well. "

I wouldn't hang up such a sign, because I'm not a racist asshole. And, in reality, it does work, but not when you have laws enforcing those arrangements. To ignore those laws and then say "but the market didn't work" is the height of dishonesty. Having said that, I have no problem with laws that place restrictions on companies and businesses that want to do business with the gov't. You're a bank, and you want to be FDIC insured? Well, you better make mortgages to black people, too. You want to be eligible for gov't contracts? You better be an equal opportunity employer.

11/11/2014 7:09:51 PM

Sexual Orientation is a protected class in New York, same with race, color, gender, etc...this business clearly was discriminating based on that. I don't see the issue.

11/11/2014 9:38:54 PM

That's because you don't see that there is also an issue regarding Freedom of Religion. And, since no one has a right to the services of another person (nor should they), there is only one right at play here, and we should honor that right while at the same time making fun of the dummy who doesn't like gay people.

11/11/2014 11:37:23 PM

^^^

That's the basic premise behind the theory of society.

This wedding venue operating a business also relies on shared societal resources to run, and at the very least they claim to be Americans, which means they are compelled to follow society's rules. And our rules state that gays can't be discriminated against in this manner. There's not a meaningful difference between a bank wanting FDIC protection and having to follow rules, with any other member wanting society's benefits and following our shared common rules.

The only discussion should really be if gays should be a protected class, not if protected classes exist. It's unavoidable to have a fair and functioning society without protected classes-- history should be your guide there.

If they want to argue gays shouldn't be a protected class, that's not an argument they can really win at this point in time.

11/12/2014 1:02:08 AM

Quote :

"Collin Dewberry says he and his partner had just paid their check when their waitress approached them on the way out. “And that’s when she said to us… ‘to put it plainly, we don’t serve fags here’.”"

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/controversial-texas-restaurant-becoming-a-highly-rated-gay-bar/

11/12/2014 3:33:20 AM

Quote :

". And, in reality, it does work, but not when you have laws enforcing those arrangements. To ignore those laws and then say "but the market didn't work" is the height of dishonesty."

huh? Did you just say that the Civil Rights Act was not necessary?

11/12/2014 8:35:09 AM

Quote :

"I wouldn't hang up such a sign, because I'm not a racist asshole. And, in reality, it does work, but not when you have laws enforcing those arrangements. To ignore those laws and then say "but the market didn't work" is the height of dishonesty. Having said that, I have no problem with laws that place restrictions on companies and businesses that want to do business with the gov't. You're a bank, and you want to be FDIC insured? Well, you better make mortgages to black people, too. You want to be eligible for gov't contracts? You better be an equal opportunity employer."

You ever, uh, read a history book?

11/12/2014 8:44:51 AM

aaronburro, is your argument that, if allowed, restaurants would not make a blanket policy that black people aren't allowed at their lunch counters, or that they would, and that we should allow it?

11/12/2014 9:23:52 AM

Quote :

"That's because you don't see that there is also an issue regarding Freedom of Religion. And, since no one has a right to the services of another person (nor should they), there is only one right at play here, and we should honor that right while at the same time making fun of the dummy who doesn't like gay people."

There is no Freedom of Religion issue. Freedom of Religion only goes so far, if you have a religion that involves human sacrifice, beating women, owning slaves, not serving particular faiths if you own a business, etc then other laws trump it. It's not a hard concept. If you own a business, then you must comply with anti-discrimination laws

[Edited on November 12, 2014 at 5:32 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2014 5:32:28 PM

Equating human sacrifice with saying "I don't want to engage in or endorse what I see as sinful behaviour because it's against my religious beliefs" is so different that it's almost insulting to even bring up the analogy. Moreover, every thing you listed involved infringing on someone else's personal rights. Given that you DON'T have a right to the product of another person's labour, as I've already stated and you purposefully ignored, there is no conflict of rights here.

Quote :

"You ever, uh, read a history book?"

Yes. I saw the LAWS written by communities that enforced segregation. What's your point?

Quote :

"aaronburro, is your argument that, if allowed, restaurants would not make a blanket policy that black people aren't allowed at their lunch counters, or that they would, and that we should allow it?"

Some would, some wouldn't. And yes, we should allow it. Freedom of association means nothing if you have forced association. Moreover, if a business wants to be stupid and exclude customers, then let it, and let it die as other, non-discriminating business, laugh all the way to the bank. However, like I said earlier, I'm also fine with the gov't making non-discrimination a requirement in order to receive gov't contracts or other gov't benefits or participation in gov't programs. You allow people to be racist, bigoted assholes, but they are then at a competitive disadvantage for doing so. I would also be in favour of a business having to put a "BIGOT" sign on their establishment if it wants to discriminate. Let's put these fools out in the public square, where they can be- rightly ridiculed.

11/12/2014 9:28:30 PM

So let me get this straight, you think the Federal Civil Rights Act should be repealed?

11/12/2014 10:56:33 PM

Too many cooks, too many cooks...

11/12/2014 11:02:37 PM

Quote :

" Moreover, if a business wants to be stupid and exclude customers"

That's easy to say when you're not a class likely to be excluded.

The fact is that gays pay their taxes like anyone else, they're productive members of society. They shouldn't have to watch where they go lest they end up at the wrong business, because in your fantasy-land society, discrimination is just something people just brush off. They're entitled to the same life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as any straight person, which includes being able to move around society freely.

Businesses that serve the public should be open to all members of the public equally, people shouldn't have to look up beforehand if they're going to be welcome at a business their friends and neighbors freely go to. This is how a just and fair society works.

11/12/2014 11:20:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't want to engage in or endorse what I see as sinful behaviour because it's against my religious beliefs"

Interesting, do you discriminate against all sinners, who just those whom you find most icky?

11/13/2014 8:40:30 AM

you are arguing with a guy who wants to repeal the civil rights act (and may even think it's essentially immoral?)

11/13/2014 8:57:12 AM

whole lotta sin going on in the world on a daily basis

it's amazing that some are even able to leave their homes

they're so brave to face their fear of endorsing whatever sin they chose to be afraid of

11/13/2014 9:31:46 AM

Something tells me if we were talking about muslims wanting to shirk our laws and societal ideals, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

11/13/2014 11:03:16 AM

Quote :

"Something tells me if we were talking about muslims wanting to shirk our laws and societal ideals, we wouldn't even be having this discussion."

I think it largely depends. Like most things, this is something of a continuum. Government employees doing government jobs, absolutely, they have to suck it up or find another job. But private individuals doing business with other private individuals? Why should they have to compromise their religious views. If a bunch of Muslims owned a farm and rented the property out to weddings, would it really be unreasonable for them to refuse rentals to people having pork or alcohol at their receptions (assuming the reception was held on site)? Or to refuse to allow marriage ceremonies that didn't comply with Islamic faith? I personally don't think it is. Likewise, I wouldn't expect a Catholic church to host (or allow to be hosted) a Jewish or Muslim or even a Baptist wedding and I likewise wouldn't expect a rabbi to officiate a Catholic ceremony, even if he's listed in the phone book as Rabbi John the Wedding Officiator And Elvis Impersonator, LLC. I also agree with aaronburro in that I have no issue with requiring these businesses to prominently list their biases up front.

11/13/2014 4:18:33 PM

so many things wrong with that

11/13/2014 5:11:11 PM

Quote :

"If you are a gay soccer fan and love the World Cup, watching at home on TV would be highly recommended over traveling to Qatar, where gay sex is illegal. Comments by the country's sports minister to the Associated Press did little to calm the sense that gays aren't welcome. Asked how gay people will be welcomed in 2022, Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali replied: "It's exactly like the alcohol question.""

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/gays-should-avoid-2022-world-cup-in-qatar/ar-BBdsmsS?ocid=HPCDHP

Drinking and being gay, 2 peas in a pod, if there ever were one.

11/13/2014 7:35:18 PM

Quote :

"so many things wrong with that"

Such as ...

11/13/2014 8:02:37 PM

Wanting to eat pork isn't a protected class for one.

[Edited on November 13, 2014 at 8:07 PM. Reason : a]

11/13/2014 8:07:34 PM

No one's been murdered for wanting to eat pork, kids don't get bullied for wanting to eat pork, pork-eaters haven't been known to commit suicide because or persecution for their love of pork, there aren't hurtful slurs used against people who enjoy the occasional pork chop, there aren't religious-based discriminatory laws on the books against people who like pork, you can still access a non-pork property by just not dealing in pork.

The pork/alcohol thing is not really a comparable situation at all. If the muslims were saying no christians were allowed, that would be almost the same thing as a christian saying no gays are allowed.

11/13/2014 8:15:08 PM

and that's just one problem with that post

11/13/2014 8:21:54 PM

Quote :

"Wanting to eat pork isn't a protected class for one."

Considering I'm essentially arguing that there shouldn't be "protected classes", that's hardly an argument for something being wrong with what I said. That's like me arguing that pot smoking should be legal and you saying my post is wrong because possessing pot is a crime.

Quote :

"The pork/alcohol thing is not really a comparable situation at all. If the muslims were saying no christians were allowed, that would be almost the same thing as a christian saying no gays are allowed. "

I'm pretty sure I said that should be cool as well...

"Or to refuse to allow marriage ceremonies that didn't comply with Islamic faith? I personally don't think it is. Likewise, I wouldn't expect a Catholic church to host (or allow to be hosted) a Jewish or Muslim or even a Baptist wedding and I likewise wouldn't expect a rabbi to officiate a Catholic ceremony, even if he's listed in the phone book as Rabbi John the Wedding Officiator And Elvis Impersonator, LLC."

... yep I did.

So again, what's wrong with what I said.

11/13/2014 9:56:57 PM

I have zero issues with non-profits being as discriminatory as they want (which they basically are). Churches are non-profits, so lets drop the 'Well, what if a church is forced to do a marriage> here" argument, because it's not the case.

A business that provides a service cannot discriminate. A non-profit can discriminate. How is this hard a concept?

Burro seems intent on the idea of 'well, another business could just open if a business was being discriminatory" like it's no big deal. Imagine you're gay/black/muslim/atheist/whatever the fuck riding through bumfuck Texas and your car breaks down and there is literally only repair station within 200 miles (This is pretty easily possible in West Texas) and the guy comes up to your car, sees an Equality/Darwin/whatever bumper sticker or sees that you're black "Nah boss, I only fix white christian people's cars" and leaves you there. You think a new car repair place is going to magically sprout up?

11/13/2014 10:27:43 PM

Quote :

"Such as ..."

Quote :

"I also agree with aaronburro"

[Edited on November 14, 2014 at 12:22 AM. Reason : ]

11/14/2014 12:21:57 AM

Quote :

"I have zero issues with non-profits being as discriminatory as they want (which they basically are). Churches are non-profits, so lets drop the 'Well, what if a church is forced to do a marriage> here" argument, because it's not the case. A business that provides a service cannot discriminate. A non-profit can discriminate. How is this hard a concept? "

While I understand the idea you're aiming for, the reality of non-profits in the US makes this a laughable statement. As it stands, you would force the couple with a farm that they rent out from time to time to violate their religious convictions or a baker to do the same, but you'd be just cool with the NFL deciding that they'll from now on only hire black muslim heterosexuals. You would allow various Blue Cross Blue Shield organizations to refuse to insure muslims and you would allow certain hospitals to turn away all non christians. Non profit status is not a good delimiter here.

Quote :

"Imagine you're gay/black/muslim/atheist/whatever the fuck riding through bumfuck Texas and your car breaks down and there is literally only repair station within 200 miles (This is pretty easily possible in West Texas) and the guy comes up to your car, sees an Equality/Darwin/whatever bumper sticker or sees that you're black "Nah boss, I only fix white christian people's cars" and leaves you there. You think a new car repair place is going to magically sprout up?"

As a practical matter, I am not entirely unaware of the need for certain services to need to be non-discriminatory even if they are private services. I absolutely see a valid argument to require that emergency services like ambulance companies and emergency rooms be discrimination free. But I feel like there is a very wide middle ground between "the only ER for 100 miles will turn you away for being darker than a paper bag" and "every one who makes a living doing something must serve everyone who comes knocking, regardless of their beliefs or preferences." In other words, an ER is a vital service which could mean the very difference between life and death. Renting a farm for a wedding or getting a wedding cake made is not. I would like to think a "compelling state interest" test would be used, but I'm afraid these days "compelling state interest" tends to translate to "politically preferable".

So yes, I agree, even with my particular stance on the issue that there are cases where intervention may otherwise be necessary, but I also think that we can scale it back from where it is now and that non-profit status is not the delimiter to use.

11/14/2014 12:50:08 AM

so 2 people in this thread want to get rid of the civil rights act

11/14/2014 8:07:22 AM

If you can't force a business to sell a cake to a gay couple, then you also set the precedent for that business not being able to sell to an interracial couple, or Muslim couple. At tat point like dtownral said, you're pretty much pooping on the Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act sets up protected classes, so the argument is for sexual orientation being a protected class along with race and gender.

11/14/2014 8:37:18 AM

^ exactly. The Protection of blacks, gays, and women, and religious minorities were very hard fought civil rights battles, drenched in blood. The civil rights laws tend to be reactive in nature, these protections for gays aren't arbitrary, they're in response to real problems. The suggestion that it's a slippery slope is nonsense when you consider the history of these battles. The government isn't prescribing a behavior, it's not like Saudi Arabia or Iran, the government is protecting large classes of citizens from a history of broad attacks and discrimination.

The goal is to end the discrimination in the public consciousness so that ornery laws and bureaucracy aren't needed in the future. When we start to enumerate granular subgroups of who can discriminate and when and where, that's when you get senseless lawsuits and arguments, and it becomes Self defeating.

I would argue that it was the attempt over the decades to create a rat's nest of racial discrimination laws that has lead us to the situation today where White males ludicrously view themselves as the most discriminated Group. If our government had tries to keep things simple as possible, maintain that racial prejudice is wrong, both black and white Americans would be further and I think. Instead, we attempted to prescribe very specific things by law, which can be complicated.

We have a chance to avoid this situation when it comes to gay rights, and we should take it. Future generations will thank Us.

11/14/2014 3:57:12 PM

But muslims and gays are why there are no middle class jobs and my English major son has to work at Starbucks.

11/14/2014 5:06:27 PM

http://www.theonion.com/articles/school-district-strikes-all-religious-holidays-fro,37453/

11/14/2014 5:15:09 PM

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-gay-straw-men-march-on-washington-for-righ,37619/

12/8/2014 6:22:16 PM