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, 12:43 PM
  #76  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 1,111
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
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?
Thank you. I'm not sure why anyone should have to defend something that they didn't say or express any opinion about. Personally I don't think the shop owner was right to throw them out, unless they were distributing something in his store or causing a disturbance. In either of those cases, I believe asking them to leave would have been appropriate. Just to be clear, neither has anything whatsoever to do with their views, only their behavior as a customer of his establishment.
JasonX is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 12:52 PM
  #77  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
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.
No, I don't think the clerk should have issued it. I think she should have resigned, just as the baker stopped making wedding cakes. At the same time, I think that she had just as much right to engaget in civil disobedience as other citizens who were jailed for disobeying the law...and who are lionized for doing do.

What you have identified is at the crux of the religious freedom argument. You're okay with people having religious beliefs as long as they stay in "that world." You are not allowing for those who say that their "religious world" goes with them 24-7...just ad your convictions do.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 12:57 PM
  #78  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Yep, you're right. I shouldn't have risen to the bait. #lessonlearned
I agree that you should sharpen your debating skills before continuing. You appear to have run out of arguments.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:00 PM
  #79  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 18,355
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
Thank you. I'm not sure why anyone should have to defend something that they didn't say or express any opinion about.
I'm with you, but I'll counter this with one and only one example: Debate clubs. In those scenarios, the point is to put someone in the position of vehemently defending an argument that they specifically do not agree with. In that case, sure, it's intellectually honest to say, "Okay, but how would someone arrive at that conclusion?"
But here, in a forum, where people mostly only express their own opinions? No. It's silly. You didn't say it. No one here said it. So why should you be forced to spend time and effort defending it to help prove some point that the other person is trying to make? It's absurd.


Personally I don't think the shop owner was right to throw them out, unless they were distributing something in his store or causing a disturbance. In either of those cases, I believe asking them to leave would have been appropriate. Just to be clear, neither has anything whatsoever to do with their views, only their behavior as a customer of his establishment.
Agreed. IF I were to defend the owner I would say something like:
The anti-choice activists were assembling on the street or sidewalk.
The anti-choice activists went into the coffee shop.
The anti-choice activists sat at a table.
The anti-choice activists said they were taking a break.

These are known facts. Then I would ask:

Did the anti-choice activists have their hand-outs in plain view?
If YES, then they were still assembling and were inside a privately owned public business which has the right to kick them out because they were not on a break, and assembling without a permit.
If NO, then this was not a legitimate reason to kick them out.

Did the anti-choice activists leave any copies of their hand-outs in the shop prior to sitting down?
If YES, then they were still assembling and were inside a privately owned public business which has the right to kick them out, and assembling without a permit.
If NO, then this was not a legitimate reason to kick them out.

Did the anti-choice activists spread their message verbally to anyone else in the shop?
If YES, then they were still assembling and were inside a privately owned public business which has the right to kick them out because they were not on a break, and assembling without a permit.
If NO, then this was not a legitimate reason to kick them out.

To be clear, it sounds like the answer to those three questions was NO, so therefore, there was not a legitimate reason to kick them out. (barring any other questions that legitimately change the outcome)

But if the answer is YES, then:
When do I need a permit?

Whether you're marching on city hall, holding a candlelight vigil, or rallying outside the statehouse or a private business, you should check your local permit ordinance before you put on your marching shoes and pull out the megaphone.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:08 PM
  #80  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
Thank you. I'm not sure why anyone should have to defend something that they didn't say or express any opinion about. Personally I don't think the shop owner was right to throw them out, unless they were distributing something in his store or causing a disturbance. In either of those cases, I believe asking them to leave would have been appropriate. Just to be clear, neither has anything whatsoever to do with their views, only their behavior as a customer of his establishment.
Actually, you used those very words in Post #66..."faux religious zealotry"..., so I don't know why you'd deny that.

I asked how supporting the right of the owner to throw out Christian pro-lifers indicates "faux religious zealotry." If you're going to apply labels to views, at least attempt to logically back them up.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:08 PM
  #81  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 29,825
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I agree that you should sharpen your debating skills before continuing. You appear to have run out of arguments.
Find me a worthy opponent and I'll be happy to jump back in!
Draven is online now  
Old 10-10-17, 01:11 PM
  #82  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,645
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I agree that you should sharpen your debating skills before continuing. You appear to have run out of arguments.
That's rich coming from the guy whose one argument amounts to "because I'm right and you're wrong."
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:13 PM
  #83  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by inri222 View Post
Rejecting Jesus as the messiah is good enough for many, but they won't admit it.
And any skeptics about that always can rely upon your daily memes as absolute proof.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:15 PM
  #84  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Find me a worthy opponent and I'll be happy to jump back in!
Evidently your ignore function is on the blink, Draven. Seems to be a common occurrence.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:18 PM
  #85  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 18,355
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

JasonX did not say supporting the right of the owner to throw out anti-choicers indicates "faux religious zealotry." He applied that term to one way in which someone might come to that conclusion, but there was no indication that he was suggesting that that is the only way one might come to that conclusion.

You know. Logically.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:19 PM
  #86  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,645
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Dan: As far as I've been able to find on the Seattle coffee shop story, the people who were sitting in the coffee shop weren't distributing literature in the shop, but had been doing so outside. I'm not sure how the shopkeeper learned this, but he was offended by the pamphlet they were hawking and that's what started this. I've also heard that their presence in the shop was deliberate, to antagonize him, but that's hearsay. Regardless, if they weren't being loud or disruptive (like preaching to people) or attempting to hand out pamphlets in the shop, I think he was wrong to ask them to leave, particularly in the way he did, because it just stokes their persecution complex.
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:20 PM
  #87  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,645
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

PS: If they'd been raised in the church I was raised in, and they were very observant, they wouldn't be drinking coffee in the first place. Joseph Smith wouldn't approve.
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:21 PM
  #88  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 29,825
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Evidently your ignore function is on the blink, Draven. Seems to be a common occurrence.
Nope, no need to ignore anyone here. Still waiting for a skilled debater to join the conversation. Know any?
Draven is online now  
Old 10-10-17, 01:22 PM
  #89  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 18,355
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Vibiana View Post
Dan: As far as I've been able to find on the Seattle coffee shop story, the people who were sitting in the coffee shop weren't distributing literature in the shop, but had been doing so outside. I'm not sure how the shopkeeper learned this, but he was offended by the pamphlet they were hawking and that's what started this. I've also heard that their presence in the shop was deliberate, to antagonize him, but that's hearsay. Regardless, if they weren't being loud or disruptive (like preaching to people) or attempting to hand out pamphlets in the shop, I think he was wrong to ask them to leave, particularly in the way he did, because it just stokes their persecution complex.
Oh, I 100% agree. I was just showing how one could come to a different conclusion if the facts were different than what we know them to be.

I think he was wrong to ask them to leave, particularly in the way he did
More than anything, the left needs more

Last edited by Dan; 10-10-17 at 01:31 PM.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:23 PM
  #90  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,645
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

With regard to the OP's link ...

Firing someone because they are LGBT is wrong. If a person has the skills and qualifications to do a job, whether he or she is straight, gay, bi, trans, six-toed, harelipped, left-handed, or a lover of various delicately aged cheeses and wines (as opposed to others) shouldn't enter into it, period.

However, one might pause to consider how the type of mindset being promoted by those who would monitor the bathroom visits and sex lives of consenting adults might further lead to them concluding that some of those adults aren't "worthy" of holding a job. Sad.
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:38 PM
  #91  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,632
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
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.
That is not correct and both fundamentally and factually wrong.

That would be like saying "two black guys got in a fight at the bar, so the manager threw them out. I guess its ok not to serve blacks".

Correlation is not causation.

Even listening to the owners rant, it had nothing to do with the color of their skin. And I think you know that.

Last edited by Sdallnct; 10-10-17 at 01:55 PM.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:45 PM
  #92  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,632
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Vibiana View Post
With regard to the OP's link ...

Firing someone because they are LGBT is wrong. If a person has the skills and qualifications to do a job, whether he or she is straight, gay, bi, trans, six-toed, harelipped, left-handed, or a lover of various delicately aged cheeses and wines (as opposed to others) shouldn't enter into it, period.

However, one might pause to consider how the type of mindset being promoted by those who would monitor the bathroom visits and sex lives of consenting adults might further lead to them concluding that some of those adults aren't "worthy" of holding a job. Sad.
Yup...and lets be clear, IMO I think it wrong on a personal/moral level. But I also think it should be wrong legally.

And your point is well made. It is why all current and former military leaders came running to defend the transgender soldiers that have served for decades in this country. Who have died for this country.

POTUS Pussygrabber is too much of a dick to understand what he said and wants to do and the impact it would have on morale in general. Not only was it wrong against transgender soldiers, it was wrong against cisgender soldiers as well.

Here is another "opinion piece" on permitting a business to fire people simply for being gay,

Consider this: The Department of Justice, unbidden, used the weight of the federal United States government to empower corporations to fire you if they don't like what you do and who you associate with while you're out of the office. That is not the act of a freedom-loving American government. That is a lawless act of an authoritarian, and it ought to chill you, gay or not. The Department of Justice, tasked with protecting the equal protection of all people, has jumped out of line to validate bosses who reach beyond its doors into the private conduct of adults regardless of whether that conduct is illegal or affects job performance.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...es-not-protect

Last edited by Sdallnct; 10-10-17 at 01:55 PM.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:56 PM
  #93  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Nope, no need to ignore anyone here. Still waiting for a skilled debater to join the conversation. Know any?
I certainly haven't encountered many from the opposing side here.

Actually, I've only encountered a handful who had even the slighest interest in considering other viewpoints.

C'est la vie.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 01:56 PM
  #94  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 1,111
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
JasonX did not say supporting the right of the owner to throw out anti-choicers indicates "faux religious zealotry." He applied that term to one way in which someone might come to that conclusion, but there was no indication that he was suggesting that that is the only way one might come to that conclusion.

You know. Logically.
Each time today I come back to this thread, I have to see if my head is screwed on straight, because I am not getting Creek's jumps in logic. Then I see Dan understanding what I actually wrote and wonder how any progress can be made through discussion here. When one "side" goes from point A to point B and the other "side" goes from point A to point 42, there is just no way to see eye to eye (or even the other perspective) on anything.
JasonX is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 02:09 PM
  #95  
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 not correct and both fundamentally and factually wrong.

That would be like saying "two black guys got in a fight at the bar, so the manager threw them out. I guess its ok not to serve blacks".

Correlation is not causation.

Even listening to the owners rant, it had nothing to do with the color of their skin. And I think you know that.
Of course, Sdall. You apparently failed to correlate that little add-on edit to the person to whom it was responding...a person who constantly interjects minorities into non-racial issues to "color" the discussion with loaded terms (and had just done so). It was a jab at the race-baiting by showing an example of evil "whites" being targets of discrimination...and to rebut in advance any claim that "you wouldn't say that if the victims were white." Well, think again...one more assumption shot down.

I thought the fact that the owner appears to be of the same race as his targets would be sufficient to catch the sarcasm.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 02:19 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,645
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I certainly haven't encountered many from the opposing side here.

Actually, I've only encountered a handful who had even the slighest interest in considering other viewpoints.

C'est la vie.
I've considered your viewpoint and rejected it. It's not like you haven't presented it often enough and it never changes.
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 02:19 PM
  #97  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
Each time today I come back to this thread, I have to see if my head is screwed on straight, because I am not getting Creek's jumps in logic. Then I see Dan understanding what I actually wrote and wonder how any progress can be made through discussion here. When one "side" goes from point A to point B and the other "side" goes from point A to point 42, there is just no way to see eye to eye (or even the other perspective) on anything.
I learned quite a while ago not to expect much (if any) progress from most frequent posters here. Realizing that saves a lot of frustration.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 02:20 PM
  #98  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

A long winded racist bigot. Just what I long to be...
Lt Ripley is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 02:20 PM
  #99  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 18,355
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by JasonX View Post
When one "side" goes from point A to point B and the other "side" goes from point A to point 42, there is just no way to see eye to eye (or even the other perspective) on anything.
This reminds me of a quote. It doesn't 100% apply here, but the general idea is the same:
"water boils at 24 spins per second" is not wrong, because it is not even wrong. Do you get this? I would be less inclined to be hostile if he was actually wrong, because that would mean he would at least be on topic, having some vague idea what he's talking about, which would indicate he would have made some attempt to educate himself on the topic of his interest and that's laudable. Then I could try to explain why he's wrong, and we could engage in a discussion, but he, and people like him, don't rise to the olympian heights of being wrong. They argue against fantasies, and they are doing so deliberately (because they can not but know what they haven't studied, and yet this doesn't deter them from pretending otherwise).
I fully admit that I've let emotion get the best of me a few times (and sometimes faux emotion to prove a point), but I've recently made a conscious effort to apply my arguments in more of an Ice Cold Motherfucker sort of way. But I don't want to reveal all of my secrets.*


* I have bots. Hundreds of them. This post was brought to you by bot. BLEEP BLOOP <-SARCASM, YOU DINGUSES

Last edited by Dan; 10-10-17 at 02:25 PM.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 02:33 PM
  #100  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 29,825
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I certainly haven't encountered many from the opposing side here.

Actually, I've only encountered a handful who had even the slighest interest in considering other viewpoints.

C'est la vie.
Your "viewpoint" is that people who you disapprove of should be discriminated against. I've considered it.
Draven is online now  

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.