Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Old 10-10-17, 09:30 AM
  #51  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Dude, that is not remotely on topic or what I asked for. Everyone here agrees a church can discriminate for any damn reason. Besides being faith based, it is church affiliation is disciminatory (the US will never force the Catholic Church to have women priests).

I'm asking if in public, if you are in 100% agreement that your baker friend can refuse to serve the Catholic person because they are Catholic? Which was the question. Are you in agreement that a for public business (not a church, not a club) should have the right to discriminate against someone based solely on their religion? That is a protection you now enjoy.
Answered in post #32. Slow down and actually read the responses.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:33 AM
  #52  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,918
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
How does a state "sponsor" a religion by allowing a private businesses to decide what services will be provided to which individual? ????

I taught in public "government" schools. All individuals were accepted. Private schools are allowed to be selective in whom they will serve.

That's the distinction. Public vs. Private.

DVDTalk allows for a variety of opinions to be expressed. Does that mean that the owners are endorsing every view?
That is now our definition of "public/private" for discrimination in our country works. Sorry.

You can think of churches and private clubs that can discriminate, but not a for public business (regardless if stock held, private, family owned, franchise, etc). And for very good reason.

If a baker makes wedding cakes does that mean he sponsors and supports every wedding?

Because not all religions have the same issues as yours does. So if they base a law on your religion (or lack of law) to discriminate, then they have sponsored that religion. They are saying that religion has more "weight" than others and carries more weight than non-religious people.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:34 AM
  #53  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Wait...is this a trick question? Are you really "what basis" that I'm not gay? Umm because I'm not? (not that there is anything wrong with that )

I'll admit maybe I misunderstood your "relationship" question. But damn...that is weird.
Okay. Let's try again.

How do define "LGBTQ" (and I'm not needing what each individual letter stands for).
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:38 AM
  #54  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,522
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

For anybody actually interested in treating people like humans there is no need to define people beyond being humans. Doing otherwise is how we end up with blacks being considered less than 100% human, "No Jews served here" signs, gay marriage not being legal, and creeky's recent "separate but equal" proposal.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:39 AM
  #55  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,918
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Answered in post #32. Slow down and actually read the responses.
I did miss. My apologies.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Okay. Let's try again.

How do define "LGBTQ" (and I'm not needing what each individual letter stands for).
Any way that person wants it to be defined.

And with that, I'm out. Vibs is 100% right. The conversation gets really bogged down when someone has to ask "how do you know your hetrosexual".

There is so much going on with the rights of the LBGTQ. Id rather stick to that.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:41 AM
  #56  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,938
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

For what it's worth, even though LGBTQ is kind of the main go-to acronym, there are others who use LGBT, LGBTQ+, LGBTQA, LGBTQAA, LGBTQAA+, etc.
They all mean the same thing: Groups typically marginalized by the cisgender heterosexual majority, and those that support them. But here's a list I found.

Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender, Transsexual, Two-spirited
Queer, Questioning
Intersex
Asexual
Ally
+

Sdallnct is probably the second A. It's poor-form to call yourself that (or for other allies to call them that), especially in today's climate where more and more supposed "allies" are proving to be fucking scumbags. I'll leave it to the community itself to determine who the allies are. Not to mention, there are many, many LGB's that don't associate with or support T's. It's heartbreaking, honestly. Of the four core groups (LGB&T), T is probably the most marginalized and needs the most positive attention. Like any other group of different types of people, there's some infighting, and it sucks.

And someone can throw their hands up and say, "TOO MANY ACRONYMS! WHY CAN'T THEY JUST GET SHUT UP AND BE!" Well, that's easy to say when you haven't spent your entire life questioning or coming to terms with one of the most core aspects of being a human being (sexuality and identity) in a society where 90%+ people (likely including their own parents) never have to think twice about it. It's a way for them to identify each other and make connections that couldn't otherwise be made.

It's no surprise that many cisgender heterosexuals look upon the acronyms with scorn or misunderstanding. For them, it's an easy way to identify their targets. Such is the way things go... it always HAS to be about "us" the straight folks. "How dare you exclude us from your club! YOU CAN'T JOIN OURS! We have the power to shut you out."
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:41 AM
  #57  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
That is now our definition of "public/private" for discrimination in our country works. Sorry.

You can think of churches and private clubs that can discriminate, but not a for public business (regardless if stock held, private, family owned, franchise, etc). And for very good reason.

If a baker makes wedding cakes does that mean he sponsors and supports every wedding?

Because not all religions have the same issues as yours does. So if they base a law on your religion (or lack of law) to discriminate, then they have sponsored that religion. They are saying that religion has more "weight" than others and carries more weight than non-religious people.
Allowing something is not "sponsoring" it. That's just a silly notion.

Private businesses actually can discriminate against members of "the public" for any number of completely arbitrary reasons based solely upon the owner's preference.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:47 AM
  #58  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
I did miss. My apologies.



Any way that person wants it to be defined.

And with that, I'm out. Vibs is 100% right. The conversation gets really bogged down when someone has to ask "how do you know your hetrosexual".

There is so much going on with the rights of the LBGTQ. Id rather stick to that.
Well, you were the one arguing that the discrimination was based on who the person is without defining what that means. If the identity is based upon what the person does, that drastically alters the conversation. And explains why there's not a consistent outcry supporting other "rights" that are currently being denied.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:50 AM
  #59  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,522
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
And with that, I'm out. Vibs is 100% right. The conversation gets really bogged down when someone has to ask "how do you know your hetrosexual".
That's because people like him believe that sexuality is a choice and the gays can be cured treatments and/or drugs usually reserved for the extremely mentally ill.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:52 AM
  #60  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.



Starring:

God as Soviet Premier

Creekdipper as Ivan Drago
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 10:15 AM
  #61  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,336
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Thanks for clarifying. I'll be very specific.

I personally don't agree with a business having a blanket rule saying they won't provide any type of service to a member of any group, religious or not. I have consistently applied that principle in both public and private life.
Great, that's a perfect response!

I do agree that businesses should be able to be exempt from providing very specific services to anyone from any group if providing that service violates the owner's religious beliefs.
Uh oh. Less perfect. The convenience store will sell you a pack of gum but you aren't allowed to pump gas because there are two men in the car and a "Just Married" sign on the back window and you might be driving to your honeymoon, which the business owner cannot support?

And, although it goes against my personal principles, I think that private business owners should be able to refuse service for any reason...even if I find that reason repugnant and offensive. That's the distinction between public and private and part of being a free society.
That means you think private business owners can refuse to serve black people. Also in your example, a private business is...every business? What's a public business then?

I think the Seattle coffee shop owner should have the right to throw the Christian pro-life activists out of his establishment simply because he hates them and their views.
Draven is online now  
Old 10-10-17, 10:19 AM
  #62  
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
 
Adam Tyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 20,998
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
That means you think private business owners can refuse to serve black people. Also in your example, a private business is...every business? What's a public business then?
His "separate but equal" proposal involved government-owned/operated "businesses" providing basic goods/services that would be mandated to serve everyone.
Adam Tyner is online now  
Old 10-10-17, 10:25 AM
  #63  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,938
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Adam Tyner View Post
His "separate but equal" proposal involved government-owned/operated "businesses" providing basic goods/services that would be mandated to serve everyone.
Yeah, the idea being that there's two bakeries across the street from each other. One run by the government, one by a private citizen. The private citizen is free to discriminate however he sees fit because the government-run business cannot, so there are always two options for customers who want to buy baked goods, because they can choose not to support the discriminatory baker who... refuses to serve them.
So if the baker chooses not to discriminate against one group, THAT group can choose which business they support; the stuffy government-run red-tape communist shop, or the local business owner just trying to make a living.
Those that ARE discriminated against by the one shop? Go across the street (you commie, you)

It's the epitome of twisted logic and "I'm not a racist/homophobe/transphobe, but..."
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 10:44 AM
  #64  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Adam Tyner View Post
His "separate but equal" proposal involved government-owned/operated "businesses" providing basic goods/services that would be mandated to serve everyone.
That was only in the unlikely event that essential services were not available...which is the government social services system we have now.

Public businesses include all government-run agencies and institutions funded by taxpayers. It also includes essential public services regulated by the government (utilities, water, police, roads, fire dept., etc.).
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 10:49 AM
  #65  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
That means you think private business owners can refuse to serve black people.
That means that the business doesn't have to serve white people. Note that the Seattle pro-lifers all were "white."

And someone who has more tolerant views can seize the entreneurial opportunity and corner the market.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 10:57 AM
  #66  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 1,121
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
So, in other words, JasonX prefers an echo chamber that reinforces and reaffirms his beliefs to debating those beliefs with others?

Okay.
I want everyone to debate logically. If you consider that an echo chamber, then I am in full agreement that I want a logical echo chamber. Your argument of "these people don't deserve equal right/fair treatment because a book told me so" isn't logical, nor does it contain common human decency. By your same "logic" Jewish people don't deserve equal rights/fair treatment because Mein Kampf says they don't. You can argue that current law may not be sufficient to insure that people are treated fairly. You will never convince me that people deserve worse treatment because they choose to have sex with other consenting adults, regardless of who those other adults are. If you can put forth a logical arguments, please do so, keep your faux religious zealotry to your our echo chamber though.
JasonX is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:03 AM
  #67  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,938
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

I've tried to discuss arguments using a logical structure with creek before. That's right around the time he decided to stop responding to me directly. Hmm.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:08 AM
  #68  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
I want everyone to debate logically. If you consider that an echo chamber, then I am in full agreement that I want a logical echo chamber. Your argument of "these people don't deserve equal right/fair treatment because a book told me so" isn't logical, nor does it contain common human decency. By your same "logic" Jewish people don't deserve equal rights/fair treatment because Mein Kampf says they don't. You can argue that current law may not be sufficient to insure that people are treated fairly. You will never convince me that people deserve worse treatment because they choose to have sex with other consenting adults, regardless of who those other adults are. If you can put forth a logical arguments, please do so, keep your faux religious zealotry to your our echo chamber though.
Since you're so interested in logic, take a stab at explaining how saying that the Seattle coffee shop bigot should have the right to throw Christian pro-lifers out of his shop because their presence and views offend him is a demonstration of "religious zealotry," whether faux or no faux.

What you are making clear is that you want the right to dictate to others how they must think and act in their privately-owned and -operated establisments. If you want to do that. You should invest your own money, time, and effort and take the risks that will allow you to run your business as you see fit.

Last edited by creekdipper; 10-10-17 at 11:17 AM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:15 AM
  #69  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,938
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Why should JasonX "take a stab at" explaining an opinion he didn't even express (unless I missed it)? Who, other than the shop owner, outright said this?
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:17 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,522
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Did I miss something. Who here has defended this Seattle Coffee shop owner? All I've seen is people, including Vibianna, that agreed they shop owner was wrong.

Refusing to acknowledge that is troll behavior at it most obvious.

Last edited by hdnmickey; 10-10-17 at 11:33 AM.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:25 AM
  #71  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,918
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
That was only in the unlikely event that essential services were not available...which is the government social services system we have now.

Public businesses include all government-run agencies and institutions funded by taxpayers. It also includes essential public services regulated by the government (utilities, water, police, roads, fire dept., etc.).
Now that I'm surprised at. You are against the court clerk refusing to issue the marriage license to the gay couple? You feel since she worked for the government agency she should have issued it? Call me shocked.

But that does go to any earlier point. YOUR belief is YOURS. NOT HERS. How is yours "right" and hers "wrong".

I'm guessing you think my stance on all this is anti-religious and an attack on Religious Freedom. I actually am the opposite. I will strongly support the right of a religion/church to honor God (or whatever being they believe) in that "world" (for lack of a better term). And all should enjoy respect and equal protection.

But I think the SC Opinion I posted said it very well. (And I'm paraphrasing), when the devout CHOOSES to go into an area (such as a for public business) they should be required to play by the same rules as all in that area. Their individual, personal beliefs cannot be pushed to others nor give them an advantage over other businesses.

You noted that it would be silly for the Christian business person to argue against paying taxes. Yet I showed you a religion that did just that. You may not agree but that is the point. You don't have to, but the government should treat your religion and other religions exactly the same. It would be fundamentally unfair if the court ruled that the one particular religion business owner did not have to pay taxes, yet all other religion business owners as well as non-religion business owners did.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:25 AM
  #72  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Obvious troll is obvious.

There will never be a constructive discussion about LGBTQ+ rights on this forum while everyone is busy replying to creekdipper. His goal is to derail any conversation in this area. Put him on your ignore list and let’s everyone move on.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:29 AM
  #73  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,918
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by hdnmickey View Post
For anybody actually interested in treating people like humans there is no need to define people beyond being humans. Doing otherwise is how we end up with blacks being considered less than 100% human, "No Jews served here" signs, gay marriage not being legal, and creeky's recent "separate but equal" proposal.
Absolutely. And well said.

We shouldn't need equal protection laws. Every time I see a new city or state that adds these protections, I applaud. But also a little sad that it is needed.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:36 AM
  #74  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,336
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
Obvious troll is obvious.

There will never be a constructive discussion about LGBTQ+ rights on this forum while everyone is busy replying to creekdipper. His goal is to derail any conversation in this area. Put him on your ignore list and let’s everyone move on.
Yep, you're right. I shouldn't have risen to the bait. #lessonlearned
Draven is online now  
Old 10-10-17, 11:37 AM
  #75  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,363
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
...Jewish people don't deserve equal rights/fair treatment because Mein Kampf says they don't.
Rejecting Jesus as the messiah is good enough for many, but they won't admit it.
inri222 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.