• 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!

A companion poll, Do you want sexual orientation to be nationally protected from discrimination?

Should people who have different sexual orientation be protected from discrimination?

  • Yes, they should, it should be a blanket ban (nobody may discriminate)

    Votes: 28 57.1%

  • No, they should not, everybody should be allowed to discriminate people based on sexual orientation

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Yes, but only for the government services, not of private business/foundations

    Votes: 6 12.2%

  • No, the government can discriminate but private businesses/foundations cannot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, protection, but only the government and vital services (insurance/food/utilities/housing)

    Votes: 6 12.2%

  • Yes, other …... (please explain)

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • No, other ….... (please explain)

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • don't know, don't care, I just do not

    Votes: 2 4.1%

  • I have no opinion about this subject

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Total voters
    49
Peter King

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,683
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A companion poll to Agent J's poll about Sexual Orientation, and how long before its nationally protected from discrimination.

That poll has to do with when people think sexual orientation will be nationally protected from discrimination.

So here goes the other question, do people want that to happen and what should be included?

Should governments be allowed or not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should a bookshop? Should a supermarket or restaurant/housing company/insurance be allowed to discriminate?
 
I voted yes, but only for government services. However there is a caveat. That is how I feel about ALL protected classes. I believe all non-critical private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want. Sexual orientation, race, religion, political,party, red hair, blonde hair, one pinkie bigger than the other...everything.

BUT that isn’t the case currently and I believe in equal protection under the law so as long as we are making it illegal to discriminate against certain groups then I think sexual orientation should be included. Sort of how I feel about same sex marriage. I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage but as long as it is then it should recognize SSM as well.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I voted yes, but only for government services. However there is a caveat. That is how I feel about ALL protected classes. I believe all non-critical private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want. Sexual orientation, race, religion, political,party, red hair, blonde hair, one pinkie bigger than the other...everything.

BUT that isn’t the case currently and I believe in equal protection under the law so as long as we are making it illegal to discriminate against certain groups then I think sexual orientation should be included. Sort of how I feel about same sex marriage. I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage but as long as it is then it should recognize SSM as well.
Click to expand...

I agree, it should not be just based on sexual orientation but some of these things are already regulated through anti-discrimination laws and rules and I would also have no issue if it is done on a state level rather than a federal level as long as the minimum protection is guaranteed for everybody regardless of which state they live. States themselves can have more inclusive rules but the minimum protection should be federally guaranteed so that states that fail to provide that protection can be forced to comply to live up to the minimum requirements.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I voted yes, but only for government services. However there is a caveat. That is how I feel about ALL protected classes. I believe all non-critical private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want. Sexual orientation, race, religion, political,party, red hair, blonde hair, one pinkie bigger than the other...everything.

BUT that isn’t the case currently and I believe in equal protection under the law so as long as we are making it illegal to discriminate against certain groups then I think sexual orientation should be included. Sort of how I feel about same sex marriage. I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage but as long as it is then it should recognize SSM as well.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I'm curious if anti-discrimination laws have been challenged on the basis of violating freedom of association. While I think it is good policy for government positions/programs, I don't see where the government has the right to force association among it's citizens.
 
There is never a time when any government services should be withheld based on sexual orientation. There is never a time that any rights or privileges should be denied, altered, or withheld based on sexual orientation. I think a business should be allowed to choose who they do business with for any reason they choose, even based on sexual orientation or skin color as long as they clearly display a sign on the exterior of their building stating that they won't. This way consumers can choose whether or not to support discriminatory establishments. I do not think there should be legal repercussions to this businesses, but I am fine with social repercussions.
 
Peter King said:
A companion poll to Agent J's poll about Sexual Orientation, and how long before its nationally protected from discrimination.

That poll has to do with when people think sexual orientation will be nationally protected from discrimination.

So here goes the other question, do people want that to happen and what should be included?

Should governments be allowed or not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should a bookshop? Should a supermarket or restaurant/housing company/insurance be allowed to discriminate?
Click to expand...

The government, an entity which is supposed to serve ALL the people should never discriminate. As for private businesses, only VITAL services should not be allowed to discriminate. A cake is not a vital service. Photography is not a vital service. Food is. Housing is (even if temporary). Mechanics and gas stations are. In this day and age phones and internet are. Health care both emergency and preventative are. Basically any service that is needed to live a good life is necessary. Anything else, and is privately owned, should be up to the owners discretion. Companies that sell stock in their company would not be considered privately owned.
 
Yes, across the board. Picking and choosing when it is ok to discriminate just muddies the waters. Keep it simple.
 
Peter King said:
A companion poll to Agent J's poll about Sexual Orientation, and how long before its nationally protected from discrimination.

That poll has to do with when people think sexual orientation will be nationally protected from discrimination.

So here goes the other question, do people want that to happen and what should be included?

Should governments be allowed or not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should a bookshop? Should a supermarket or restaurant/housing company/insurance be allowed to discriminate?
Click to expand...

A company works best if all the employees work as team with esprits de corp. Say you are forced to hire someone who causes a ripple affect of unrest. This then causes the employees to divide into two or more sides, so the once happy team is messed up and productivity declines. Is the needs one alternate sexual person worth more than than a problem for everyone?

As an analogy, should we make a law that requires the Democrats party allow Republicans to enter all their private meetings and have a loud voice, even if that voice is not with the program, and even if that voice will create conflict that can undermine their party? Would it be OK for Rush Limbaugh to lead discussions on CNN and spoil the ambiance of fake news? Or should Donald Trump be discriminated against being the keynote speaker at the DNC convention, even dos presence might create conflict and confusion in the group? Currently, Conservative speaker can be discriminated against in left leaning universities. Should this also stop by law?

The fact remains not everyone is 100% with the liberal agenda of the LGBTQ community. Once this is added to certain parts of culture conflict is created that can be avoided. Is the needs of the one worth the conflict of the many? If so, can a LGBTQ conference prevent speakers who are not with the program; one over the many. This is a two way street with the left thinking it is a one way street.

If the other side decides to do same things, will this be OK. How about if the head of the KKK wanted a black baker to make a cake to celebrate the anniversary of the KKK? He does this to push the buttons and start a law suit against discrimination. Or how about a person who is a fundamentalists who thinks LGBTQ is evil but he wants a gay designer to design a church which creates an old fashion environment where there is no LGBTQ. The right has more empathy for the many and has not taken this situation to the same place of one before the many.

The best way is for people not to define themselves by their favorite sex act. This is shallow. Define by character and it will end better, since character only creates conflict for the criminal minded. If I met a person I know nothing of, but have time to speak to them and learn they are seeking truth and wisdom, then how they get there is not as important as the journey. In the journey is nothing by a parade with no goal beyond the parade, then it may be time to walk a separate path. Shallow will not find what it is looking for.
 
wellwisher said:
A company works best if all the employees work as team with esprits de corp. Say you are forced to hire someone who causes a ripple affect of unrest. This then causes the employees to divide into two or more sides, so the once happy team is messed up and productivity declines. Is the needs one alternate sexual person worth more than than a problem for everyone?

As an analogy, should we make a law that requires the Democrats party allow Republicans to enter all their private meetings and have a loud voice, even if that voice is not with the program, and even if that voice will create conflict that can undermine their party? Would it be OK for Rush Limbaugh to lead discussions on CNN and spoil the ambiance of fake news? Or should Donald Trump be discriminated against being the keynote speaker at the DNC convention, even dos presence might create conflict and confusion in the group? Currently, Conservative speaker can be discriminated against in left leaning universities. Should this also stop by law?

The fact remains not everyone is 100% with the liberal agenda of the LGBTQ community. Once this is added to certain parts of culture conflict is created that can be avoided. Is the needs of the one worth the conflict of the many? If so, can a LGBTQ conference prevent speakers who are not with the program; one over the many. This is a two way street with the left thinking it is a one way street.

If the other side decides to do same things, will this be OK. How about if the head of the KKK wanted a black baker to make a cake to celebrate the anniversary of the KKK? He does this to push the buttons and start a law suit against discrimination. Or how about a person who is a fundamentalists who thinks LGBTQ is evil but he wants a gay designer to design a church which creates an old fashion environment where there is no LGBTQ. The right has more empathy for the many and has not taken this situation to the same place of one before the many.

The best way is for people not to define themselves by their favorite sex act. This is shallow. Define by character and it will end better, since character only creates conflict for the criminal minded. If I met a person I know nothing of, but have time to speak to them and learn they are seeking truth and wisdom, then how they get there is not as important as the journey. In the journey is nothing by a parade with no goal beyond the parade, then it may be time to walk a separate path. Shallow will not find what it is looking for.
Click to expand...

First, people are not being defined by their favorite sex act. Sexuality is only an issue because people want to try to disassociate sexuality with sex/gender, which is already protected and claim it is nothing like interracial relationships (which are also protected under race) or interfaith relationships (which are protected under religion).

Second, you can in fact register as whatever Political Party you want to register as and have a voice (via voting) in their Party. You can be conservative and register as a Democrat just to mess with them. You can be liberal and register as a Republican, just to mess with their candidates. You can even attend their conventions in most places. You, like all others attending though, regardless of your actual affiliation, would have to be respectful of their rules. Generally, yelling is not acceptable at such things.
 
No. Too much potential for fraud and abuse.
 
Peter King said:
A companion poll to Agent J's poll about Sexual Orientation, and how long before its nationally protected from discrimination.

That poll has to do with when people think sexual orientation will be nationally protected from discrimination.

So here goes the other question, do people want that to happen and what should be included?

Should governments be allowed or not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should a bookshop? Should a supermarket or restaurant/housing company/insurance be allowed to discriminate?
Click to expand...

Blanket ban. No one has a right to deny service just because they disagree with same sex relations.
 
Peter King said:
A companion poll to Agent J's poll about Sexual Orientation, and how long before its nationally protected from discrimination.

That poll has to do with when people think sexual orientation will be nationally protected from discrimination.

So here goes the other question, do people want that to happen and what should be included?

Should governments be allowed or not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should a bookshop? Should a supermarket or restaurant/housing company/insurance be allowed to discriminate?
Click to expand...

Government shouldn't discriminate for pretty much anything but behavior. Private business should be able to discriminate for any reason they want. It's their property and there is no right to someone else's property. It's not the government's property.

I'd have exceptions be made for very specific areas like medical care and things like volunteer fire departments and such.
 
Fishking said:
Government shouldn't discriminate for pretty much anything but behavior. Private business should be able to discriminate for any reason they want. It's their property and there is no right to someone else's property. It's not the government's property.

I'd have exceptions be made for very specific areas like medical care and things like volunteer fire departments and such.
Click to expand...

Why only volunteer fire departments? That seems very strange.
 
roguenuke said:
Why only volunteer fire departments? That seems very strange.
Click to expand...

I because those wouldn't be run by government employees so they'd still have to be compelled to respond to a fire at someone's house, even if they were a racist asshole. Government shouldn't have the right to discriminate at all.
 
Fishking said:
I because those wouldn't be run by government employees so they'd still have to be compelled to respond to a fire at someone's house, even if they were a racist asshole. Government shouldn't have the right to discriminate at all.
Click to expand...

Some places only have volunteer fire fighters sure (although not all), but they also have other things that should be considered vital to people, that are not run by the government, including electricity, cable/internet/phone, EMT service, hospitals, gas, food, and so many other things.

What about Patrol Special Police Districts? Would they be allowed to discriminate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Patrol_Special_Police
 
roguenuke said:
First, people are not being defined by their favorite sex act. Sexuality is only an issue because people want to try to disassociate sexuality with sex/gender, which is already protected and claim it is nothing like interracial relationships (which are also protected under race) or interfaith relationships (which are protected under religion).

Second, you can in fact register as whatever Political Party you want to register as and have a voice (via voting) in their Party. You can be conservative and register as a Democrat just to mess with them. You can be liberal and register as a Republican, just to mess with their candidates. You can even attend their conventions in most places. You, like all others attending though, regardless of your actual affiliation, would have to be respectful of their rules. Generally, yelling is not acceptable at such things.
Click to expand...

:lol: Right? Well Wisher thinks that "the gays" are only Democrats.

Damn that gay liberal agenda, again.

gay.jpg
 
roguenuke said:
Some places only have volunteer fire fighters sure (although not all), but they also have other things that should be considered vital to people, that are not run by the government, including electricity, cable/internet/phone, EMT service, hospitals, gas, food, and so many other things.

What about Patrol Special Police Districts? Would they be allowed to discriminate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Patrol_Special_Police
Click to expand...

The things you mentioned would also be included as entities that couldn't discriminate. My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive but representative of the types of things that wouldn't be included.
 
Peter King said:
A companion poll to Agent J's poll about Sexual Orientation, and how long before its nationally protected from discrimination.

That poll has to do with when people think sexual orientation will be nationally protected from discrimination.

So here goes the other question, do people want that to happen and what should be included?

Should governments be allowed or not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Should a bookshop? Should a supermarket or restaurant/housing company/insurance be allowed to discriminate?
Click to expand...

I voted "Yes, they should, it should be a blanket ban (nobody may discriminate)"

Of course. Personally I don't understand why anybody would ever support treating people as second class citizens based on sexual orientation. I understand there are some people out there that think we should be allowed to discriminate for any reason (personally I think that's insane and has no place in civil society) but I'm not really talking about them even though I think probably at least half them are lying. I'm talking about the ones that support laws protecting race and gender and religion but think its fine with discriminate against the "gheys".
 
Nap said:
I agree.

I'm curious if anti-discrimination laws have been challenged on the basis of violating freedom of association. While I think it is good policy for government positions/programs, I don't see where the government has the right to force association among it's citizens.
Click to expand...

Freedom of association doesn't work because there is no forced association it would be voluntary.
 
Fishking said:
Government shouldn't discriminate for pretty much anything but behavior. Private business should be able to discriminate for any reason they want. It's their property and there is no right to someone else's property. It's not the government's property.

I'd have exceptions be made for very specific areas like medical care and things like volunteer fire departments and such.
Click to expand...

So you think a restaurant should be allowed to put in the window that chinks, niggers, kikes or goat****ers are not allowed in his whites only restaurant?

Or a business rip out the handicapped toilet to make an extra table for people to dine at and just write no handicapped people allowed in.

Or a car insurer refusing to sell insurance to blacks.

Or a taxi service refusing any service to older people, if you have grey hair or look old they will let you stand on the curb/never pick you up.

etc. etc. etc.

Allowing a blanket approval for businesses to discriminate for any reason they want is just crazy IMHO.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I voted yes, but only for government services. However there is a caveat. That is how I feel about ALL protected classes. I believe all non-critical private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want. Sexual orientation, race, religion, political,party, red hair, blonde hair, one pinkie bigger than the other...everything.

BUT that isn’t the case currently and I believe in equal protection under the law so as long as we are making it illegal to discriminate against certain groups then I think sexual orientation should be included. Sort of how I feel about same sex marriage. I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage but as long as it is then it should recognize SSM as well.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...what counts as "critical" here? Would booksellers count? What about toy sellers? I can think of some really awful stories that would at least be possible under the kind of policy you propose for these and a number of other industries that wouldn't normally be considered "critical."
 
ashurbanipal said:
Hmmmm...what counts as "critical" here? Would booksellers count? What about toy sellers? I can think of some really awful stories that would at least be possible under the kind of policy you propose for these and a number of other industries that wouldn't normally be considered "critical."
Click to expand...

Just imagine a black father/mother/grandparent, money in hand, children happily holding their own copy of a signed Harry Potter book/a brand new nintendo switch and coming to the till and the owner of the book store/toy store telling the father/mother/grandparent that he does not sell to niggers and that they better get the **** out or that he will call the police and have them arrested for trespassing. He points to a sign near the entrance where it says "niggers not allowed, any coon entering my store will be reported to the police for trespassing". Then he walks to the children and rips their Harry Potter book/nintendo switch out of their hands and says to their accompanying parent/grandparent "and get these filthy nigger kids of yours out of my store before I throw them out".

Or a parent with a child who has down syndrome coming into a toy store coming to buy a Hatchimal and fingerlings for which the child had been given money on their birthday a day earlier. As soon as they enter the store the security person near the door blocks them and says that "feeble people" are not allowed in the store. That the business owner has decided that people do not like looking at subnormal freakish kids/people and that they could possibly damage toys in the store. When the parent demands to be let in the security officer calls for police backup and when the parent refuses to leave they are tasered and they and the child are thrown handcuffed into the patrol car and brought to the police station. There they are given a permanent ban for the shopping center due to them being forcibly removed from the shop.

I know they are unlikely things to ever happen. We have seen kids thrown into handcuffs so it is not like it could never happen. Now in this day and age we have internet shopping and that will most likely not discriminate but if we give blanket rights to discriminate, we will see unacceptable cases of discrimination. And sure, such a shop will be boycotted and blasted online but if they have enough business to thrive, or get named "alt-right protector of the race" shop of the month they could even thrive.

We cannot live in a society that would allow shops to discriminate on purely visual grounds like race/gender/health/handicapped status, etc. etc. etc. at least not in my point of view.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Hmmmm...what counts as "critical" here? Would booksellers count? What about toy sellers? I can think of some really awful stories that would at least be possible under the kind of policy you propose for these and a number of other industries that wouldn't normally be considered "critical."
Click to expand...

Adding to this, what if there are 3 toy stores in town. Two refuse to sell to Muslims and the last one has more expensive prices for their toys. Should all the Muslims in that town have to purchase the more expensive toys simply because the other two are discriminatory against them? Why? People act as if this is some really simple protection of liberties for one group, business owners. But in reality there are lots of things that go into this. I've heard some say well there are plenty of businesses in most towns, so they will get what they need. This assumes a lot, including that only a few people in any town are going to refuse certain types of people.

What about hotels? Or banks? Should they be allowed to discriminate? What about tow services or car dealerships or repairmen? What if they are the only one in town? What if simply all those in a town feel the same way about a group of people? It isn't nearly as farfetched as some may think.

Towns run by a polygamist sect discriminated against nonbelievers, jury finds
 
Peter King said:
So you think a restaurant should be allowed to put in the window that chinks, niggers, kikes or goat****ers are not allowed in his whites only restaurant?

Or a business rip out the handicapped toilet to make an extra table for people to dine at and just write no handicapped people allowed in.

Or a car insurer refusing to sell insurance to blacks.

Or a taxi service refusing any service to older people, if you have grey hair or look old they will let you stand on the curb/never pick you up.

etc. etc. etc.

Allowing a blanket approval for businesses to discriminate for any reason they want is just crazy IMHO.
Click to expand...

Should a person not be free to run their business how they want? Whatever happened to land of the free? If someone decides they don't want to serve someone, that then opens up a market for someone to take advantage of, especially in today's society where most people would boycott bigoted business owners in favor of more inclusive ones. There is also the added benefit of hateful people exposing themselves, I would rather not buy frequent a business and help fund the lifestyle of some racist POS.
 
Nap said:
Should a person not be free to run their business how they want? Whatever happened to land of the free? If someone decides they don't want to serve someone, that then opens up a market for someone to take advantage of, especially in today's society where most people would boycott bigoted business owners in favor of more inclusive ones. There is also the added benefit of hateful people exposing themselves, I would rather not buy frequent a business and help fund the lifestyle of some racist POS.
Click to expand...

No, it does not automatically open up a market. That is the failure in this argument of private business should be free to discriminate. It completely disregards reality when it comes to markets and pricing and businesses. We aren't talking about refusing service to large groups of people in most cases. Muslims make up less than 2% of the US population. A business is not automatically going to be able to open up just due to that small amount of potential business, even if some small group of other people disagree with those discriminating (which is not guaranteed to happen). Additionally, it is not fair to those who are discriminated against if they have to pay more simply because they have no actual competition when it comes to where to shop for something because every other seller of that thing in their area discriminates against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom