[split] LGBT (sub)section?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2017, 09:42 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2017 09:53 PM by Vera.)
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
You're a pathetic little piece of snot. Sadly for your pitiful little self, I don't intimidate as easily as some of the other people you've harassed out of this forum. I felt dirty being positively repped by the likes of you, so thank you.

Now piss off and go harass someone else.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 03:01 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:42 PM)Vera Wrote:  You're a pathetic little piece of snot. Sadly for your pitiful little self, I don't intimidate as easily as some of the other people you've harassed out of this forum. I felt dirty being positively repped by the likes of you, so thank you.

Now piss off and go harass someone else.

It's a shame it's come to this Vera.
I thought you better.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 05:25 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 05:32 PM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 11:55 AM)julep Wrote:  It's a short article without a paywall and well worth reading for yourself, but here are a couple of quotes:

"Religious exemption bills made up the bulk this year: 45 bills introduced in 22 states. Those bills would let people, churches and sometimes corporations cite religious beliefs as a reason not to enforce a law, such as declining to marry a same-sex couple.

Of the six total bills that did pass in 2017, four of them provided religious exemptions. Two of them, for example, in South Dakota and Alabama, would let state-funded adoption and foster agencies refuse to place children with same-sex couples."

T"he transgender community was singled out, MAP research shows, with 39 bills introduced in 21 states: from banning transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity to preventing them from obtaining accurate documents like driver’s licenses."

Does where you live dictate what protections you have? If you're part of the LGBT community, the answer is yes, MAP’s Goldberg said. But the dynamic is complicated.

“'It used to be simply that you you’d cross the border from a state where you could get married to one where you can’t,” she said. 'But now you can go from being protected in the workplace by a state law to not being protected by a state law … or a transgender person who can use a restroom in school, and in the next state you can’t.'"

I was only asking because I couldn't view the article in my browser because my computer hates it for some reason. Laugh out load


So, allowing people to deny people the right to say marry?
Shouldn't that be so? Hear me out.
I think that should something correlate with someone's religious beliefs they shouldn't HAVE to do it. It is just as easy to find a new pastor, or a new cake maker, or a new venue. And if anything, it works out in their favor because should people dislike the fact that say the cake store denied the request to make a cake for a same-sex wedding then they can boycott it as well. It only really hurts them in the end, they're basically saying "we don't want your money" by not being impartial. I don't think they are anti-LGBT, I think that they are pro-having the right to choose. In this case people choose to not support the LGBT.

It is on an individual scale. "I may not agree with what you say but I will die to defend your right to say it", sort of thing.

I hope the quotes were helpful.

I vehemently disagree with your point. By requiring that a gay person go find a second source (if they're lucky and don't have to look for a third or fourth source) for a service that's otherwise available to anyone who walks in, you've by definition made it something other than "just as easy." It's neither just as easy nor just as cost-effective to have, say, one bakery in town that will make a cake for your wedding instead of five; you're likely to be paying more for a lower quality product because there's less competition. This separate but equal mentality was characteristic of the Jim Crow South, where separate was never equal. Jim Crow didn't rise full fledged; it, too, was implemented piecemeal.

These laws create a second class of citizen to whom service and dignity may be refused with impunity. It's worth noting that it's not just wedding cakes and marriage services that we're talking about, either. Some of these laws apply specifically to all kinds of products and services.

I wonder if you're okay with conscience exemptions when they apply to medications, as these laws can also be used in this manner. Do you support walking into Walgreen's or your town pharmacy and having the pharmacist refuse to fill your prescription for birth control because the pharmacist is Catholic, or for antidepressant or other psych meds because the pharmacist is a Scientologist? Is it no big deal to drive a few miles to a different pharmacy? I for one would be pretty unhappy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 05:36 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 05:25 AM)julep Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 05:32 PM)Larai19 Wrote:  I was only asking because I couldn't view the article in my browser because my computer hates it for some reason. Laugh out load


So, allowing people to deny people the right to say marry?
Shouldn't that be so? Hear me out.
I think that should something correlate with someone's religious beliefs they shouldn't HAVE to do it. It is just as easy to find a new pastor, or a new cake maker, or a new venue. And if anything, it works out in their favor because should people dislike the fact that say the cake store denied the request to make a cake for a same-sex wedding then they can boycott it as well. It only really hurts them in the end, they're basically saying "we don't want your money" by not being impartial. I don't think they are anti-LGBT, I think that they are pro-having the right to choose. In this case people choose to not support the LGBT.

It is on an individual scale. "I may not agree with what you say but I will die to defend your right to say it", sort of thing.

I hope the quotes were helpful.

I vehemently disagree with your point. By requiring that a gay person go find a second source (if they're lucky and don't have to look for a third or fourth source) for a service that's otherwise available to anyone who walks in, you've by definition made it something other than "just as easy." It's neither just as easy nor just as cost-effective to have, say, one bakery in town that will make a cake for your wedding instead of five; you're likely to be paying more for a lower quality product because there's less competition. This separate but equal mentality was characteristic of the Jim Crow South, where separate was never equal. Jim Crow didn't rise full fledged; it, too, was implemented piecemeal.

These laws create a second class of citizen to whom service and dignity may be refused with impunity. It's worth noting that it's not just wedding cakes and marriage services that we're talking about, either. Some of these laws apply specifically to all kinds of products and services.

I wonder if you're okay with conscience exemptions when they apply to medications, as these laws can also be used in this manner. Do you support walking into Walgreen's or your town pharmacy and having the pharmacist refuse to fill your prescription for birth control because the pharmacist is Catholic, or for antidepressant or other psych meds because the pharmacist is a Scientologist? Is it no big deal to drive a few miles to a different pharmacy? I for one would be pretty unhappy.


I think there is a differential. One is unfair and the other is unethical.

I think an individual's right to deny a person for anything that they are uncomfortable is just as important as the right to do what you want with your own life, in this case get married.

Why should the LGBT needs be more important than a person's needs who has religious convictions? Seems rather unfair. It is shitty that they would have to go an extra mile to get what they would've gotten if they were straight and that it may be of "second rate" but, as I said, why should their needs be above the religious? Objectively, the religious have very strong convictions.

You can't make someone do anything outside of their own value system, as it should be. If they think being gay is wrong, they have every right to think so. I may not agree, but that shouldn't stop them from behaving however they see fit. Even if it is denying their services for a wedding.

To the pharmacy dilemma... Not allowing a person to get medicine they need is unethical. You do not NEED to get married, but you may need the medicine. If someone denies you service that is imperative to your health or is life or death based off of your biological disposition it is quite wrong and it is very, very, very different than someone saying that they specifically, won't marry you because they disapprove of your union.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 05:52 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 05:36 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 05:25 AM)julep Wrote:  I hope the quotes were helpful.

I vehemently disagree with your point. By requiring that a gay person go find a second source (if they're lucky and don't have to look for a third or fourth source) for a service that's otherwise available to anyone who walks in, you've by definition made it something other than "just as easy." It's neither just as easy nor just as cost-effective to have, say, one bakery in town that will make a cake for your wedding instead of five; you're likely to be paying more for a lower quality product because there's less competition. This separate but equal mentality was characteristic of the Jim Crow South, where separate was never equal. Jim Crow didn't rise full fledged; it, too, was implemented piecemeal.

These laws create a second class of citizen to whom service and dignity may be refused with impunity. It's worth noting that it's not just wedding cakes and marriage services that we're talking about, either. Some of these laws apply specifically to all kinds of products and services.

I wonder if you're okay with conscience exemptions when they apply to medications, as these laws can also be used in this manner. Do you support walking into Walgreen's or your town pharmacy and having the pharmacist refuse to fill your prescription for birth control because the pharmacist is Catholic, or for antidepressant or other psych meds because the pharmacist is a Scientologist? Is it no big deal to drive a few miles to a different pharmacy? I for one would be pretty unhappy.


I think there is a differential. One is unfair and the other is unethical.

I think an individual's right to deny a person for anything that they are uncomfortable is just as important as the right to do what you want with your own life, in this case get married.

Why should the LGBT needs be more important than a person's needs who has religious convictions? Seems rather unfair. It is shitty that they would have to go an extra mile to get what they would've gotten if they were straight and that it may be of "second rate" but, as I said, why should their needs be above the religious? Objectively, the religious have very strong convictions.

You can't make someone do anything outside of their own value system, as it should be. If they think being gay is wrong, they have every right to think so. I may not agree, but that shouldn't stop them from behaving however they see fit. Even if it is denying their services for a wedding.

To the pharmacy dilemma... Not allowing a person to get medicine they need is unethical. You do not NEED to get married, but you may need the medicine. If someone denies you service that is imperative to your health or is life or death based off of your biological disposition it is quite wrong and it is very, very, very different than someone saying that they specifically, won't marry you because they disapprove of your union.

People used the same reasoning to refuse to serve sandwiches to black people; there were many whose value system didn't support "race mixing." They were forced to do so by law. A generation or two later, their children serve all races without discomfort.

The Scientologist pharmacist believes wholeheartedly that you don't need that medication, that those pills are making your condition worse. Filling your prescription violates his value system. The Catholic pharmacist believes that he is preventing you from murdering any fertilized eggs. Filling your prescription violates his value system. By your reasoning, they get to make those decisions and you have to abide by them.

What's the big deal if you have to drive to another pharmacy to find someone who's willing to serve you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
15-06-2017, 06:07 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 05:52 AM)julep Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 05:36 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I think there is a differential. One is unfair and the other is unethical.

I think an individual's right to deny a person for anything that they are uncomfortable is just as important as the right to do what you want with your own life, in this case get married.

Why should the LGBT needs be more important than a person's needs who has religious convictions? Seems rather unfair. It is shitty that they would have to go an extra mile to get what they would've gotten if they were straight and that it may be of "second rate" but, as I said, why should their needs be above the religious? Objectively, the religious have very strong convictions.

You can't make someone do anything outside of their own value system, as it should be. If they think being gay is wrong, they have every right to think so. I may not agree, but that shouldn't stop them from behaving however they see fit. Even if it is denying their services for a wedding.

To the pharmacy dilemma... Not allowing a person to get medicine they need is unethical. You do not NEED to get married, but you may need the medicine. If someone denies you service that is imperative to your health or is life or death based off of your biological disposition it is quite wrong and it is very, very, very different than someone saying that they specifically, won't marry you because they disapprove of your union.

People used the same reasoning to refuse to serve sandwiches to black people; there were many whose value system didn't support "race mixing." They were forced to do so by law. A generation or two later, their children serve all races without discomfort.

The Scientologist pharmacist believes wholeheartedly that you don't need that medication, that those pills are making your condition worse. Filling your prescription violates his value system. The Catholic pharmacist believes that he is preventing you from murdering any fertilized eggs. Filling your prescription violates his value system. By your reasoning, they get to make those decisions and you have to abide by them.

What's the big deal if you have to drive to another pharmacy to find someone who's willing to serve you?


Things normalize with time. I have just as much sympathy towards the racist (being bi-racial myself) to express their views. I'm not saying that this is fair. I'm saying that it is of personal expression. Private businesses and religious officials should not be forced to do anything. You change minds through persuasion, discussion, and argument. Not through forcing people to abide by something in particular. I bet it is quite so that the reason why their children did so without discomfort was because they became more enlightened than those who brought them up.

Again, medical needs are different then personal wants.
Why fill a prescription? Because it is imperative to health. Denying others the right to be healthy is much different then denying people your services in subjective things...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 06:12 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 05:52 AM)julep Wrote:  ...
The Scientologist pharmacist believes wholeheartedly that you don't need that medication, that those pills are making your condition worse. Filling your prescription violates his value system. The Catholic pharmacist believes that he is preventing you from murdering any fertilized eggs. Filling your prescription violates his value system. By your reasoning, they get to make those decisions and you have to abide by them.

What's the big deal if you have to drive to another pharmacy to find someone who's willing to serve you?

And therein lies my preferred solution to this double-edged 'freedom' argument...

You get to hold what beliefs you like as long as you are willing to stand by them.

Your front window, your website etc. carries the motif: "We discriminate against x".

Not, "whites only" or "no Jews" but a positive claim of bias.

[Image: russian-store-1496156160.jpeg?quality=0....;width=980]

“We Do Not Serve Faggots”


Alternatively, because that won't ever be legislatable, places that do not discriminate should declare it loudly and proudly and thus shame the rest until this becomes the norm...

[Image: 0f168d38d632cac8a30d0d788352fdc1.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
15-06-2017, 06:15 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 06:12 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 05:52 AM)julep Wrote:  ...
The Scientologist pharmacist believes wholeheartedly that you don't need that medication, that those pills are making your condition worse. Filling your prescription violates his value system. The Catholic pharmacist believes that he is preventing you from murdering any fertilized eggs. Filling your prescription violates his value system. By your reasoning, they get to make those decisions and you have to abide by them.

What's the big deal if you have to drive to another pharmacy to find someone who's willing to serve you?

And therein lies my preferred solution to this double-edged 'freedom' argument...

You get to hold what beliefs you like as long as you are willing to stand by them.

Your front window, your website etc. carries the motif: "We discriminate against x".

Not, "whites only" or "no Jews" but a positive claim of bias.

[Image: russian-store-1496156160.jpeg?quality=0....;width=980]

“We Do Not Serve Faggots”


Alternatively, because that won't ever be legislatable, places that do not discriminate should declare it loudly and proudly and thus shame the rest until this becomes the norm...

[Image: 0f168d38d632cac8a30d0d788352fdc1.jpg]

I've always maintained that those who discriminate against others when they are serving people always dig their own grave so far as reviews go. Try getting anywhere monetarily when people find out that you won't serve that gay couple.

I support their rights to not to it but it's essentially financial suicide on their part. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 06:24 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 06:07 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 05:52 AM)julep Wrote:  People used the same reasoning to refuse to serve sandwiches to black people; there were many whose value system didn't support "race mixing." They were forced to do so by law. A generation or two later, their children serve all races without discomfort.

The Scientologist pharmacist believes wholeheartedly that you don't need that medication, that those pills are making your condition worse. Filling your prescription violates his value system. The Catholic pharmacist believes that he is preventing you from murdering any fertilized eggs. Filling your prescription violates his value system. By your reasoning, they get to make those decisions and you have to abide by them.

What's the big deal if you have to drive to another pharmacy to find someone who's willing to serve you?


Things normalize with time. I have just as much sympathy towards the racist (being bi-racial myself) to express their views. I'm not saying that this is fair. I'm saying that it is of personal expression. Private businesses and religious officials should not be forced to do anything. You change minds through persuasion, discussion, and argument. Not through forcing people to abide by something in particular. I bet it is quite so that the reason why their children did so without discomfort was because they became more enlightened than those who brought them up.

Again, medical needs are different then personal wants.
Why fill a prescription? Because it is imperative to health. Denying others the right to be healthy is much different then denying people your services in subjective things...

The racial stuff didn't normalize with time; legislation and regulations forced it. I just will never agree that personal expression of bigotry ought to be a greater societal right than the right to dignity and equal service.

The pharmacy examples, by the way, were not hypothetical--at least not the ones regarding birth control. Pharmacists can and do reject prescriptions for birth control meds for conscience reasons and send the women elsewhere. (Sometimes they refuse to give the prescription back to the woman, causing even bigger difficulties) The customer is expected to take the inconvenience in stride, since the pills are still available somewhere else, just harder to get (and maybe more expensive).

And, as I noted in one of my replies, conscience exemptions in some of these bills at the state specifically apply across all industries. Housing. Food. Healthcare. Industries that serve needs, not just wants.

We'll never agree, I think, because we weigh a couple of rights differently. I do hope that both of us, and all humans, will never be denied services we need because of someone else's conscience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
15-06-2017, 06:25 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(15-06-2017 06:15 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  ...
I've always maintained that those who discriminate against others when they are serving people always dig their own grave so far as reviews go. Try getting anywhere monetarily when people find out that you won't serve that gay couple.

I support their rights to not to it but it's essentially financial suicide on their part. Laugh out load

Unless they set up shop in an area where everyone agrees with them, of course.

But a social incentive is often as strong or stronger than a financial incentive.

As a worker, would you apply for a job at a place that negatively discriminates?
As a supplier, would you want your commodities to be associated with such a place?
Would you want your neighbourhood to be in the news because of this or on a "Top 10 Most Homophobic Towns" website?

Blink

Stigma can be made to work both ways.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: