Return of Segregation

[Junior]

http://www.slate.com...bomination.html

 

 

 

When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations—movie theaters, restaurants—can turn away gay couples at the door. And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees.

 

 

We've come so far since the '60s, amiright?

 

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

It'll pass, get taken to the Supreme Court, and be struck down.

[Junior]

It'll pass, get taken to the Supreme Court, and be struck down.

 

No doubt, but that it was passed in the first place and has to be challenged at all is an embarrassment to the country.

[Excel]

Not sure how I feel about this.

 

On one hand I find segregation of any sort, and the idea that a business wouldn't serve or employ homosexuals/racial/religious minorities, to be disgusting while on the other hand I don't think the government, state or federal, should dictate integration or open mindedness. An employer or merchant should be allowed to conduct business as they please more or less and if they choose to be bigoted so be it, let the market decide.

 

What will eventually have to, and will happen, with this sort of thing is that Congress will eventually pass a law protecting people based on sexual orientation and the courts will invoke the Commerce Clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate small businesses like they did in the Civil Rights era. So what we'll probably see is some steakhouse owner in Salina will try to ban gays and say "nah nah Federal Government can't say anything because all my beef comes from Kansas" but then the courts will look at his napkins, see they're made in Oregon and say "you're engaging in interstate commerce" and fine him to hell.

[knapplc]

... I don't think the government, state or federal, should dictate integration or open mindedness. An employer or merchant should be allowed to conduct business as they please more or less and if they chose to be bigoted so be it, let the market decide.

 

Change that to fair business practices, or cheating customers in any way - would you feel the same? If I have the right to run my business in a bigoted fashion, why not let me run it any way I choose, without regulation of any kind? I could cheat my scales and give you 7/8th of a pound of rice and charge you for a pound. But government regulates that, and nobody seems to worry about it. It's a protection to consumers, just like anti-bigotry laws protect consumers.

 

There is definitely a place for laws like this. Such laws wouldn't exist in the first place if bigotry weren't rampant. We would have a law in effect that gingers cannot be refused service because they're gingers, except this doesn't happen. If it does start happening, rampantly, there'll be a law.

[JJ Husker]

Wow! I find it unbelievable that anyone today would think this is the direction to go. After reading the linked article, I followed an additional link to the actual law, thinking that someone must have overstated or "spun" what the law actually stated. Nope. It is built for blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unbelievable. I may have to rethink my position that things are getting better in this regard. But, having admitted that, this may help expedite a federal ruling that these types of things are not ok. So, from that view, this may be a good thing.

[BigRedBuster]

I totally agree that it is ridiculous for any business to refuse business to anyone because they are gay. It is totally based on ignorance even if you believe being gay is a sin. Does that business also refuse business to the guy who cheated on his wife?

 

What crosses my mind though is, is there any situation where a business should be able to refuse business to someone without fear of legal action?

[Excel]

... I don't think the government, state or federal, should dictate integration or open mindedness. An employer or merchant should be allowed to conduct business as they please more or less and if they chose to be bigoted so be it, let the market decide.

 

Change that to fair business practices, or cheating customers in any way - would you feel the same? If I have the right to run my business in a bigoted fashion, why not let me run it any way I choose, without regulation of any kind? I could cheat my scales and give you 7/8th of a pound of rice and charge you for a pound. But government regulates that, and nobody seems to worry about it. It's a protection to consumers, just like anti-bigotry laws protect consumers.

 

There is definitely a place for laws like this. Such laws wouldn't exist in the first place if bigotry weren't rampant. We would have a law in effect that gingers cannot be refused service because they're gingers, except this doesn't happen. If it does start happening, rampantly, there'll be a law.

 

I've seen that argument and it's convincing, it really is, but to me the Supreme Court's wide application of the commerce clause gets to the point where it infringes on personal freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and it creates a damn slippery slope. My problem with this sort of thing is with that clause and its application, I'm not trying to argue that segregation is a good thing or should be the norm.

 

I mean, look at some of the cases. The Supreme Court has established that the Federal Government can sanction/fine you if you grow food only for your own subsistence on your own property because money is fungible and had you not grown that food you would likely have had to buy imported food on the open market. It really isn't that much of a stretch to say that next the Federal Government could regulate what genres of music you have on your iPod because your iPod could be synced to your car and your car could travel on an interstate. It's ridiculous.

 

It's almost to a "thought-crime" kind of level. Fair business practices, like your properly calibrated scales, are one thing. Having personal opinions and wishing to carry out your life, and your business in accordance with those opinions are another. It's the difference between the government saying I can't kill my ginger neighbor (your fair scales) and saying I have to invite him to my backyard BBQ.

 

I support civil rights and equal treatment for homosexuals, minorities etc but that same open mindedness makes me cringe at the idea of forcing that acceptance on others. I will not eat at your establishment if you refuse to host gays or blacks but I'm not going to bludgeon you until you do. Just let their business fail...

 

...and knapp, because I know you'll respond I'll give you something to use to refute me.

[husker_99]

While i don't agree with the law, i don't think a lot of people is ready to accept gays. I think laws that get passed and forces a society to change that it's not ready does more harm than good. while race relations have improved they have gotten worse also.

[carlfense]

Are voters paying attention? Anyone think that this might exacerbate GOP problems with younger voters? Jeebus.

[Junior]

Here's the question that I have that has never been answered: What is it with Christianity and homosexuality? There are a whole host of things that are sins in the eyes of God that no one gives a crap about. Adultery, frowned upon, but there's no law against it. Premarital sex? Same. Swearing, working on Sundays, etc, etc. But being gay? An abomination that we must fight with stupid laws that we know are unconstitutional and will never stand, but are really only meant to degrade and belittle the offenders!

[Excel]

Here's the question that I have that has never been answered: What is it with Christianity and homosexuality? There are a whole host of things that are sins in the eyes of God that no one gives a crap about. Adultery, frowned upon, but there's no law against it. Premarital sex? Same. Swearing, working on Sundays, etc, etc. But being gay? An abomination that we must fight with stupid laws that we know are unconstitutional and will never stand, but are really only meant to degrade and belittle the offenders!

 

It's a whole lot of sexual repression and insecurity.

[Junior]

Wow! I find it unbelievable that anyone today would think this is the direction to go. After reading the linked article, I followed an additional link to the actual law, thinking that someone must have overstated or "spun" what the law actually stated. Nope. It is built for blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unbelievable. I may have to rethink my position that things are getting better in this regard. But, having admitted that, this may help expedite a federal ruling that these types of things are not ok. So, from that view, this may be a good thing.

 

+1.

 

Though, that there is a backlash against the law shows that things really are getting better. Even 15 years ago, the backlash would have been minor. They are just not changing as fast as we might like... and far more slowly in some areas.

[carlfense]

Here's the question that I have that has never been answered: What is it with Christianity and homosexuality? There are a whole host of things that are sins in the eyes of God that no one gives a crap about. Adultery, frowned upon, but there's no law against it. Premarital sex? Same. Swearing, working on Sundays, etc, etc. But being gay? An abomination that we must fight with stupid laws that we know are unconstitutional and will never stand, but are really only meant to degrade and belittle the offenders!

I don't think that Christianity itself is the problem . . . it's simply bigotry with Christianity being used as the excuse.

 

It's similar to racists who devote so much attention to illegal immigrants (and let's be more specific . . . they're talking about the brown ones) because they're breaking the law.

[Junior]

Here's the question that I have that has never been answered: What is it with Christianity and homosexuality? There are a whole host of things that are sins in the eyes of God that no one gives a crap about. Adultery, frowned upon, but there's no law against it. Premarital sex? Same. Swearing, working on Sundays, etc, etc. But being gay? An abomination that we must fight with stupid laws that we know are unconstitutional and will never stand, but are really only meant to degrade and belittle the offenders!

I don't think that Christianity is the problem . . . it's simple bigotry with Christianity being used as the excuse.

 

Just like how a lot of racists are so focused on illegal immigrants (and let's be more specific . . . they're talking about the brown ones) because they're breaking the law.

 

Fair enough, and I didn't intend to imply that all Christians are anti-gay, as I know for a fact that they aren't.