• 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!

Is it too dangerous to pass a weakedn gay civil rights laws

B

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
7,099
Reaction score
4,783
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This thread is based on assumptions that its participants share my views expressed below.
1. Posters support civil rights extension to gays in federal state and municipal laws. We believe that existing civil rights laws racial, ethnic and gender discrimination ought to be amended to cover the LBGTQ community.
2. Posters do not believe it proper to include 'religious exemption' language in state or federal legislation. Posters say 'Hell to the NO! when theists ask for special treatment that secularists and atheists don't get.

Those of you ( social conservatives and libertarians) who do not share either of these positions and aspirations, as a basic premise for discussion, will most likely derail discussions with questions outside the purview of its intent. My hope is that you take advantage of the other hundred threads that exist to debate the larger questions or start another

We have many states where basic civil rights protection in employment, housing and accommodation eludes gays and lesbians just as it does in the federal civil rights act. One of the unintended consequences of the recent appellate decisions, will be that it will be even harder to get the votes in state legislatures or Congress to pass legislation obliging equal treatment. That poor pious florist or baker will be the poster child for opposition and be the focal point of debate.

Now I happen to be one of those who think it is a TERRIBLE precedent to write laws of any sort with giant loopholes for theists as a reward for their religious fervor. I think it a near useless exercise that only rewards lawbreakers with big bibles, or lawbreakers who rush out to buy big bibles as a free pass to discriminate

Maybe the only way to get a civil rights for LBGTQ inclusion at all passed anymore, is to
1. include language in the public accommodation section exempting business owners like florists, bakers, wedding planners etc based on faith despite the lousy precedent and double standards.

2. we tailor our bill so it only addresses employment and housing discrimination and it excludes public accommodation thus avoiding that fight and plug our nose?

Or maybe the LBGTQ lobby has to walk away from any civil rights bill negotiations, that does not offer exactly the same protection as for blacks, women, or other covered minorities WITHOUT some theist loophole . But that leaves our people completely unprotected in all but 17 states and under federal law.

I guess I am asking how dangerous would such a compromise be and how badly do we need to win inclusion anyway?
 
Last edited:
Why should civil rights be compromised? Remember how well "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" worked even though it was a step forward at the time?
 
btthegreat said:
This thread is based on assumptions that its participants share my views expressed below.
1. Posters support civil rights extension to gays in federal state and municipal laws. We believe that existing civil rights laws racial, ethnic and gender discrimination ought to be amended to cover the LBGTQ community.
2. Posters do not believe it proper to include 'religious exemption' language in state or federal legislation. Posters say 'Hell to the NO! when theists ask for special treatment that secularists and atheists don't get.

Those of you ( social conservatives and libertarians) who do not share either of these positions and aspirations, as a basic premise for discussion, will most likely derail discussions with questions outside the purview of its intent. My hope is that you take advantage of the other hundred threads that exist to debate the larger questions or start another

We have many states where basic civil rights protections in employment, housing, and accommodation eludes gays and lesbians just as it does in the federal civil rights act. One of the unintended consequences of the recent appellate decisions, will be that it will be even harder to get the votes in state legislatures or Congress to pass legislation obliging equal treatment. That poor pious florist or baker will be the poster child for the opposition and be the focal point of debate.

Now I happen to be one of those who think it is a TERRIBLE precedent to write laws of any sort with giant loopholes for theists as a reward for their religious fervor. I think it a near useless exercise that only rewards lawbreakers with big bibles, or lawbreakers who rush out to buy big bibles as a free pass to discriminate

Maybe the only way to get a civil rights for LBGTQ inclusion at all passed anymore, is to
1. include language in the public accommodation section exempting business owners like florists, bakers, wedding planners etc based on faith despite the lousy precedent and double standards.

2. we tailor our bill so it only addresses employment and housing discrimination and it excludes public accommodation thus avoiding that fight and plug our nose?

Or maybe the LBGTQ lobby has to walk away from any civil rights bill negotiations, that does not offer exactly the same protection as for blacks, women, or other covered minorities WITHOUT some theist loophole. But that leaves our people completely unprotected in all but 17 states and under federal law.

I guess I am asking how dangerous would such a compromise be and how badly do we need to win inclusion anyway?
Click to expand...

Why should there be decreased civil rights protections for a certain demographic? Why should they have fewer rights than anyone else enjoys? The same religious conservatives who oppose LGBT rights were the same bigot's who opposed equal rights for blacks and interracial people, 50 years ago. They claim to be Christians but they are willfully ignoring the teachings of their own savior in favor of the Old Testament that doesn't apply to or is obeyed by all Jews. The rights of others are not to be determined by the religious beliefs of anyone. Our religious rights stop at the end of our nose where the equal rights of others begin.
 
Lisa said:
Why should there be decreased civil rights protections for a certain demographic? Why should they have fewer rights than anyone else enjoys? The same religious conservatives who oppose LGBT rights were the same bigot's who opposed equal rights for blacks and interracial people, 50 years ago. They claim to be Christians but they are willfully ignoring the teachings of their own savior in favor of the Old Testament that doesn't apply to or is obeyed by all Jews. The rights of others are not to be determined by the religious beliefs of anyone. Our religious rights stop at the end of our nose where the equal rights of others begin.
Click to expand...
Let me put it in concrete but hypothetical terms. The state legislature in State X has a bill in front of its Senate judiciary committee to include LBGTQ protection in its existing civil rights laws including a right to employment, housing and public accommodation access, free of discrimination. An amendment is presented to offer a religious exemption for businesses who have a faith based reason to discriminate against providing equal accommodation to same sex couples who are married or want services for their wedding. Without passing that amendment the bill will llose 10-15 votes on the floor and likely die and the Governor promises to veto it without that 'protection' for 'Christian' operated businesses. Would you vote to kill the bastardized version or remove all mention of public accommodation to avoid the problem with florists, bakers etc? Will you vote for final passage on the floor even though it treats theists to a loophole that atheists don't get, so that gay, lesbian and transgender citizens can gain the same protection in state law that blacks, Hispanics, and women have valued for decades in State X, and that they have already in New York, California, Minnisota, Colorado and Washington currently enjoy?
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
Will you vote for final passage on the floor even though it treats theists to a loophole that atheists don't get, so that gay, lesbian and transgender citizens can gain the same protection in state law that blacks, Hispanics, and women have valued for decades in State X, and that they have already in New York, California, Minnesota, Colorado and Washington currently enjoy?
Click to expand...
Yes, I obviously would vote for it. Any rational person would.
What supposed loophole are you referring to that does does not protect theists, women, and Hispanics?
 
Lisa said:
Yes, I obviously would vote for it. Any rational person would . What supposed loophole are you referring to that does does not protect theists, women, and Hispanics?
Click to expand...
You read it wrong. If you include an exemption in statute protecting the rights of Christians to ignore the intent of the very law you are writing against treating same sex couples and same sex weddings differently from straight ones, you are giving them special rights that you don't give non theists who do not have a bible sitting on their desks they say gives them permission to ignore anti-discrimination laws. If you do not include the exemption in statute, you have no LBGTQ protection at all because some legislators won't vote for it, and the governor will veto it. That will be our problem in every state we try to gain civil rights recognition in. What do you do?
 
btthegreat said:
You read it wrong. If you include an exemption in statute protecting the rights of Christians to ignore the intent of the very law you are writing against treating same sex couples and same sex weddings differently from straight ones, you are giving them special rights that you don't give non theists who do not have a bible sitting on their desks they say gives them permission to ignore anti-discrimination laws. If you do not include the exemption in statute, you have no LBGTQ protection at all because some legislators won't vote for it, and the governor will veto it. That will be our problem in every state we try to gain civil rights recognition in. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to talk down to Lisa when she is simply contextualizing your willingness to compromise basic human rights?

Let me make this simple for you. There is a time and a place to compromise human rights. The time is never. (You can figure out the place on your own.)
 
Phys251 said:
Why do you feel the need to talk down to Lisa when she is simply contextualizing your willingness to compromise basic human rights?

