And before you say that businesses can choose to serve anyone, that is not true. The Civil Rights Act means you cannot refuse service for a variety of grounds, including sex, religion, race, or national origin. This only applies to public businesses mind you, not private clubs or churches. Even Mormons for heavens sake, a majority of them, now oppose allowing business owners to refuse service to homosexuals on basis of sexual orientation. If you want to register a business that discriminates against gays, or Blacks, or Christians, you should have to (and in some states and local municipalities) do have to register as a private business not open to the general public.
Two appeals circuits have ruled in the past few years that the CRA's sex protected class does not include gays, but one has ruled that it does, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly postponed hearing the issue. Baking a cake for Muslims does not indicate the bakery endorses Islam any more than baking a cake for a gay couple indicates the bakery endorses homosexuality or gay marriage.
Fifty-two percent of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were polled oppose religiously based service refusals, a 14 percent increase from 2015 to 2016, the survey reported. The group had the largest opinion shift among U.S. faith communities included in the report.
Overall, 6 in 10 Americans (61 percent) oppose allowing small business owners to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers for religious reasons, according to Public Religion Research Institute. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points.
However, this figure falls to around 5 in 10 when researchers specify that the services are related a wedding, a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found. Half of Americans (48 percent) say businesses that provide wedding services should be able to refuse to provide those services to same-sex couples if the business owner has religious objections, Pew reported.
>baking a cake for a gay couple indicates the bakery endorses homosexuality or gay marriage.
Show me where ANY bakery EVER has refused to make a cake for someone because the customer was gay.
You can't, because it hasn't happened. Ever.
Stop lying, faggot.
Jackson Wright
Are you retarded? You're actually retarded. You say in your post that the Supreme Court has ruled before and then you ask why something is not illegal. It's because the supreme court has ruled that it's not illegal This post makes no sense. >Baking a cake for Muslims does not indicate the bakery endorses Islam any more than baking a cake for a gay couple indicates the bakery endorses homosexuality or gay marriage. You lack logic. You lack clarity. You lack coherence.
I'm literally raging, not at the content of this post, but at how poorly made it is. If you're gonna make propaganda. Try harder.
Sage
Kevin Cook
>THIS CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL
>NOT AN >ARGUMENT
>>>/tumblr/
Jack Jenkins
No the Supreme Court has not rules specifically on whether the Civil Rights Act sex provision covers sexuality.
You know, no one comes here to read 50 articles about faggots. Explain yourself in logical terms. Why are you just posting statistics that show x amount of people support, that means nothing to me. Posting cases where it's happened also means nothing to me. Explain to me, in your own words, why it's wrong. Can you manage that? Are you actually retarded though?
Christian Lewis
Well if this article gets 100+ bumps I want my sources out in advance to answer common questions.
I think it is wrong because public accommodations have to serve anyone who isn't disruptive/rude to the business. That has been held to be the model with Blacks, that businesses must serve them. People tried to complain in the 1950's and before that their religion compelled them not to serve Blacks and those arguments failed. I don't see why this is any different. Gays are a modern scapegoat, and a vulnerable minority easily abused who, due to small numbers, still lack significant organizing political power, and just because a group can be taken advantage of, because their numbers are small, and their views don't hold identical to yours, doesn't make it right.
Businesses must serve all customers who do not harm the business. I think gays have as much right to be served in a public business as Christians, for whom federal protections apply to any public business. I have never heard Christians complain that they are protected by the Civil Rights Act, and I am frustrated that the Supreme Court will not rule on the issue and actively avoid it.
Gays shouldn't have to shop around at different stores to find one that allows them anymore than Christians or straight people should have to.
Ryan Bell
public business? are you fucking stupid?
Landon Rogers
>This only applies to public businesses >Public businesses >Public Businesses are private entities. As a business owner I should have the right to sell and provide a service to whomever I please unless it's an enemy of the state. Forcing me to bake a cake is tyranny.
Besides, why would you want a cake from someone that hates your kind anyways?
Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4] Title II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests," and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.
Various states in the United States, in a number of nonuniform laws, provide for nondiscrimination in public accommodation.
Levi Ward
The wording in that article highlights the problem. "Percentage of members of a faith community who oppose ALLOWING small business owners..."
Why do people think they should have a significant legal say in how a "business owner" runs their business if said owner is not harming them? When a customer and a "business owner" do business together, it is a voluntary arrangement to exchange labor. The customer wants to pay using capital earned through their labor, by providing a good or a service. The "business owner" wants to provide a good or service in return for that capital.
The customer has total control over who they do business with. Whether the "business owner" with whom they are exchanging labor is black or white, straight or gay, Democrat or Republican, or falls into any other group the customer finds unfavorable, the customer can choose to exchange their labor with someone else. Not so for the "business owner".
"Business owner" is an arbitrary classification for the purposes of government controlling one half of all transactions by degrees. When you spend capital to acquire a good or service, you are free. When you earn capital by providing a good or service, you are under the thumb of the government.
Dominic Baker
You have to bake cakes for Blacks. Businesses that are open to the public are held to rules by the Civil Rights Act that no Christian business I have seen has disputed in the last 10 years. I don't understand why they feel it is ok to discriminate against gays, not Blacks, but the evidence that Mormons are now in majority supportive of gays rights to be served by all public businesses is heartening. The only group standing in opposition to this is evangelical protestants, and even so, just barely at 42%. I think this will change.
Most of the time when people go into bakeries there aren't signs "This is a Christian baker. He does not serve gays!". I think people just want to buy a cake and it is awkward and shameful to be refused service.
Dylan Adams
1. They didn't refuse to make the cake because the customer was gay, but because it was going to be used in a gay wedding. 2. Forcing one party in a transaction to service all prospective parties on the other side of the transaction is tyranny, violating their freedom to associate with whomever they wish.
Xavier Reed
They did it because the customer was gay. The wedding is incidental to their sexuality.
Nobody complains about restaurants being forced to seat Black patrons. I don't see why gays should be treated differently.
Why use the term freedom of association when you really mean freedom of discrimination?
Luke Harris
Shit like this is self regulating. If you refuse to bake a cake or whatever to some person that person will just spend his money elsewhere. The business that refuses service to some group will eventually be outcompeeted by other business that don't.
Hunter Reyes
Should Islamic bakeries be forced to make gay wedding cakes? Why not ask them?
Andrew Hernandez
Again. You still aren't getting my point Don't just say >Well blacks have this right, so we should too or >This is the law for public x, so it should be the case for private places to. FORGET ABOUT THE FUCKING LAW. TELL ME IN EMPIRICAL TERMS. IF WE CREATED A NEW SOCIETY TODAY WITH COMPLETELY NEW LAWS, WHY SHOULD WE NOT ALLOW BUSINESSES TO REFUSE GAY
>Businesses must serve all customers who do not harm the business not an argument >. I think gays have as much right to be served in a public business as Christians, EXPLAIN WHY. >Gays shouldn't have to shop around at different stores to find one that allows them anymore than Christians or straight people should have to EXPLAIN WHY
Gabriel Green
Again, as a private business owner I should have the right to serve whomever I please. I should not be forced to serve someone for any reason, be they black, white, male, female, gay, lesbian, Christian, Muslim, etc. Private business get around federal enforcement of these mandates already. They just won't say it's because you're black or gay.
If this bothers you so much, then simply do not buy good and services from the business. If the public cares enough then that company will go out of business since they are losing revenue from this group.
Michael Price
becuase freeom of religion is a right
Austin Murphy
>They did it because the customer was gay. The wedding is incidental to their sexuality. The same bakers are quite open that they have and would bake cakes for gay people. They refuse to bake cakes to be used in gay weddings.
If a third party walked into the bakery and ordered a cake, and that third party were heterosexual, and that third party asked for a cake celebrating gay marriage, they would be refused. Are they being refused because they are gay? Obviously not, because they are not gay.
William Adams
as far as i'm concerned, homosexuals, LGBT, feminists, transsexuals and all hat post modernist crap just need to be culled
Lucas Brooks
Businesses should be compelled to serve all non-disruptive customers. If they are open to the public, they must serve the public.
Freedom of religion ends when it starts curtailing the rights of others.
You don't have the right to refuse service to women, Blacks, or Christians. I am merely saying gays should be a part of those groups.
Its not like when people went to Christian bakeries there was a big sign saying "We are Christian! No gay wedding cakes!". Why should gays be unduly obligated to shop around for baked goods when no other group is compelled to do so?
Daniel Davis
Obviously their sexuality is relevant. You can twist it around but them being gay is why they are refusing service, not that they are having a wedding.
Brandon Gutierrez
>Nobody complains about restaurants being forced to seat Black patrons I do. The government telling business who they must serve is every bit as tyrannical as the government telling businesses who they must not serve, as was the case with Jim Crow laws. >Why use the term freedom of association when you really mean freedom of discrimination? Freedom of association is also the freedom to discriminate, yes. As a "customer," I have the freedom to discriminate against "business owners". Why do "business owners" not have the freedom to discriminate against customers?
The price of liberty is people getting to do things you don't like. I don't like discrimination, but it is necessarily an option for free people.
Jackson Torres
>Businesses should be compelled to serve all non-disruptive customers. If they are open to the public, they must serve the public.
NOT BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW. NOT BECAUSE THE BLACKS HAVE THIS RIGHT, SO WE SHOULD TOO. NOT BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT IT.
IGNORING WHATEVER THE LAW CURRENTLY SAYS.
YOU AREN'T FORMULATING AN ARGUMENT, THEREFORE WE CANNOT HAVE A DISCUSSION. UNTIL YOU DO SO, THIS IS MERELY A PROPAGANDA THREAD.
Christian Perry
I'm saying that I should have the right. The feds have no right to tell me who I can provide my services to, even with the Civil Rights act. How are the feds going to determine if a private business does not service blacks? How are they going to determine the same for gays? What if the business owner claims they did not provide service because the customer(s) was/were rude? That's federal funds that can be used somewhere that matters far more.
Competition in the free market would drive these companies out of business if they refused services to these groups of people.
Benjamin Bailey
>Some dipshit coming pre-equipped with 50+ articles because he had a very bad day and wants to make a rant blog on a Mongolian Basket Weaving image board, expecting no arguments back with his multitude of evidence like any other snowflake would concieve. And I suppose you're going to plan on shouting this very thing at your university, huh? If that's how you manage your time then holy shit you're a mega faggot--the kind that any sane gay person actively tries to avoid.
Levi Cook
Would the same bakery refuse to make a cake celebrating gay marriage for a heterosexual?
Would the same bakery happily make a cake celebrating Christianity for a homosexual?
If you answered 'yes' to these questions, which is the only honest answer, then you've contradicted your own argument.
>Why isn't refusing to serve LGBT folks as a public business outlawed?
Because no one likes a faggot.
Alexander Jones
>UNTIL OP HAS FORMULATED AN ARGUMENT, STOP BUMPING A SLIDE THREAD. THERE'S NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT BECAUSE ALL OP HAS POSTED ARE ARTICLES AND REPEATED THEIR OPINION IN VARIOUS FORMS
Matthew Carter
Because I think gays deserve the right to be treated fairly. How is that so hard to understand?
But they do have that right. When Sup Forums overturns CRA protections for Christians we can talk about how everyone is equal but having laws that protect Christians but not gays is unequal.
What? Gay marriage for a heterosexual?
Businesses are (rarely, but still) just trying to fuck with gay people because they can. A bakery making a cake for a political organization doesn't mean they endorse those views. It is a cake, not compelled speech.
James Murphy
So if the bakery refused to provide service for the fag on the basis that the customer was being rude you would be ok with it?
James Morgan
>I think people just want to buy a cake and it is awkward and shameful to be refused service. It's also awkward and shameful to drag some guy all the way to the supreme court in an effort to force him to bake you a cake, which is part of the reason why they have refused to do anything about it. Those kinds of cases are circuses that have consequences beyond the original reason why it was filed. That guy you drag to court will more than likely have his buisness and reputation ruined in the process because progressives will come out of the woodwork to shit on him. Good job, now that guy really hates faggots and you disrupted his way of life. It's absolute horseshit that the government can come in and force a private enterprise to serve someone.
>your rights end where my feelings begin Great. Now lets outlaw "hate" speech. Surely that won't set precedence for an even more powerful central state. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. It's progressive!
Carter Jackson
1. Bandwagon fallacy 2. Just don't tell them why you're refusing service.
Brody Brooks
Start going to muslim bakeries asking them to bake your gay gake. GL
Nicholas Reed
ARE YOU LITERALLY MENTALLY RETARDED? TELL ME PLEASE YOU HAVE SOME MENTAL DEGENERATIVE DISEASE
>Because I think gays deserve the right to be treated fairly. How is that so hard to understand? EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS. ARE YOU RETARDED. EXPLAIN WHY GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS STRAIHGT PEOPLE IN ALL CASES BY BUSINESS OWNERS.
Gays should have the right to be served by any business open to the public is definitely an argument.
Absolutely.
It is more awkward to publicly shame your customers for their biological reality. Yes, you can get a cake elsewhere, but it is much easier, and more profitable, for the bakery owner to simply provide such a cake. If they oppose the message, they could have offered to make a blank cake with no obviously sexual or gay marriage symbology and give the icing to the gay couple to create their own message. I don't see how baking a plain, frosted cake goes against your duties as a Christian. The book says don't have gay sex, not don't make cakes for gays.
Alexander Carter
You're avoiding the question. I didn't say "gay marriage for a heterosexual". I said a cake celebrating gay marriage.
For example, when the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, any heterosexual could've walked into a cake shop asking for a cake to celebrate with their activist friends, and asked for it to say something like "YES! Gay marriage!"
If the "business owner" refused to make the cake for that heterosexual customer because it celebrates gay marriage, are they discriminating against the customer based on that customer being a homosexual?
Owen Green
# of new stains of virus bred annually by Christian sexual community promiscuity in San Francisco alone: 0
# of new stains of virus bred annually by homosexual community promiscuity in San Francisco alone: 200
The two are not equivalent. Homosexuality is harmful to society.
Joseph Jones
It's not an argument, it's a statement. I say that gays should all be gassed. Me saying it doesn't make it morally right. It doesn't make it correct. So explain your point. Otherwise it doesn't make an argument EXPLAIN. EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN
Aiden Wood
> folks Fuck off to your gay village. Nah seriously get peopleto stop shoving thier dicks in kids faces and being a honey pot to other unrelated ideologies then come talk.
Benjamin Jackson
Gays are humans and gay because of a biological reality they should not be penalized for by those who have religious beliefs against them.
I would have nothing against a bakery refusing to write a particular message on a cake and just saying, ok you get a plain frosted cake and a piping bag with some icing, but refusing to make the cake altogether is what I oppose. In that case (the hypothetical you have outlined) the customer is being discriminated against because of their support for gays, so yes, just as if a bakery refused to provide a cake for a Black wedding but ordered by someone White.
And allowing marriage and adoption rights for gays will provably lower the rate of STDs in the gay community, which is already happening amongst White gays, but sadly not yet amongst minority gay folks.
I have explained myself multiple times. Perhaps you could give me a sample argument that meets your standard of proof since I do not understand your dissatisfaction with my argumentation.
Asking for a wedding cake it not shoving dicks in kids faces.
Christian Kelly
I don't think that people should fear being turned away from public businesses for biological realities. I'm not sure how that is not an argument.
Ethan Butler
Why are businesses forced to serve people they don't want to? Shouldn't the free market correct itself if that's a problem? If enough of you pillow biters get buttflustered outside of the bedroom and have demonstrations against it maybe you will affect their business enough for them to change their ways. But crying to the courts is BS and you seek to subvert business' rights.
Charles Clark
Traps are not gay, they are bi.
Jackson Young
Traps are gay.
Luke Edwards
>It's not an argument, it's a statement. This.
An argument has the form:
Premise 1 Premise 2 .... Conclusion that follows logically from the premises.
OP's argument could be summed up as: P1: "Everyone has the right to be served by a business owner" P2: "Freedom of religion is secondary to all other rights" C: "Freedom of religion does not guarantee the right to prevent homosexuals from being served by a business owner"
Problems: P1: Unsound premise. P1 is a negative right. This means that --nobody-- can be interfered with when attempting to be served by any business. So, for instance, an incarcerated convict would have the ETHICAL RIGHT to walk out of prison so he can peruse the starbucks venue of his choice. P2: Unsound, simply a baseless premise with no justification Conclusion: Valid, however, based on unsound premeses.
Oliver Long
>dat pic
Tell me what's wrong with throwing lesbians off buildings, again?
Evan Cook
Nice mental gymnastics, not that I expected different from someone that wants to cry to outlaw everything that hurts your fee fees. If I went to a business and they told me "fuck out of here cracka, we don't serve your kind". I simply take my business elsewhere. Gays PURPOSEFULLY look to play victim by going to businesses they know might have an issue performing a service for them. Eternal victims that are always crying to news outlets or the courts. Get your gay buddies together and don't give those folks business, get your straight friends to not give them business if you feel so strongly about it. Don't go crying to the courts.
Lucas Smith
>the customer is being discriminated against because of their support for gays The customer is being discriminated against for asking the bakery to write a message supporting gay marriage, not for their support for gays. Every bakery serves countless customers who support gays. They do so on a daily basis without worry. If they were worried about it, they'd put up a sign on the front door saying "fag-enablers not welcome".
Anthony Carter
>And allowing marriage and adoption rights for gays will provably lower the rate of STDs in the gay community, which is already happening amongst White gays, but sadly not yet amongst minority gay folks. Almost no gays get married, they just have this "debate" to stir up controversy. Civil unions already exist for gays in most places, and the gay community is just as promiscuous as ever.
Research has shown that gays average 50 partners, with more than half of partners being single-affair episodes, even in gay-marrage areas.
Elijah Bailey
Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner.
I said that before.
Also I'm pretty sure Starbucks will serve convicts, but um, ok.
The point is comparing gays to people who intentionally do harm to businesses is unfair.
The couple in the Colorado cake case, as well as in most cases, had no idea the baker is Christian or is opposed to gay marriage. There isn't exactly a sign on the bakery that says so. They were not intentionally trying to mess with him for being a Christian when they ordered the cake, they were trying to have a good made in honor of a celebration.
Hundreds of thousands of gays have been married in the past decade.
Kevin Bailey
>Tell me what's wrong with throwing lesbians off buildings, again? It'll make a mess
Jayden Bennett
You are literally retarded. Do you understand that you are simply saying the same thing over and over again without explaining anything.
> they should not be penalized for by those who have religious beliefs against them. WHY NOT?
Here's a sample argument: I believe that business owners should be able to refuse service to gay people because it is not government's role to tell business owners who they should and shouldn't serve. By doing that, you firstly discourage potential business owners from becoming business owners, from fear of having to carry out a custom which they morally disagree with. This reduces the economic productivity of a country. Secondly, you are enforcing a government opinion and ideology. The government states that gay people are equal to straight people, and therefore everyone must agree with it or get imprisoned. This enforcement of ideology is fundamentally wrong on all level as it reduces the diversity of opinion and ideologies available in society, which I feel is crucial to a stable society, in having multiple ideologies all present and arguing, even if the majority think one is correct and one is wrong. Because it means that no one ideology can dominate a society without check and therefore lead the society to turmoil.
That's an argument, now you try you degenerate faggot.
Chase Jackson
>It is more awkward to publicly shame your customers for their biological reality. No, it's not. That isn't on public record and won't have a lasting effect for decades to come with law students and professors discussing the effects of it on how certain legal cases are handled. Judges won't look to some faggot being refused service when making a ruling. Awkward moments are temporary, legal precedent is permanent.
>Yes, you can get a cake elsewhere, but it is much easier, and more profitable, for the bakery owner to simply provide such a cake. >If they oppose the message, they could have offered to make a blank cake with no obviously sexual or gay marriage symbology and give the icing to the gay couple to create their own message. If you can get it elsewhere then why go through the process of federal court to force them to do so? Why should that baker put profit over his beliefs? Why should you bother with some asshole that doesn't want to serve you in the first place?
>I don't see how baking a plain, frosted cake goes against your duties as a Christian. The book says don't have gay sex, not don't make cakes for gays. So what? What you think about Christianity is irrelevant. The baker doesn't want to serve you on the basis of religious beliefs, that is the heart of the argument. You are attempting to discriminate against this man's religious freedom, his beliefs, by forcing him to serve you.
John Gutierrez
mormons aren't christians refusing service is your basic human right you have the right to refuse patronage as well the desire for regulatory nanny state is a serious human defect, worse than any perversion you can act out on a pride float. everyone who deeply desires government control should be avoided at all costs. deeply, deeply sick people.
Josiah Reyes
>posting this nigger shit It's gonna be a long summer...
Liam Sanders
>research where Christians enter gay bars
Impossible to research small-town closeted gays. Almost all research on gays having tons of partners is heavily biased, not only towards pre-supposed conclusions by anti-gay Christian researchers, but by only including urban big-city gays in the studies. There are plenty of closeted and small-town gays who have few partners and marriage and adoption will only shore up those numbers.
I believe that it is the government's rule to protect the rights of minority groups when said minority results from an inborn characteristic.
Joseph Roberts
Refusing service is not a basic human right. The government should balance harms so that people have as many rights as possible. Gays do not refuse to serve Christians in making baptismal cakes. The prejudice is one way. Therefore the laws must reflect that one group, without the laws, would oppress the other, and protect the group that is oppressed.
Sebastian Rogers
seriously, there is no clearer sign of a evolutionary dead end than the desire to enforce ones own social anxiety on others through bureaucracy. this is literally the most fascist, horrible kind of person possible. even a sociopath has more chance to benefit humanity than a literal government cuckold. i pity you more than victims of famine.
Ryder Morris
WHAT IS YOUR IQ. TELL ME. YOU ARE STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THE POINT. YOU ARE NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. You are just repeating yourself many different ways.
>Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner. EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS? WHY DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT. AND DONT FUCKING SAY THAT GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO SHOPS WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING REFUSED OR IM GOING TO SHOOT MYSELF.
GIVE A (OR MORE IF YOU CAN MANAGE IT) REASON AS TO WHY IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING, FOR ALL OF SOCIETY, IF BUSINESS OWNERS COULDN'T REFUSE GAY PEOPLE
James Fisher
yes it is, dumbfuck. forcing someone to service another against their will is literally slavery. your brain is obviously infected with marx cancer. i hope you die soon so you don't suffer long.
Henry Collins
That's illegal.
TO CATER AN LGBT EVENT is another matter.
Daniel Myers
>I believe that it is the government's rule to protect the rights of minority groups when said minority results from an inborn characteristic. Ok, there you go, that's a start. Now why is that? Explain yourself. Give me a reason why the government should protect the ""rights"" of minority groups of an inborn characteristics.
Henry Martinez
No it shouldn't, you authoritarian cunts want to utilize the govt to strongarm people who don't agree with you and force them to serve you. You are not owed ANY service from ANY business. How pathetic that you permanent victims always cry to the govt to "correct" something that is working just fine and as intended. I know you are weak and prefer others to take action in your place(hence your love for and reliance on an authoritarian govt) but piss off with this continual victim-hood.
Jordan Russell
>Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner. Why?
Is going to starbucks a human right? >Hundreds of thousands of gays have been married in the past decade. Even if gay marriage somewhat reduces the health and social problems caused by homosexuality (by reducing on average their ridiculous promiscuity), it would be even greater benefit to ban it entirely. This means less child molestation, less venereal diseases spread among the general population, less money spent by public healthcare on them for sex reassignment or venereal diseases, less children experiencing mental distress caused by confusion or gender dysphoria, more conventional sex = higher population growth, etc.
The question is, what does tolerance of homosexuality provide for society that is a positive? It has many negatives, but no apparent positives. Okay, I can think of one: it provides the opportunity temporary physical pleasure for a small group of individuals. Amazing contribution to society. That sure outweighs all the AIDs cases.
There would also be new issues arisen from allowing gays to have families, pic related. Homosexuality, it turns out, tends to either be a cause or a symptom of some sort of general dysfunction in society.
>Almost all research on gays having tons of partners is heavily biased This is a ridiculous general statement that only acts as an excuse against scientific studies that show the dis-merits of your lifestyle. You must prove to me the validity of this claim.
Juan Gonzalez
^ someone tell me how these fucks can't hear themselves? they openly advocate pure insanity, literally slavery, and they're still sure they're the good guys! how!? they're the literal definition of evil. jfc.
Jack Harris
>WHAT IS YOUR IQ. TELL ME. >YOU ARE STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THE POINT. YOU ARE NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. JUST SCROLLING BY, and i wanna say, you're a fucking retard lol just by that. there is no way you're a smart person, if youre on Sup Forums yelling in all caps tell me your IQ
>implying IQ is a legitimate measure of intelligence
stupid britbongs :') see u next revulotinary war, BITCH
Jose Sanchez
Penn and Teller did an amazing episode of Bullshit on this very subject. They argued that even being able to discriminate against people of color should be legal. Because the economy and capitalism will dictate that whatever company DOESNT sell to blacks or gays etc will end up dying out because another company will.
Private businesses should be allowed to do anything they want. Unless they're government ran of course. I even think if a restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking then they should be able to. Not being able to smoke indoors legally killed off many businesses for example. Specifically bars where a large portion smoked cigars.
Josiah Miller
In all those cases the bakers have already served them / would serve them for different orders. The issue has always been about compulsion, not discrimination. No one should be compelled to do something against their wishes.
John Ramirez
>Gays do not refuse to serve Christians in making baptismal cakes. No, but they should have the right too.
Samuel Torres
>Watching that video I have cancer thanks you. Anyways, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they want. The caveat is, that the business will lose potential customers in refusing certain people. You should let businesses do what they normally do and leave them alone.
Kayden Sanders
Government has to balance harms and interests. The Christian who must make a gay wedding cake is simply required to do their job whereas the gay forced to shop at multiple bakeries is burdened due to their biological reality. The government steps in to make sure people are not unduly burdened by their identity and as such that rights are protected for all groups.
Christians can still fire people for being gay if they work for a Church and refuse to allow gays to join a Church or marry in it, they just cannot do so in a non-religious business that is open to the public. Religion is not an excuse for discrimination and discrimination is harmful and creates civil unrest.
To enforce civil order and ensure that people can easily access public goods and services. If some groups cannot shop at X place but others can, I don't see how those businesses can be termed to be open to the public. Again, I am fine with EXPLICITLY religious organizations discriminating against gays.
Do you run a Church? Sure, don't have to hire gays, cannot be forced to perform gay marriages etc.
But this is public businesses and I think public businesses should have to serve customers equally so that no one group is unduly burdened in everyday life.
The New Family Structures Study is a pile of garbage. It's been thoroughly trashed.
You can always count on it to turn up in these threads though.
The research isn't legit, and it's specifically not legit in very obvious ways that a person like Regenerus should have seen that just happen to make it line up with the results Regenerus was being paid to deliver.
Well there was one survey that came from gay bars and I don't think that is a representative sample.
Then why did businesses in the 1800s not die out from refusing to serve Blacks?
Nathan Reyes
I dont use IQ either faggot, it was trying to get the point across that this faggot is retarded. I usually don't care for people who making IQ threads either. I dont actually care about this faggot's IQ. Why are you literally defending a faggot?
Chase Jones
you're evil. >pls, gods and universal chaos, don't let this one reproduce or find some other way to inflict their evil on innocent children.
No, the govt really doesn't. Authoritarian cunts like you are literally insane and would propagate slavery if it meant others serving the will of gays. Seek mental help. >washington post Lmao >Iff some groups cannot shop at X place but others can, I don't see how those businesses can be termed to be open to the public. Again, let the market correct it. You are advocating for authoritarian decree that should be at the whim of gays or any other loud group of complainers.
Samuel Cox
Keep your spam and shit on your own board.
Gabriel Gonzalez
The market will not magically correct it if the numbers of the minority are too small to inhibit the business. Government specifically exists to balance the rights of minority and majority groups and always has.
Levi Reyes
Good. Now that's an argument. Was that so hard? Now here's my counterargument What about a street with 50 cake shops, all doing the same cakes. And a gay couple happens to walk into one of them. The owner of that specific cake shop believes that serving one cake to any gay couple means you will spend eternity in hell no matter what. If that owner serves the cake, he will spend the rest of his life dreading the day when he dies and gets sent to hell.
Do you think that that business owner should have to suffer for the rest of their life because the gay couple chose to go in his cake shop first and not in one of the 50 shops across the street or next to this one.
Lucas Campbell
Premise: Refusing service is not a basic human right. "Refusing service" is a negative right. That means that you are not forced to do something. The opposite is REQUIRING SOMEONE TO PROVIDE A SERVICE. It's unethical to require an individual to provide service despite their own judgement. That is equivalent to servitude.
>The government should balance harms so that people have as many rights as possible. Retarded utilitarian argument. If 51% of people vote for the right to slavery of 49%, then that is tyranny by majority.
>Gays do not refuse to serve Christians in making baptismal cakes. False equivalence. Homosexuality is harmful to society. You are upset not at "discrimination" but at social disapproval. Gays are not being persecuted, attacked, they are only being refused indulgence of their harmful lifestyle. Disapproval is the least aggressive form of punishment possible for immoral behavior.
>The prejudice is one way. Therefore the laws must reflect that one group, without the laws, would oppress the other, and protect the group that is oppressed. The group that is being oppressed is Christianity, as they are denied their right to practice moral behavior by disapproving of homosexuality.
Zachary Ramirez
>The New Family Structures Study is a pile of garbage. It's been thoroughly trashed. Oh lord, you are dumb.
Washington post is a liberal tabloid, not a peer-reviewed scientific source.
Luis Ortiz
See my post above about getting your straight friends involved too. Guess what, the govt. doesn't have any right forcing businesses to provide services to folks if they don't want to. Again you dodge around the fact that you want the govt. to act as an authoritarian arm of gays or other groups. The govt already wields too much authoritarian power and any push for more is simply bullshit and advocated by folks who want to essentially force others into slavery.
Blake Collins
So you believe that gay people shouldnt have to go through any burden but the shop owners have to, doing stuff that's against their conscious.
You believe that the lives of gay customers have more values than the religious shop-owners
Michael Reyes
When the state forces someone at point of gun, because that's the implicit threat of state forces, to violate their own deeply held personal convictions, the line has been crossed. At this point it isn't about acceptance or tolerance. It's about using STATE FORCE to make those fucking homopobes do what you want. To force them to accept you. There's the line. You blasted right over it. And by doing so You obliterated any moral high ground you might have had. Fuck you.
Aaron Davis
I'm leaving this thread. OP is retarded. I don't give a shit if you're gay. Just dont force other people to change their ways to accommodate you.
Brandon Reed
These arguments were all presented during segregation, and failed though. Your argument is one of separate but equal. Mine is of comparative harms. The harm to a business owner for having to do their job vs. the harm of a person who cannot obtain a good or service due to an inborn trait that they cannot control as well as from them being publicly shamed over it.
Now yes, I would be interested to see what happens if a business owner put out a sign "we do not serve gays" or "no gay marriage cakes" but to my knowledge that hasn't happened and all these cases have resulted from people who just wanted a cake and had no idea about the religious mindset of the bakery coming into it.
So your point is to minimize the imposition of harms, but you still admit that their is harm as if there was only 1 bakery in a small town, than a bakery refusing to serve gays becomes far more problematic.
Nothing in the bible says serving gay people will make you go to hell. Bakeries are not religious organizations. If your religious beliefs require you to harm others, they are no longer protected by the government. I don't think a business owner having to serve gay people harms him as much as the people who are publicly shamed by his or her refusal to offer services as well as their need to then find a subsequent business to purchase their good at. As you have indicated, the harm is multiplied by the rarity of the service offered so in cases where there is only one provider of a service in town, the issue of discrimination grows far more significant and laws are not simply designed only for big cities where there are many similar businesses in operation. I don't think you can prove any signifiant suffering from a bakery owner who is forced to do their job re: gay couples. The bible says not to have gay sex, it doesn't say anything about cakes.
False equivalence. Requiring people to do their job without discrimination is not servitude.
Jacob Reed
>I think gays deserve the right to be treated fairly I think they don't. Fuck off.
Charles Williams
>>The government should balance harms so that people have as many rights as possible. >Retarded utilitarian argument. If 51% of people vote for the right to slavery of 49%, then that is tyranny by majority. I misread that part actually as "as many people should have as many rights as possible", which changes the meaning.
Still despite my error, "having as many rights as possible" is still a terrible idea, essentially anarchy. Social contract: give up some rights in return for some benefit. IE Giving up right to murder in exchange for not being murdered. If we allow all rights (reductio ad absurdum), then we end up with a lawless Mad Max style world.
And still nobody would be forced to make cakes for gays because there would be no rule requiring them to.
Colton Campbell
>False equivalence. Requiring people to do their job without discrimination is not servitude. Requiring people to do their job is servitude. Why do you have authority to tell people to work?
A person works voluntarily for compensation. If they feel the work, for whatever possible reason (effort, cost, morality, dignity, etc.) is not worthy of the compensation, they do not do the work.
If you force someone to work in spite of their personal judgement, then that is indeed enforced servitude and unethical.
Dominic Torres
Did you even read the article. The guy is a Christian who got paid to manipulate survey data to prove a point his employers had in mind before it was ever conducted. The study did not, but implies that it does, compare the outcome of children in gay civilly married homes vs. straight ones. There were 0 gay married couples in the study that raised kids from 0-18. The dataset at best is only about 200 people. The guy got paid to manipulate data, and was influenced by the people paying him, as he was conducting the survey.
Yes, your conscious does not override your duties in a public business. I may hate serving old people because they can't hear and I have to yell WHAT KIND OF CAKE DO YOU WANT, but I still must do it because not serving them would be harmful to them.
Isaiah Williams
customer discrimination is a cost to the business. Lots of restaurants and bars have age limits beyond statutory minimums and dress codes. They deny certain customers, and their money, for business reasons. Some businesses are willing to accept that cost, others aren't. Business owners should not be forced to violate their conscience to run a business
Luke Hill
BLACKS CANT HELP BEING BLACK BUT GAYS CAN CHOOSE TO NOT BE GAY
Nathan Ramirez
I don't have authority to tell people to work, the government does. They are willing to do their jobs, but only preferentially for certain groups despite being open to the public. That is the issue here. They are not refusing because of effort, cost, morality, dignity, they are refusing out of bigotry thinking they are above the law.
