The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

I don't think God cares if a person is gay or lesbian.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Besides the religous or legal issues, if a business decides to not let gay people in their business it will take a large chunck out of their business, so if they want to do that, go for it.

 

[verbster]

Besides the religous or legal issues, if a business decides to not let gay people in their business it will take a large chunck out of their business, so if they want to do that, go for it.

This isn't about money.

 

[GILSAN]

Furious customer sends complaint to Trading Standards after being turned down by prostitute at brothel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ding-Standards-turned-prostitute-brothel.html

So, does this hooker have the right to say NO to a customer?

I believe she DOES have the right to say NO. What do you think?

 

[verbster]

I think you are finding out you can't lump separate events together or have one solution be appropriate for all unconnected events.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"This isn't about money."
--" a controversial bill that would allow business owners"--
Well it is about business and business is normaly about money. It is not about a choice that you make at home. A business is not "public" property therefore I dont see a problem with the law. If I had a business I would invite gay people just as I would any other, but that would be my choice.

 

[JB Lions]

"This isn't about money."
--" a controversial bill that would allow business owners"--
Well it is about business and business is normaly about money. It is not about a choice that you make at home. A business is not "public" property therefore I dont see a problem with the law. If I had a business I would invite gay people just as I would any other, but that would be my choice.

The bill is being pushed by "the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage."

It's just good old fashioned discrimination trying to hide behind religion/freedom, some other code words. And I'm pretty sure the roads and other services used by these businesses are paid with by taxes, from gay and straight people.

For this to happen in 2014 is pretty pathetic but not unexpected from a state like Arizona and it's past with the Martin Luther King holiday.

I don't think it will be signed into law because of all the pressure, from most Republicans as well, plus the financial hit the state will take. It just makes the state look backwards.

 

[RaiderGirl]

.. kiss the Presidents ass and agree with everything he does?

As far as the left is concerned YES, or you can disagree and be labeled a racist

 

[JB Lions]

Just saw this just now, it's the same knucklehead mentality:

"Washington lobbyist wants to ban gay athletes from NFL"

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/washington-lobbyist-wants-to-ban-gay-athletes-from-nfl-022514

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...an-indecent-proposal-for-gays-in-the-nfl.html

It's these Conservative/Religious groups/types that really are living in some other era. The fear/hate/prejudice is really ridiculous. Probably just a PR stunt but plenty of people feel that way.

 

[GILSAN]

People should have the right to say NO to having to photograph a gay wedding, or to say NO to make a cake for a gay couple, without having to worry about having a lawsuit filed against them, and subsequently having their business destroyed, as has happened recently in the US.

Just like that hooker, (post #2044) also has the right to say NO to a client for whatever reason.

Now, if that photographer refused to sell a flash card or a battery or any item that was on the shelf to the gay couple, then YES that would be discrimination.

Or if that Baker refused to sell anything that was on the shelf, that would be discrimination.

Why should a doctor be forced to make an abortion if it's against his conscious beliefs?

 

[JB Lions]

Vetoed as expected - http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/

 

[Theo Goodman]

I think the road to your house is public, does that mean that the central goverment authority can tell you what and what you cant do at home? Even though I think people should have the right to decide stuff like this at the businesses that they own, it looks like the main force behind this bill was in fact just plain anti-gay hysteria. I think it that it is a shame that it got vetoed, it would be better for people that hate gays to just come out of the closet and let us know, then we can decide if we want to do business with them or not.
In the end though, it is about freedom. What about this:

would you support the government legally compelling black business owners to serve Klansmen? Yes or no?

So what is your answer `??

 

[GILSAN]

So now it's OK that a Photographer or a Baker or someone who refuses to provide a service to a Gay couple can be sued and have their businesses destroyed.

How about if a straight person gets refused entry into a Gay Bar (which apparently happens fairly frequently) would it be OK to sue the Gay Bar.

My opinion is NO they shouldn't be able to sue, because if gays feel better amongst themselves and don't want straights in the bar, then I'm OK with it and can even understand their position.

The same principle should apply to a photographer who refuses a service to a Gay couple then gets sued, which I find ridiculous and has simply gone too far.

I wouldn't be surprised that this Bill was brought up because of what happened to the New Mexico Photographer and the Colorado Baker who refused service to gay Couples.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/co...grapher-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/

 

[verbster]

When trying to formulate a simple answer for what is presented as a simple yes-or-no question, I found myself going back to what principles the USA was founded on (you know, that all men are created equal, equal opportunity, liberty, civil rights, democracy, etc.) and found that I had to go back even further to scientific and religious accounts of humanity. Then I had to bring it all forward and compare it to where we now stand in the whole picture, and realized this is where history is made and ends each minute. That our discourse is a little, but important, clog in the history making machine, like extras making up the crowd in a movie, but fate would have it that Arizona Governor Brewer will has the starring role and will be credited as the person who played a pivotal role in our history of civil rights . . . proving, if nothing else, that history has a sense of humor.

 

[JB Lions]

So now it's OK that a Photographer or a Baker or someone who refuses to provide a service to a Gay couple can be sued and have their businesses destroyed.

How about if a straight person gets refused entry into a Gay Bar (which apparently happens fairly frequently) would it be OK to sue the Gay Bar.

My opinion is NO they shouldn't be able to sue, because if gays feel better amongst themselves and don't want straights in the bar, then I'm OK with it and can even understand their position.

The same principle should apply to a photographer who refuses a service to a Gay couple then gets sued, which I find ridiculous and has simply gone too far.

I wouldn't be surprised that this Bill was brought up because of what happened to the New Mexico Photographer and the Colorado Baker who refused service to gay Couples.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/co...grapher-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/

Do you have any examples of them refusing service to couples that had sex before they got married? Or divorced? Or ate one of the banned bible foods? Facial hair not up to bible standards? Maybe they inked their skin in the wrong way? What if it was back in the day and it was a black and white couple, ok then? Why is always about gay? It's because people using religion as a cover for their prejudices, to discriminate.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Would you support the government legally compelling black business owners to serve Klansmen? Since the road to their business is public and they have used a public service in their lifetime and science has proved that klansmembers are part of humanity and covered under the principles the USA was founded on ,you know like all men are created equal, not to mention they are also tax payers. Should ANYONE be allowed to deny them service? Yes or no?

 

[ImageAuthors]

Would you support the government legally compelling black business owners to serve Klansmen? Since the road to their business is public and they have used a public service in their lifetime and science has proved that klansmembers are part of humanity and covered under the principles the USA was founded on ,you know like all men are created equal, not to mention they are also tax payers. Should ANYONE be allowed to deny them service? Yes or no?

I can understand the arguments for allowing private citizens to discriminate against other people. Forcing people not to discriminate in their private lives or privately owned businesses is a slippery slope that could lead to coercion in all sorts of areas, diminishing free speech. I understand that argument.

However, it's silly to equate Klansmen (who have historically murdered black people) with homosexuals ... as if the latter posed some sort of violent threat when they're just going about their lives!

 

[DU]

How about if a straight person gets refused entry into a Gay Bar (which apparently happens fairly frequently) would it be OK to sue the Gay Bar.

If that gay bar is advertised as public and commercial enterprise then yes; however, the person that does this will be need to find a lawyer who is willing to spend time to get access to said bar and be willing to be publicly known. In winning he will have the right to go to a bar where he will be allowed entry, served in an environment where the patrons will all hate him. Sounds worth it to win a moral victory to get entry somewhere you don't want to be in the first place.

Same is true for a male escort. If some closet case really wants to have a night with a man (money is exchange for time and company only) and feels discriminated against for being straight? Then yes, he can sue for the privilege of a night of satisfying mutual fun.

I've never been refused entry when I've been with men or women (or both). Maybe you should just be more polite if you want to get in?

My opinion is NO they shouldn't be able to sue, because if gays feel better amongst themselves and don't want straights in the bar, then I'm OK with it and can even understand their position.

Generally speaking, that's why places like "Women Only" gyms can get away with it. What man wants to go to a gym with equipment designed for women? With mostly women? You look like an idiot for challenging. Where challenged - states have held that women only gyms are not legal. I think Alaska may be an exception if I recall.

Also, often, it's not a gay or heterosexual distinction. A lot of gay male bars don't want lesbians. Why? Because gay men are still men.

I think the road to your house is public, does that mean that the central goverment authority can tell you what and what you cant do at home?

Yes they can tell you what you can and can't do at home. It's not an anarchy, yet. You can't build a meth lab, you can't rape children amongst other things. I'm not sure I understand the logic of this argument - I don't see how this is related in any way - we can extend the slippery slope argument to everything.

There are things they should control and their are things they shouldn't. They can't (shouldn't) tell me who or what I do in my home if it's not damaging to society at large.

I think it that it is a shame that it got vetoed, it would be better for people that hate gays to just come out of the closet and let us know, then we can decide if we want to do business with them or not.

I think they will still let it be known. You know as well as I do that if you went to a business and the owner said he hated gays/blacks/whites/baldies/women or whatever group you belonged to you'd likely walk. I don't think any law says you can't tell the customer your views as long as it doesn't include actual discrimination of service.

would you support the government legally compelling black business owners to serve Klansmen? Yes or no?

Yes. Being a member of the clan is not enough and they are legally compelled. If the behaviour was typically KKK towards the black owner (rude, threatening, offending or scaring other customers etc.) then yes, service could be refused on those grounds but there has to be a "reason". You can refuse entry for those without shirts and shoes.... not sure about no sheets.

Being in the KKK is not a protected class in most states so there is no legal case for discrimination in the same way that there is for sexual orientation, gender, etc.

 

[Theo Goodman]

However, it's silly to equate Klansmen (who have historically murdered black people) with homosexuals ... as if the latter posed some sort of violent threat when they're just going about their lives!

I didnt the word gay is nowhere to be found in the comparsion.

Yes they can tell you what you can and can't do at home. It's not an anarchy, yet. You can't build a meth lab, you can't rape children amongst other things. Not that I understand at all what your point is - you twist things up so far it's hard to follow your logic (is there any) sometimes.

The question is , Where is the line? What direction is this going? AND Does it help anyone? Passing such a law is not going to prevent descrimination, in fact it will be counterproductive imho. Thanks a lot for the personal attack it has really added to your argument.

I think they will still let it be known. You know as well as I do that if you went to a business and the owner said he hated gays/blacks/whites/baldies/women or whatever group you belonged to you'd likely walk. I don't think any law says you can't tell the customer your views as long as it doesn't include actual discrimination of service.

Technicaly yes. Practicaly "telling your views" could be interperted as denial of service,by the customer and perhaps the law.

Yes. Being a member of the clan is not enough and they are legally compelled. If the behaviour was typically KKK towards the black owner (rude, threatening, offending or scaring other customers etc.) then yes, service could be refused on those grounds but there has to be a "reason". You can refuse entry for those without shirts and shoes.... not sure about no sheets.

Being in the KKK is not a protected class in most states so there is no legal case for discrimination in the same way that there is for sexual orientation, gender, etc.

ok, entering a business and letting it be known that I am a member of the KKK ie. t-shirt, handing out of a business card, or sheets. No physical action, no word spoken. Then they should get service under that logic. Would depend on what is in interperted as "threating" , who should be able to interpert that? If you are in my business must I call the cops and ask if this action is threating enough? (wearing a KKK t-shirt for example) or should I as the owner of the business be able to deny service and kick this person out?

Being in the KKK is not a protected class in most states so there is no legal case for discrimination in the same way that there is for sexual orientation, gender, etc.

Then replace

"KKK"

with a

"protected class"

 

[DU]

The question is , Where is the line? What direction is this going? AND Does it help anyone? Passing such a law is not going to prevent descrimination, in fact it will be counterproductive imho. Thanks a lot for the personal attack it has really added to your argument.

I'm not sure what side you are on. On the one hand you are worried about what direction this is going and saying that this won't prevent discrimination. Then you are questioning whether a KKK member should get served as if you are pro the law.

I apologize. It wasn't intended as a personal attack, per se, it's just that sometimes it's hard to see the line from A to B making it difficult to follow. Ill temper the words in the prior post.

Technicaly yes. Practicaly "telling your views" could be interperted as denial of service,by the customer and perhaps the law.
ok, entering a business and letting it be known that I am a member of the KKK ie. t-shirt, handing out of a business card, or sheets. No physical action, no word spoken. Then they should get service under that logic. Would depend on what is in interperted as "threating" , who should be able to interpert that? If you are in my business must I call the cops and ask if this action is threating enough? (wearing a KKK t-shirt for example) or should I as the owner of the business be able to deny service and kick this person out?
Then replacewith a

I don't know the answer to this - we're into contrived and theoretical land where we are deliberately creating a scenario that skirts a grey issue.

But.. you cannot solicit business within my business so I reserve the right to not serve you. My customers have a right to their own privacy. If the KKK member does not respond to kind words then you call the police. They do not have the right to harass other patrons. Now - this means that you can't allow insurance agents, lawyers to walk in giving out cards either (which most places don't do). Advertising walls? That's free for posting business cards - people can choose to ignore/take them down.

Technically you don't have the right to physically throw anyone out either. You can ask them to leave and then call the law to help if needed. If the police are all also KKK members and don't help? I suggest you try somehow to live somewhere less white if that's possible.

Wearing a shirt? It depends. If your cafe has a policy on dress that is applied that is non-disciminatory then you can refuse service. No t-shirts etc. if you allow t-shirts in general? then that's not enough that you disagree with the t-shirt.

Again - it's based on discrimination. If the treatment of the customer is based on that then it is illegal. If it's based on a valid reason / concern then it is not.

It could very well be that serving food, taking photos, or baking a cake for a KKK member and doing a good job may actually start a conversation where things change? In reality, the last thing that the KKK member would expect would be to be treated respectfully - perhaps that would be the worst thing you could do in their mind