Let me make this simple for you. There is a time and a place to compromise human rights. The time is never. (You can figure out the place on your own.)
Click to expand...
1. You don't know anything about my 'willingness' because I have not said one syllable of what I would do in the hypothetical. 2. I am not talking 'down' to anyone, including you. I could interpret your reply for you, but I'd just prefer it if you answered the question I asked, rather than rephrase it and answer it in terms of generalities or clichés that are absent any of the relevant consequences. I submit one of the less obvious victims of discrimination is the egos of purists and academics , who demand too much too fast to get any rights for anyone. That is always a danger in any spectrum of support for change whether it includes compromise or not.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
I am not talking 'down' to anyone, including you. I could interpret your reply for you, but I'd just prefer it if you answered the question I asked, rather than rephrase it and answer it in terms of generalities or clichés that are absent any of the relevant consequences. I submit one of the less obvious victims of discrimination is the egos of purists and academics, who demand too much too fast to get any rights for anyone. That is always a danger in any spectrum of support for change.
Click to expand...

How many years should any minority be forced to endure second class status before they demand to be treated as equals to WASP males? In many parts of the American south, they still oppose equal rights for blacks and for the ability of the races to intermarry. Should blacks and interracial people have to wait until all of the racists are dead before they enjoy equally to whites? Should LGBT people be forced to be second class people until the homophobes die out in 50+ years? Should I as a woman be forced to endure second class status because they are still many men and conservative religions who think that I am to be submissive to a man? I will not be forced to be barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen or be required to wear a Christian burka when I got outside because of their bronze-age religious mythology.

Is your support of equal rights for all just a buzz word that is not be taken as fact in law? Your idea makes me sick because others am not to rock the boat so some bigot/racist doesn't have to adapt to reality. Have we regressed to the point where the ethic of reciprocity is now a radical idea?


The rights of any group, minority a or majority are not to be determined by popular vote or consent. This is the core idea of what the Bill of Rights exists. The concept of tyranny of the majority is blatantly unconstitutional. The secular or religious rights of others are not to be filtered through any religious book because of the separation of church and state.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
How many years should any minority be forced to endure second class status before they demand to be treated as equals to WASP males? In many parts of the American south, they still oppose equal rights for blacks and for the ability of the races to intermarry. Should blacks and interracial people have to wait until all of the racists are dead before they enjoy equally to whites? Should LGBT people be forced to be second class people until the homophobes die out in 50+ years? Should I as a woman be forced to endure second class status because they are still many men and conservative religions who think that I am to be submissive to a man? I will not be forced to be barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen or be required to wear a Christian burka when I got outside because of their bronze-age religious mythology.

Is your support of equal rights for all just a buzz word that is not be taken as fact in law? Your idea makes me sick because others am not to rock the boat so some bigot/racist doesn't have to adapt to reality.


the rights of any group,minoty a or majopuirty are not to be dermted by popular vote or consent. This is the core idea of what they Bill of Rights exist. The conceot of tyrannt of the majouirty is blatanty unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I am anything if not persistent. I am not talking constitutional law here because the Bill of Rights does not extend to how businesses behave discriminatory fashion but how government does . it is a civil statute in 1964, that extended these rights to black men and women wanting service at a Diner. The civil rights act of 1964 extended civil rights to minorities in employment, housing and public accommodation. SCOTUS declared the law a within the proper scope of legislative authority, It did not declare that a black man has a constitutional right to a cup of coffee in a restaurant or that a jewish couple has a right to a hotel room owned by private parties. There will be bills that periodically will reach state legislatures to extend civil rights protection in statute in those states that do not have protection currently. They needs sufficient votes for passage and a governors signature to be implemented. One of their biggest obstacles post Obergefell v. Hodges will clearly be how Christian business owners who object to same sex marriage will be treated under those statutes.

We share the same ideal. I want what you want. We may not prevail politically in many states without language that provides a religious exemption separate and apart for legal challenges on first amendment grounds if we get all of what we want. That may mean no civil rights at all period in statute for gay and lesbian and trans citizens of most states for a very very long time if not forever.

The only question I am asking is do we sacrifice the whole bill and wait however long to get those votes and that signature on the best bill. If you think we should not accept a bill with a theist exemption, just say so. Its an entirely defensible and legitimate decision but it will have very serious ramifications to gays and lesbians who cannot file a suit for discriminatory behavior in states where such discrimination is not explicitly outlawed by those laws. Snowballs chance in hell of winning.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
This thread is based on assumptions that its participants share my views expressed below.
1. Posters support civil rights extension to gays in federal state and municipal laws. We believe that existing civil rights laws racial, ethnic and gender discrimination ought to be amended to cover the LBGTQ community.
2. Posters do not believe it proper to include 'religious exemption' language in state or federal legislation. Posters say 'Hell to the NO! when theists ask for special treatment that secularists and atheists don't get.

Those of you ( social conservatives and libertarians) who do not share either of these positions and aspirations, as a basic premise for discussion, will most likely derail discussions with questions outside the purview of its intent. My hope is that you take advantage of the other hundred threads that exist to debate the larger questions or start another

We have many states where basic civil rights protection in employment, housing and accommodation eludes gays and lesbians just as it does in the federal civil rights act. One of the unintended consequences of the recent appellate decisions, will be that it will be even harder to get the votes in state legislatures or Congress to pass legislation obliging equal treatment. That poor pious florist or baker will be the poster child for opposition and be the focal point of debate.

Now I happen to be one of those who think it is a TERRIBLE precedent to write laws of any sort with giant loopholes for theists as a reward for their religious fervor. I think it a near useless exercise that only rewards lawbreakers with big bibles, or lawbreakers who rush out to buy big bibles as a free pass to discriminate

Maybe the only way to get a civil rights for LBGTQ inclusion at all passed anymore, is to
1. include language in the public accommodation section exempting business owners like florists, bakers, wedding planners etc based on faith despite the lousy precedent and double standards.

2. we tailor our bill so it only addresses employment and housing discrimination and it excludes public accommodation thus avoiding that fight and plug our nose?

Or maybe the LBGTQ lobby has to walk away from any civil rights bill negotiations, that does not offer exactly the same protection as for blacks, women, or other covered minorities WITHOUT some theist loophole . But that leaves our people completely unprotected in all but 17 states and under federal law.

I guess I am asking how dangerous would such a compromise be and how badly do we need to win inclusion anyway?
Click to expand...

I read your disclaimer about libertarians how you don't want us to derail a conversation and I won't.

It seems like there's always going to be people who try to create loopholes. And short of any kind of drastic action like the Civil rights movement in 1964 I think these bills are always going to be neutered
 
Lisa said:
How many years should any minority be forced to endure second class status before they demand to be treated as equals to WASP males? In many parts of the American south, they still oppose equal rights for blacks and for the ability of the races to intermarry. Should blacks and interracial people have to wait until all of the racists are dead before they enjoy equally to whites? Should LGBT people be forced to be second class people until the homophobes die out in 50+ years? Should I as a woman be forced to endure second class status because they are still many men and conservative religions who think that I am to be submissive to a man? I will not be forced to be barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen or be required to wear a Christian burka when I got outside because of their bronze-age religious mythology.

Is your support of equal rights for all just a buzz word that is not be taken as fact in law? Your idea makes me sick because others am not to rock the boat so some bigot/racist doesn't have to adapt to reality. Have we regressed to the point where the ethic of reciprocity is now a radical idea?


The rights of any group, minority a or majority are not to be determined by popular vote or consent. This is the core idea of what the Bill of Rights exists. The concept of tyranny of the majority is blatantly unconstitutional. The secular or religious rights of others are not to be filtered through any religious book because of the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with the bold part.
 
Phys251 said:
Why should civil rights be compromised? Remember how well "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" worked even though it was a step forward at the time?
Click to expand...

Civil rights shouldn't be compromised, but in our political system sometimes that's the case.

When it's in the hands of the legislature executive and judiciary branch two of which are elected to the positions you're going to have to compromise.

It's far from perfect, but it's the system we have.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I read your disclaimer about libertarians how you don't want us to derail a conversation and I won't.

It seems like there's always going to be people who try to create loopholes. And short of any kind of drastic action like the Civil rights movement in 1964 I think these bills are always going to be neutered
Click to expand...
It those loopholes will be tightened, tweeked and revisited by future legislative bodies. Its just part of the process of legislating based on changing values.
 
btthegreat said:
It those loopholes will be tightened, tweeked and revisited by future legislative bodies. Its just part of the process of legislating based on changing values.
Click to expand...

It's possible, it's also possible that they will be broadened and expanded. Go to step in the direction it's something to be argued for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom