General US Politics

[SullyMcGully]

11 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I really thought we were past this fundamentalist authoritarian view, and it's especially saddening since people often forget there is the religious left and center outside of the most-heard-about fundamentalist far-right religious views because they tend to be quieter, more peaceful and actually believe in secularism.

There's also a quiet and peaceful religious evangelical right. Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley are two of the most popular evangelical pastors in America, and they are anything but far-right fundamentalists.

[Tryhard]

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

There's also a quiet and peaceful religious evangelical right. Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley are two of the most popular evangelical pastors in America, and they are anything but far-right fundamentalists.

It's not so much that it isn't possible, it's that I wager it's these type of people like in the conference Trump went to that would ban homosexual activity, at the very least reverse the legalisation of gay marriage if they were to have unilateral power. The problem being that they believe telling people through politics and law what is acceptable and moral based on their religion - it's standard authoritarian behaviour.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Tryhard

[SullyMcGully]

2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

It's not so much that it isn't possible, it's that I wager it's these type of people like in the conference Trump went to that would ban homosexual activity, at the very least reverse the legalisation of gay marriage if they were to have unilateral power. The problem being that they believe telling people through politics and law what is acceptable and moral based on their religion - it's standard authoritarian behaviour.

I won't argue with that. However, a lot of people on the religious right are genuinely concerned that the homosexual lobby will push too far and begin to limit their religious expression. There are a lot of people who are fine with homosexuals living life their way, but are afraid that the government might eventually force them to do things that they find morally wrong (i.e. catering for gay weddings or hiring lesbian worship leaders). Just because someone takes a political stand that is religiously motivated doesn't make them inherently wrong. You have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. 

[Res]

Nobody is going to be forcing any church to hire lesbian worship leaders. And 'homosexual lobby'? 

As for businesses, that's really a whole separate, sticky topic. I think there's a lot of hypocrisy present and I also think there's potentially dangerous precedence being set for health-care related businesses (it's also another reason why I hate that healthcare is tied to employers in the U.S.)

But ultimately - the U.S. has a separation of church and state. So I do actually have an issue with any political stance that attempts to push a religion's moral issues onto the whole population. The same goes for religion in public schools. 

[Res]

Edit: double post, oops.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Res

[Lord Raven]

5 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

I won't argue with that. However, a lot of people on the religious right are genuinely concerned that the homosexual lobby will push too far and begin to limit their religious expression. There are a lot of people who are fine with homosexuals living life their way, but are afraid that the government might eventually force them to do things that they find morally wrong (i.e. catering for gay weddings or hiring lesbian worship leaders). Just because someone takes a political stand that is religiously motivated doesn't make them inherently wrong. You have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. 

these are similar arguments that gave people the power to not serve blacks

try again

[Sias]

9 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

There's also a quiet and peaceful religious evangelical right. Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley are two of the most popular evangelical pastors in America, and they are anything but far-right fundamentalists.

Isn't Joel Osteen the guy who refused to open his megachurch in order to shelter hurricane victims?

5 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

I won't argue with that. However, a lot of people on the religious right are genuinely concerned that the homosexual lobby will push too far and begin to limit their religious expression. There are a lot of people who are fine with homosexuals living life their way, but are afraid that the government might eventually force them to do things that they find morally wrong (i.e. catering for gay weddings or hiring lesbian worship leaders). Just because someone takes a political stand that is religiously motivated doesn't make them inherently wrong. You have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. 

Really, the evangelists may fear that their right of free religious expression may be infringed upon, but it rather sounds like they're unhappy because they aren't allowed to sexually discriminate people anymore. Also, don't you see the problems that would arise if we let people deny others goods and services just due to their religious beliefs?

Also, what @Res and @Lord Raven said.

[SullyMcGully]

2 hours ago, Res said:

Nobody is going to be forcing any church to hire lesbian worship leaders. And 'homosexual lobby'? 

As for businesses, that's really a whole separate, sticky topic. I think there's a lot of hypocrisy present and I also think there's potentially dangerous precedence being set for health-care related businesses (it's also another reason why I hate that healthcare is tied to employers in the U.S.)

But ultimately - the U.S. has a separation of church and state. So I do actually have an issue with any political stance that attempts to push a religion's moral issues onto the whole population. The same goes for religion in public schools. 

That was a hypothetical scenario which a lot of people think might be the case in the future. I'm not sure about it myself. "Homosexual lobby" refers to the groups that lobby for gay rights, such as the ACLU. Is this offensive or something? I don't know, but I'm sorry if it is.

I wasn't arguing that people should legislate religion, just that it is not wrong for someone to be motivated to make a political stand by religion. For instance, a Christian might feel that as a Christian, it is their duty to fight the death penalty. While their Christianity motivates them to do what they do, if they make a logical argument against capital punishment, it should not be thrown out just because their primary motivation is their faith.

46 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

these are similar arguments that gave people the power to not serve blacks

try again

There's a difference between refusing to serve a man in a restaurant and refusing to participate in an event that goes against your religious beliefs. Would you force a gay baker to cater at an event affirming traditional marriage? I think the person whose freedom is violated in those situations is the person forced to work against their will, not the people who want the service. 

22 minutes ago, Sias said:

Isn't Joel Osteen the guy who refused to open his megachurch in order to shelter hurricane victims?

Really, the evangelists may fear that their right of free religious expression may be infringed upon, but it rather sounds like they're unhappy because they aren't allowed to sexually discriminate people anymore. Also, don't you see the problems that would arise if we let people deny others goods and services just due to their religious beliefs?

Also, what @Res and @Lord Raven said.

I actually don't like Joel Osteen that much. He's just an example. 

I don't really have a bone in this fight. My church doesn't have to deal with these issues, but since I have an insider perspective, I thought you might be interested in knowing what the people you are referring to actually think.

[Tryhard]

25 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

That was a hypothetical scenario which a lot of people think might be the case in the future. I'm not sure about it myself. "Homosexual lobby" refers to the groups that lobby for gay rights, such as the ACLU. Is this offensive or something? I don't know, but I'm sorry if it is.

I wasn't arguing that people should legislate religion, just that it is not wrong for someone to be motivated to make a political stand by religion. For instance, a Christian might feel that as a Christian, it is their duty to fight the death penalty. While their Christianity motivates them to do what they do, if they make a logical argument against capital punishment, it should not be thrown out just because their primary motivation is their faith.

There's a difference between refusing to serve a man in a restaurant and refusing to participate in an event that goes against your religious beliefs. Would you force a gay baker to cater at an event affirming traditional marriage? I think the person whose freedom is violated in those situations is the person forced to work against their will, not the people who want the service.

To be fair, the ACLU "lobby" for rights in general, even for people they probably do not like - there's a reason why even some people disagreed with them trying to protect the rights of the people who were at Charlottesville to protest. Yes, they've been in favour of gay rights for a long time but I believe they have mostly focused on anti-discrimination.

Your second point is fair. In some regard though I would prefer at least some civic reasons for policies over just primarily religious ones. Being against the death penalty has several arguments you could put forward even if your main motivator would be your faith. I'm not a fan of theocrats.

Depends if it is even relevant in this case. From what I know gay marriage is mostly done by LGBT affirming churches at their own volition in the UK and in Australia for this reason.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Tryhard

[Dark Holy Elf]

The claim that governments will force churches to hire gay people for religious positions seems completely crazy since they don't even force churches to hire women for those as is. Separation of church and state cuts both ways so churches get a lot of specific exemptions in terms of hiring practices and I don't really foresee that changing.

Beyond that, I would generally argue that businesses should be allowed to refuse to serve at events they disapprove of or produse messages they disapprove of, whether that be a marriage between two gay people or an event promoting a certain religion. On the other hand they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I'd like to take the more libertarian stance of "let businesses serve who they want" but the potential for gross misuse is too much (imagine the only grocery store in town refusing to serve black people, etc.). A law essentially stating "don't disciminate against customers based on their identity or beliefs" seems reasonable.

In the case of cakes: I don't think someone should refuse to make a wedding cake just because they know it will be served at a wedding between two men, but on the other hand I would consider it within their right to refuse to put two groom figurines on the cake.

Either way the feelings of staunchly religious cake-makers seems a very strange hill to die on as far as choosing a political party goes, so I'm not surprised that some people just react to such claims with cries of homophobia.

[SullyMcGully]

3 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

The claim that governments will force churches to hire gay people for religious positions seems completely crazy since they don't even force churches to hire women for those as is. Separation of church and state cuts both ways so churches get a lot of specific exemptions in terms of hiring practices and I don't really foresee that changing.

I'm not really worried about that happening, but others are. The closest we've come is several church musicians who sued over being fired after they "came out". I haven't heard of any of them succeeding, though.

[Res]

Well their worries are baseless and offensive, honestly.

I mean logically thinking things through - why would a gay person *want* to be a leader of a group that rejects them for who they are? It borders on narcissistic to think your group must be so great that the people you exclude would be so desperate to lead it. Many are merely hoping just to be seen as human beings. 

It's similar to how people were all up in arms about transwomen assaulting people in bathrooms when a) trans people are *far* more likely to be victims, b) more GOP lawmakers have been arrested for sexual misconduct in bathrooms than trans people and c) there was nothing previously stopping cis men from assaulting people in bathrooms. Trans people in general see extremely high rates of homelessness and are frequently victims of homicide and rape, so to say they're persecuting others by asking for access to bathrooms is laughable.

33 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

In the case of cakes: I don't think someone should refuse to make a wedding cake just because they know it will be served at a wedding between two men, but on the other hand I would consider it within their right to refuse to put two groom figurines on the cake.

I can see this.

What's ridiculous is the example of a bakery refusing to make a *birthday* cake for a lesbian.

[Moblin Major General]

32 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

I'm not really worried about that happening, but others are. The closest we've come is several church musicians who sued over being fired after they "came out". I haven't heard of any of them succeeding, though.

Churches get a pass in general because of the phrases "So help me, God" and "In God We Trust" all over everything in the Federal Government. An official denial of God's existence would be fatal to the Federal Government, as that means the President is only bound by the will of men, which is known to be weak and malleable.

[Dark Holy Elf]

2 hours ago, Res said:

What's ridiculous is the example of a bakery refusing to make a *birthday* cake for a lesbian.

I absolutely agree. That certainly falls under refusing to serve a customer for their beliefs or identity, to me.

[eclipse]

7 hours ago, Res said:

What's ridiculous is the example of a bakery refusing to make a *birthday* cake for a lesbian.

Eh.

It sounds like capitalism is doing its thing, since the couple got their cake elsewhere.  IMO this is something that the general economy should tackle - if the bakery's stance is that ridiculous, then they should go out of business.

[Phoenix Wright]

sometimes capitalism shouldn't be allowed to do its thing because its thing doesn't work. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Dark Holy Elf]

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

Eh.

It sounds like capitalism is doing its thing, since the couple got their cake elsewhere.  IMO this is something that the general economy should tackle - if the bakery's stance is that ridiculous, then they should go out of business.

In this case it's mostly harmless because the customers have other options and (I would hope?) most of the community agrees that the business's stance is ridiculous so it will suffer.

When the business is the only one in the customer's area, or its bigotry is supported by the general population (so that businesses are rewarded for pursuing similar policies), then you have a problem, and one that won't solve itself. I'm fine with letting the market solve the problems it can, but it can't solve all of them; it absolutely has rewarded discrimination in the past (less so now, thankfully). And protecting the minority from discrimination by the majority is one of the things we have a government and constitution for.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Dark Holy Elf

[ping]

It's also a problem if the enterprise in question has a (regional) monopoly and/or the product is more universally - if the only grocery store in a 50-mile radius would decide that they wouldn't sell anything at all to {insert minority here}, it would clearly be a bigger problem than to have to buy a cake elsewhere once a year.

That said, I'm inclined to say that in this particular case, the right to be an asshole outweighs the right to receive cake. Forcing a private person to do something they don't want to should be the exception, and only when there is a good reason for it. Mind that I don't condone the bakery's refusal though - it indicates that they're (speaking very mildly) unpleasant, hateful people.

[Lord Raven]

17 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

There's a difference between refusing to serve a man in a restaurant and refusing to participate in an event that goes against your religious beliefs. Would you force a gay baker to cater at an event affirming traditional marriage? I think the person whose freedom is violated in those situations is the person forced to work against their will, not the people who want the service. 

http://www.calvarylovesall.com/TheBibleampRacism

White supremacy is justified by the Bible according to many people, even if that mentality is archaic by this point in time. You may find it absurd, but it's seriously the same argument used against the blacks. That's the reason why this reasoning is destined to fail; the difference is that somehow the gays are an easier target than the blacks, given that religious justification for white supremacy is not done en masse anymore.

People used to literally think serving the blacks was morally wrong and against the bible, because, and I quote

Quote

Genesis 3: 1 the "Serpent" was not an animal but a "serpent race" different from the race of Adam. Adam & Eve were white and the serpent race refers to races of other colors.  

Saying "the free market will sort it out" historically is not the way to go. People mentioned limited local availability of services as an argument, another argument is simply that a minority can't generally get the majority support to make a business really pay for having a shitty sense of civil rights.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Shoblongoo]

11 hours ago, eclipse said:

Eh.

It sounds like capitalism is doing its thing, since the couple got their cake elsewhere.  IMO this is something that the general economy should tackle - if the bakery's stance is that ridiculous, then they should go out of business.

Black man walks into a bakery. Baker says "We don't serve your kind. Find yerself a colored bakery, boy" and refuses service. Capitalism at work and something the general economy should take care of, or something that should be against the law?

Edited October 15, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[SullyMcGully]

24 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Black man walks into a bakery. Baker says "We don't serve your kind. Find yerself a colored bakery, boy" and refuses service. Capitalism at work and something the general economy should take care of, or something that should be against the law?

@ping is right. Like it or not, the Constitution protects your right to be a jerk. The government can't (or at least shouldn't) do anything about the above situation. However, refusing a man water when they are dying of thirst or a doctor denying service to a wounded man due to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. - those are crimes that can be prosecuted. You can always find another bakery - if you can't, you can live without cake. People who are jerks don't need the government to make them regret it. That's not what government is for. 

Some restaurants won't let you enter unless you meet their dress code. Some gas stations won't let you use the bathroom unless you buy something first. Some discriminatory business practices are just an extension of those rights, despite being so much more reprehensible. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. You can be a jerk in America.

[Shoblongoo]

33 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

The government can't (or at least shouldn't) do anything about the above situation. 

It can and it does--that is the domain of antidiscrimination law. We today have those protections at the federal level for discrimination on the basis of: Race, Religion, National Origin, Sex, Age, and Disability. LGBT status is the last form of socially acceptable discrimination where as a matter of public policy we've said ...well it really isn't any of the federal governments business whether or not this happens. Just leave it to the States. The purported justification being religious liberty (except that if it's your sincerely held religious belief that blacks should be separate from whites the federal law still says fuck off; you can't do that. So that's a cop out argument). We've just decided as a society that we don't want to take anti-LGBT discrimination as seriously as other forms, and I have yet to hear a reason why that isn't itself a mental exercise in discrimination against homosexuals.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Res]

3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Saying "the free market will sort it out" historically is not the way to go. People mentioned limited local availability of services as an argument, another argument is simply that a minority can't generally get the majority support to make a business really pay for having a shitty sense of civil rights.

This. Leaving it to a free market has never worked. Humans aren't altruistic enough to be fair; every group has had to struggle and fight for their rights.

[Sias]

2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

@ping is right. Like it or not, the Constitution protects your right to be a jerk. The government can't (or at least shouldn't) do anything about the above situation. However, refusing a man water when they are dying of thirst or a doctor denying service to a wounded man due to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. - those are crimes that can be prosecuted. You can always find another bakery - if you can't, you can live without cake. People who are jerks don't need the government to make them regret it. That's not what government is for.

Meh. Sure, the government does protect your rights to be a jerk - but only to a certain extent. You can call someone an idiot, but if you overdo it, you may be charged due to verbal harassment. And you can't just walk around and punch people either. There's a line somewhere, and we're debating where exactly that is.
Also, I disagree with you notion that it's not the government's job to fight jerkish people. Shouldn't there be laws to create a society as peaceful and harmonious as possible?

Then there's the problem of simply "finding another bakery". Sure, that might work in the city. What happens though when you live in some tiny village and the baker refuses to serve you? What's when the general population in that village is rather homophobic and everyone refuses to sell you anything?

Quote

Some restaurants won't let you enter unless you meet their dress code. Some gas stations won't let you use the bathroom unless you buy something first. Some discriminatory business practices are just an extension of those rights, despite being so much more reprehensible. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. You can be a jerk in America.

And sorry, but this is a false equivalence if I've ever seen one. A dress code or buying something are both things a customer can freely choose to cange through their actions. Being homosexual/black/trans/etc however are static attributes of a person and therefore can't be changed.

[Tryhard]

We've had this discussion about the very same event before - it's why anti-discrimination laws exist. I've got mixed feelings about it because telling a person that they have to sell to a certain type of person will not change any rationale behind their views in their mind, and if nothing else might just make them feel more stalwart in them. 

At the same time, you could see how having several shops with signs outside saying "No Blacks allowed" or "No Jews allowed" would cause conflict.