• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage [W:596, 1059]

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Perotista said:
Help yourself. Perhaps you will choose a lousy cake that tastes like cement just to get someone to bake it for you that doesn't for some reason want to. Religious or otherwise. I wouldn't want to support that baker with my cash. I rather support someone who cherishes my business and does his best to give me a cake of my dreams, not nightmares.

But go ahead. Try and force and we'll see who ends up with the best tasting cake.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I can make this clearer to you. If you tell bakers that they don't have to bake cakes for gay people, then some gay people will never be able to get a cake. Granted, cakes are relatively unimportant. The danger in your logic, however, is the implication that all service providers can deny service whenever they want. Review the situation in the US in the 1950s. Black people couldn't just go to a different hotel or a different restaurant. They had to stay hungry and sleep in the street. We have to insist that we never devolve to that condition again. Your dream that customers who face discrimination can just go take their money somewhere else is not what history proves will happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
I'm not sure how I can make this clearer to you. If you tell bakers that they don't have to bake cakes for gay people, then some gay people will never be able to get a cake. Granted, cakes are relatively unimportant. The danger in your logic, however, is the implication that all service providers can deny service whenever they want. Review the situation in the US in the 1950s. Black people couldn't just go to a different hotel or a different restaurant. They had to stay hungry and sleep in the street. We have to insist that we never devolve to that condition again. Your dream that customers who face discrimination can just go take their money somewhere else is not what history proves will happen.
Click to expand...

It is today though.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Perotista said:
It is today though.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Research and experience are clear that when a majority is allowed to repress a minority, it usually will. The American civilization in particular is hostage to its racist past. In the absence of government intervention, its citizens will divide themselves into classes where certain of them get benefits and no one else does. You fundamentally misunderstand this concept. Black people, gay people, Muslim people, handicapped people, and all the other minorities in the country depend on anti-discrimination legislation because some straight, old, white, Christian men will deprive them of every right and benefit if they get a chance.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Perotista said:
It is today though.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. There are a lot of places where there is only one business in the area to go to for any type specialty product. I've even shared a place that is in trouble for widespread discrimination throughout the town due to their religious beliefs against others who do not share those religious beliefs.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
I didn't say anything about rape. Don't distort my words. Infringing on someone else's rights includes discriminating against them in places of public accommodation based on their protected class, which sometimes includes sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

A business has a right to choose who it does said business with. Unless these people can prove actual malice in their claims, its most likely just a shill.

This does not cover government run, or supported business however.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:
No one has the right to break the law because of their religion.
Click to expand...

No they don't, but a business can choose who it does business with. So long as they are not a government entity.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:
A business has a right to choose who it does said business with. Unless these people can prove actual malice in their claims, its most likely just a shill.

This does not cover government run, or supported business however.
Click to expand...

A business that qualifies as a place of public accommodation cannot choose its customers.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

According to the strict interpretation of the actual wording of the legislation, it would be perfectly legal for a "Muslim" clerk in a 7-11 to refuse to serve "Christians" or "Jews" if they had a "sincere religious belief" that they were "anathema".

That would last approximately 10 minutes as would a "Gay" refusing to serve "Straights".

But, if the clerk was "Christian" and refused to serve "Muslims" or "Jews" (or a "Straight" refusing to serve "Gays") there wouldn't be any problem.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
A business that qualifies as a place of public accommodation cannot choose its customers.
Click to expand...

Only if they are run with overview or assistance from the government. Other then that, they do have the right to serve who they like and the customer has the right to take their business elsewhere.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:
Only if they are run with overview or assistance from the government. Other then that, they do have the right to serve who they like and the customer has the right to take their business elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You could not be more wrong. Do you know what public accommodation law is?
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
You could not be more wrong. Do you know what public accommodation law is?
Click to expand...

Yup, why do you think I said.."overview or assistance from the government"? Which in this case, government would mean the local "state" government. Do you see where this is stemming from?
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:
Yup, why do you think I said.."overview or assistance from the government"? Which in this case, government would mean the local "state" government. Do you see where this is stemming from?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "overview". "Public accommodation" is a black and white term. Its implications vary from state to state, but in general, no, businesses that qualify as places of public accommodation cannot discriminate against protected classes of people.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
I don't know what you mean by "overview". "Public accommodation" is a black and white term. Its implications vary from state to state, but in general, no, businesses that qualify as places of public accommodation cannot discriminate against protected classes of people.
Click to expand...

Sigh... lets try this again and I am going to be even more blunt now. This time I am even going to quote the law itself so you can see what I am talking about.

Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
Click to expand...

This does not apply to privately owned businesses and not to be a stickler, but this law doesn't even make mention of sexual orientation.

Even this article of the law
(e) Private establishments

The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
Click to expand...

Still only covers business that are receiving "as it puts it" State action.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

ThoughtEx. said:
So it's wedding cakes today, but what about tomorrow? We going to see separate water fountains for gays? Separate bathrooms? Restaurants and whatnot putting up no gays allowed signs?

When I was a kid, I believed, really believed, I was going to live in a golden age of America. So far it has been a nightmare brought to us by the Rightwing Religious nutjobs trying to get back to the 1950s.

And I still don't accept hating gay people has anything to do with Christ's teachings, this is just prejudice guised as religious belief. Pure and simple. Civil Rights didn't happen all that long ago, the people we see in those pictures angrily screaming at MLK, turning hoses and dogs on people, they are still alive today for the most part. That hate don't go away, they lost when it comes to discrimination against black people. Now they think they are clever and found a loophole for gays. They're not clever, just ignorant. They make their whole religion look bad, they make this country look bad.

I used to love my country, now I pretend I'm Canadian.
Click to expand...
Why pretend, I'm sure they have room for you in Canada

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:
Sigh... lets try this again and I am going to be even more blunt now. This time I am even going to quote the law itself so you can see what I am talking about.



This does not apply to privately owned businesses and not to be a stickler, but this law doesn't even make mention of sexual orientation.

Even this article of the law


Still only covers business that are receiving "as it puts it" State action.
Click to expand...

You're so wrong. Do you not understand the meaning of all those colons? Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation is a single category of entities affected the federal statute. Lodgings is a second category. Facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises is a third category. Gasoline stations is a fourth category. And so on. No one category is necessarily related to another; and the qualification for government sponsorship upon which you keep insisting does not exist. You should review the hundreds of court cases that prove you wrong.

Everyone who knows anything about public accommodation realizes that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class of people. It's a state issue (for now). That's why the action over the cake for a gay couple had standing in Oregon but would fail in Mississippi.

You fundamentally misunderstand these laws. You should also research the legal definition of a "private club". It is vastly different from a privately owned business that qualifies as a place of public accommodation, all of which must comply with relevant legislation whether or not they receive direct "State action".
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

trouble13 said:
Why pretend, I'm sure they have room for you in Canada
Click to expand...

Actually we'd prefer that people stayed in their own countries and fought for what they believed in rather than leaving behind situations that they thought should be improved.

PS - Unless I missed something, the "Wedding Cake Case" was decided on the basis that there was an element of "artistic creation" (that went beyond "normal retail") involved. It appears that, had the couple simply wanted a "standard" wedding cake with no names (or other gender identifiers) such as the ones that the bakery advertised as being for sale, the decision might well have gone the other way. The bakery would NOT have been able to refuse to sell the couple a loaf of bread or some doughnuts. Personally I think that the distinction was "legalistic crap", but that is only my opinion.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
You're so wrong. Do you not understand the meaning of all those colons?
Click to expand...

f U mAk a genRL ruL out of "Graduates from American High Schools have a firm grasp of correct punctuation." thN U R goin 2 b v :-e v frequently.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

tres borrachos said:
I read the entire link. Can someone explain what's going on here?

The subject line says those who "speak out" against gay marriage, but the body of the article says this:

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."

The bill would also protect those who discriminate against marriages not recognized under federal law or individuals who engage in sex outside of marriage.


Speaking out against something is a wonderful American privilege. Discriminating against them is not.

What exactly am I missing here?
Click to expand...

In short, if you really really really believe a magical sky friend is telling you that the gays are icky, and can't be at your restaurant, then you have the right to deny them entry and not serve them. Black people had to fight to get this kind of sick **** overturned, now it's the turn of gays.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TU Curmudgeon said:
f U mAk a genRL ruL out of "Graduates from American High Schools have a firm grasp of correct punctuation." thN U R goin 2 b v :-e v frequently.
Click to expand...

I can't even read that. You're making me feel old.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
I can't even read that. You're making me feel old.
Click to expand...

In English - "If you make a general rule out of "Graduates from American High Schools have a firm grasp of correct punctuation." then you are going to be very disappointed very frequently.".

Don't feel old, I used an on-line translator to write it.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TU Curmudgeon said:
In English - "If you make a general rule out of "Graduates from American High Schools have a firm grasp of correct punctuation." then you are going to be very disappointed very frequently.".

Don't feel old, I used an on-line translator to write it.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I had it right until "v :-e v". I don't know that emoji and also didn't realize that "very" is the only English word that starts with "v". Hahah, thanks for the lesson and for understanding what colons do.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

We'll see how this goes. One the local judge in our county just lost his job, because he refused to marry two gay people. Times are changing.

I'm much more broad minded than I was when I was younger. The few gay people I've encountered at work have been very good at their professions. And the only gay (male/married) couple, I've gotten to know, have adopted two children and are terrific parents.
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

MateoMtnClimber said:
You're so wrong. Do you not understand the meaning of all those colons? Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation is a single category of entities affected the federal statute. Lodgings is a second category. Facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises is a third category. Gasoline stations is a fourth category. And so on. No one category is necessarily related to another; and the qualification for government sponsorship upon which you keep insisting does not exist. You should review the hundreds of court cases that prove you wrong.

Everyone who knows anything about public accommodation realizes that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class of people. It's a state issue (for now). That's why the action over the cake for a gay couple had standing in Oregon but would fail in Mississippi.

You fundamentally misunderstand these laws. You should also research the legal definition of a "private club". It is vastly different from a privately owned business that qualifies as a place of public accommodation, all of which must comply with relevant legislation whether or not they receive direct "State action".
Click to expand...

Are you honestly going to keep playing this stupid game?
 
Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:
Shouldnt even ever come to needing any such thing, but good for them.
Click to expand...

Even it the bill could pass (it can't), the courts would invalidate it. We're trying to lessen the effects of bigotry, not the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom