America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -

[Raz]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

...You see, public accommodations are viewed differently than churches to most on the left. It's a civil rights issue. Harkens the mind back to Woolworths lunch counters and Greensboro sit-ins.

Put simply, the idea is this:

If you want to discriminate, start a private club. If you want to advertise a business as open to the public, it has to actually be open to the public, it cannot discriminate and only be open to certain classes of the public.

You make a good point, dc. The easiest way to avoid this trouble would be for Christians who own a bakery to simply state publically that they no longer bake wedding cakes or pastries except for friends and church family or they drop that particular line of business entirely.

Yet it could be just as easy for the "opposing team", could it not? Why couldn't the two lesbians consider the conscience of the Christian bakers? (There is a very good theological answer I can provide, but I'd rather do it by private message because I believe 98% of the people on this forum don't want to hear it and wouldn't understand it if they did.)

So it works like this:

Johnny wants to start a restaurant that doesn't allow black people. Johnny can open up a private restaurant that doesn't allow black people. He cannot advertise it as open to the public. It must be a private membership group. It cannot advertise itself as open to the public. Johnny cannot open up a restaurant and put a big sign up that says "Restaurant Open" that you can see from the highway. Because the restaurant is not really open. It's only open to the right kinds of people. And that means that it's really functioning as a private club pretending to be public accommodation. And that's the rub.

The issue most of us take, anyways, is not that we want to force business owners to do anything in particular other than tell the truth. If you advertise your business as open to the public, and it is in fact not open to the public, then there is a problem. Ditto if it's segregated.

So this is the lens the majority of the left looks at this though.

You make another good point, dc. Now let me point out a flaw in that argument and make a case that I'm confident most people on this forum won't agree with (and I couldn't possibly care less): What this court has done, and what the homosexualist lobby and their supporters on the Left have wanted all along is protected class for a behavior.

(Justice Kennedy based his decision on the idea that marriage confers "dignity" on people. All human beings do have dignity, whether married or not, and anyone who denies such human dignity to those who struggle because of same-sex attraction are wrong, and those who persecute them (including some who name the name of Christ) are gravely guilty. But Mr. Justice Kennedy is crazy to state that Marriage itself somehow confers "dignity". Civil union would grant all the same rights under law of the state to these same-sex couples without redefining the basic human family of the past six-thousand years, not to mention causing all the problems that this country will endure going forward with this recently fashionable insanity.)

There is no "gay gene" - and biologists and geneticists will never find one unless evolution and natural selection are completely untenable - even the pro-gay CRG says there is no evidence for a gay "gene".


DO STUDIES SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A GAY GENE?



The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results.




Hamer’s group examined DNA samples from self-identified gay men and other gay male family members. The researchers claim they have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," on the X chromosome, the chromosome men inherit only from their mother and not from their father. They say that most, though not all, gay men within a family share such a marker. (In a more recent study, they conclude that lesbian sisters do not share this marker.) They now hope that by defining this marker more closely, they will be able to identify a "gene for gayness" on the X chromosome.




One of the problems with their approach is that Hamer and his colleagues did not feel it necessary to check whether any of the straight men in these families share the marker in question. If even only a few of them do, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies. More recently, Hamer has tested this out, and the results do not change his interpretation.




But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. The reason Hamer gives for his unusually low estimate is that he wants to work only with "real" gay men, that is, men who have essentially never veered from their preference for men in their sexual fantasies or activities. His definition does not take into account the large population of men who have sexual relations with men, but who do not identify as gay, or men who have had sexual relationships or marriages with women, or have fathered children, but now do identify as gay. If research on sexual orientation does not consider this diversity of sexual identities, the social relevance of this research is limited.




Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality. But none of the results, including Hamer’s, support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.




Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women – though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined.
All of LeVay’s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay’s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."



http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/horton/fields/analyses/legitimacy/crgenetics.htm
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=87

If there is a biological basis of any degree at all it will occur in epi-marks, and that "basis" is regressive - an abnormality that predisposes - not absolutely determines. This is similar if not exactly the same way that alcoholism is transmitted. Will the Left now take up this as a civil rights issue? (I'm genetically determined to abuse alcohol so I have no choice!)

Well, I am genetically determined to jump the bones of every good-looking female I encounter, so why didn't I try? Why did I remain celibate for twelve straight years before I married? (And for much of the time since.)

Because I see the damage to the women involved, to myself and to society through divorce, fatherless homes and damaged children, my religious beliefs aside. Equating a behavior with racial identity as the basis for this "thinking on the part of Lefties" is insulting to every black person in the United States, and the idea that some people "have no choice" in matters of sexual practice is a lie.

The aforemention is just one crowning reason I've concluded that our "house divided against itself" has reached the breaking point and a reasonable divorce is preferable to homicide. But the Left is relentless in their demands that all fifty states resemble Holland.

What if Marriott and Hilton both say they're uncomfortable with gays staying in any of their hotel properties? That's potentially a lot more of a moral issue than dropping off some pizzas at a wedding, considering the acts going down on the sheets. Should they get to put up giant "No Gays Allowed!" signs on every one of their hotels because of their religious beliefs?

I'm an Orthodox Christian; a practicing one in RC terms. If I owned a motel it would bother me big-time if two men or two women registered as husband and wife and flaunted their "marriage" in my face. But I would rent a room to them just as I would rent to any heterosexual couple without interrogation on my end as to their conjugal status. I'm not being asked to participate in their so-called "wedding" or in a menage a trois.

I watched local citizens protest and kill the closest chick-fill-a, hobby lobby, and BP near me for social and environmental reasons.

There were protests outside two Chick-fill-A restaurants in our area - and their sales went UP.
I'm so thankful I live amongst the ignorant and "unenlightened".

I guess the simple point here is this: Your church can ban gay people. Lefties might not like it, but most will understand. Your private club can ban gay people. Lefties might not like it, but most will understand.

Lefties like Episcopagans who "affirm" homosexual behavior don't understand anything about apostolic Christianity.
Neither the Orthodox or Roman church "ban" homosexuals. Nor do they "ban" alcoholics, gluttons, drug addicts or prostitutes. What they do ban are such behaviors, and for the sake of human souls call upon their faithful to repent.
Even those who fall are not cast out but only kept from the communion for their own protection. (I Corinthians 11:29)

Any "church" that bans such people from membership is hypocritical, does not follow apostolic teaching and has no knowledge of the mercy of Christ, without which mercy we are all doomed. By the same token, any "church" that affirms, sanctions or knowingly condones such behavior among its members is apostate.

But your business open to the public cannot ban gay people. Lefties will fight you tooth and nail.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not ban gay customers and willingly served them at their place of business. They only refused any participation in a same-sex wedding.

If you want to discriminate, don't operate an accommodation business that is open to the public. Operate as a private caterer. Otherwise, you're drifting into Civil Rights territory that's going to rile everybody up. Big time.

It's not just the Homosexualist Lobby that's "riled up" - and this is going to cause litigation and divisiveness for many years to come. Almost $400,000 has been donated to the bakery owners by other Christians and people who are concerned about "gag orders" from unnacountable bureaucrats in government. They will have no trouble in paying the utterly ridiculous "fine" of $135,000 to the two "emotionally damaged" lesbians who could have quite simply gone to almost any other bakery in Oregon - unless they were out to get these "intolerant" Christians.

"The final ruling has been made today. We have been charged with $135,000 in emotional damages, But also now Aaron has been charged with advertising. (Basically talking about not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding) This effectively strips us of all our first amendment rights. According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech. ..."

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/04/24/judge-sweet-cakes-bakery-should-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple/26321227/

I promise, almost nobody but the very battiest person on the left at all is ever going to be upset that a Mosque doesn't perform a gay wedding ever. If you think that, you're fundamentally misunderstanding the thought process.

I hope you're right, dc. But along with the growing number of ignoramuses on the Right there seems to be an exponential upmove in "battiest" numbers on the Left.

[Raz]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

I don't recall an iTulip thread becoming quite so heated. Maybe it's a sign that tensions are higher than we realized and revolution in some form is a growing possibility. That said, I was pleased to see that productive dialog prevailed once heated debate over seemingly opposing views was further discussed.

I have nothing but respect for dcarrigg even though we come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Although I'm only rarely persuaded by many of his arguments I am persuaded by some of them, and I always want to hear what he has to say.

It made me think of this saying (which I thought was typically attributed to Jefferson Davis or Andrew Jackson, but this is the one that Google found for me)...

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot
exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will
continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they
can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates who promise the most benefits from the public
treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed
by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest
civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about
200 years."

-- Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor 1787

Maybe civil war (or it's less lethal version; threat of cessation) doesn't lead to the expected "utopia" of a separate and "happy" north/south (red/blue), maybe it leads to dictatorship. ...

I find little or nothing worth remembering from the words of Jefferson Davis and I knew that quote had to come from another source.

Here's a quote from a very distinguished former resident of New England of the exact same time period:

" ...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

~John Adams, October 11, 1798

[vt]

Re: What is statism?

I am puzzled that anyone sees "heat" in this discussion. DC, Raz, and I disagree at times and have different views on some matters, but we all respect each other and listen carefully.

I saw a couple of key points DC made and commented favorably.

Where did anyone see "heat"?

[Woodsman]

Re: What is statism?

I am puzzled that anyone sees "heat" in this discussion...

Because its hard to distinguish "heat" from sanctimony?

[vt]

Re: What is statism?

Ah, I forgot you were on thread.

The name calling and denigrating you engage in is childish. Take some lessons from DC on respectful discussion.

[Woodsman]

Ah, I forgot you were on thread...

Hi!

[don]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -

Hi!

As in Rome . . . pick your poison

Livia

[Woodsman]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -

As in Rome . . .

A very polite gesture of confidence, staking everything on one throw.

[vt]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -

Nice clip for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yetGjj4QAi0

[flintlock]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

Personally, I believe it's time for a divorce. Better to break the country in half now that to endure a bloody civil war.

I have long advocated this as well Raz.

[rjwjr]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

^^^^^^^^^

As for the above, I'd still prefer we "break" it into 50 pieces with stronger States rights.

[santafe2]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

I have long advocated this as well Raz.

Yikes! We'll still be living in mud huts and we'll be part of the south. There's no way Texans are going to let their favorite little playground get away. I guess we can kiss our bilingual environment goodbye. If you don't mind, I'd just as soon you'all gave us back to Mexico.

[shiny!]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

Nobody will care about the Mosque not doing gay weddings. Just like nobody cares about the Catholic Church not doing gay weddings. Nobody I know, even the leftist lefty who believes in healing crystals and wears corduroy patchwork pants, thinks that Churches should be forced to marry anybody.

The baker is another story. And people will be pissed at the muslim baker who does this, if and only if the baker runs a business open to the public. If it's a private baker who just bakes for friends or members or a club, then nobody will care.

You see, public accommodations are viewed differently than churches to most on the left. It's a civil rights issue. Harkens the mind back to Woolworths lunch counters and Greensboro sit-ins.

Put simply, the idea is this:

If you want to discriminate, start a private club. If you want to advertise a business as open to the public, it has to actually be open to the public, it cannot discriminate and only be open to certain classes of the public.

So it works like this:

Johnny wants to start a restaurant that doesn't allow black people. Johnny can open up a private restaurant that doesn't allow black people. He cannot advertise it as open to the public. It must be a private membership group. It cannot advertise itself as open to the public. Johnny cannot open up a restaurant and put a big sign up that says "Restaurant Open" that you can see from the highway. Because the restaurant is not really open. It's only open to the right kinds of people. And that means that it's really functioning as a private club pretending to be public accommodation. And that's the rub.

The issue most of us take, anyways, is not that we want to force business owners to do anything in particular other than tell the truth. If you advertise your business as open to the public, and it is in fact not open to the public, then there is a problem. Ditto if it's segregated.

So this is the lens the majority of the left looks at this though.

If the Indiana Pizza Shop guy wanted to serve anybody pizza who walked through his door and paid regardless of their religion or race or who they decided to have sex with, then he wouldn't be lying if he advertised his business as open to the public. Ditto with the catering service.

If the Indiana Pizza Shop guy wanted to start a private Christian pizza club that also would cater weddings but was not open to the public, and this private pizza club discriminated against gay people, the majority of people on the left might not like it, but they would not be outraged by it.

Hell, even if that pizza shop simply advertised "private catering available for select guests," it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

The outrage comes from discriminating in public accommodations.

And here's the real fear on the left:

Once you allow discrimination in public accommodations, even once for a single caterer, where do you go from there? I'll grant you it's a slippery slope argument. But it's the one that pops into their heads.

So the thought ends up going something like this:

What if Marriott and Hilton both say they're uncomfortable with gays staying in any of their hotel properties? That's potentially a lot more of a moral issue than dropping off some pizzas at a wedding, considering the acts going down on the sheets. Should they get to put up giant "No Gays Allowed!" signs on every one of their hotels because of their religious beliefs? Now all the sudden this is a real public issue. Cities with limited downtown land and limited numbers of hotels have to deal with this. Same issue could happen at that one gas station in Death Valley or something like that. Refusals to serve could create real logistical problems. And especially around me, where citizens take a kind of pride in standing against that sort of thing, it's going to be a hellfire of a protest, with every bit of the moral indignation and righteousness felt by Evangelicals, only with more Catholic Nuns and atheists and Episcopalians floating around. I promise. I watched local citizens protest and kill the closest chick-fill-a, hobby lobby, and BP near me for social and environmental reasons. And this was nowhere near so big an issue as an outright ban on serving gays.

I guess the simple point here is this: Your church can ban gay people. Lefties might not like it, but most will understand. Your private club can ban gay people. Lefties might not like it, but most will understand. But your business open to the public cannot ban gay people. Lefties will fight you tooth and nail.

If you want to discriminate, don't operate an accommodation business that is open to the public. Operate as a private caterer. Otherwise, you're drifting into Civil Rights territory that's going to rile everybody up. Big time.

It's funny that this is the new front in the culture wars. I definitely didn't see it coming. But maybe this is how the Court ends up being a Hollow Hope in the end. The court legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states. Half the states ban gays from hotels and theaters and restaurants and gas stations in response. I guess I should have seen it coming. I just didn't.

All this is to say nothing other than to explain to you the thought process going on here.

I promise, almost nobody but the very battiest person on the left at all is ever going to be upset that a Mosque doesn't perform a gay wedding ever. If you think that, you're fundamentally misunderstanding the thought process.

What a mess! Not your post, dcarrigg, but this situation. You make a very good point about the slippery slope of negative consequences in allowing businesses to discriminate, the single gas station in the desert being a good example. I am more concerned, however, with the slippery slope going the other way, by not allowing people to refuse service according to their conscience. I'd rather take my chances with a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" policy than the opposite.

Most people in most cases have the power to vote with their dollars and their feet. If a bakery owner has a conscientious objection to making a wedding cake for Bill and Steve, why can't Bill and Steve patronize a bakery that wants their business? In most places there will be more than one bakery to choose from.

There was a bakery here in Arizona that happily served gays, but drew the line at baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding because gay marriage was against the owner's religious beliefs. The customers sued and the owner lost. I think that was not only a bad decision by the court, it was a bad choice of the customers to sue. How will they like it if someday they own a business and are compelled to serve someone against their conscience? Why couldn't they have simply gone to a different bakery? Hypothetically, if a Christian, Muslim or Jewish baker didn't want to bake a cake for my Sikh wedding, I wouldn't sue them. I'd just take my business elsewhere.

What about serving Satanists? Satanists perform religious rites involving sexual abuse of children and animal torture. By your logic (or liberals' logic) a caterer who is a survivor of Satanic child abuse or who simply deplores animal abuse should have to cater a Satanic function if asked, or risk losing her/his business.

I think anyone who has used their own blood, sweat, tears, time and money to build a business should have both the right to refuse service to anyone and the responsibility to accept the consequences. Governments and public facilities paid for with taxpayer dollars are a different story. A city's Parks & Recreation Department shouldn't have the right to discriminate against a group of blacks, gays or even Satanists wanting to hold a picnic in the park, if they grant permits to whites, straights or Christians for the same purpose.

I strongly support gay marriage, but I don't think gays or anyone have a constitutionally guaranteed right never to be offended. Gays have the right to boycott businesses that discriminate against them and reward business that don't discriminate. I'm straight but I'd join their boycott.

Social media didn't exist during the Woolworth lunch counter days. Large corporations like the Marriott and Hilton... social media will be the death of them if they discriminate. Other hotels would rush to fill the vacuum by telling the world that they don't discriminate. Same with cities and states that choose to discriminate; watch the national and international boycotts that ensue. OTOH, some people will agree with a discriminatory position and choose to patronize the Marriott/Hilton or move to that city or state.

To allow businesses to refuse service to anyone definitely has negative consequences for those who are refused service. But based on slippery slopes and the the law of unintended consequences, I think it's best to allow business owners the freedom to be narrow-minded bigots or noble conscientious objectors (depending on one's POV).

[LazyBoy]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

There are probably much better arguments, but I've never understood how baking a cake is "participating". Where do we draw that line? Tux rentals, gown sales, flower shops? None of these people attend the ceremony. The person who hand-made the bracelets given to the bridesmaids? The foreign sweatshop workers that made the groomsmen's shoes? Are they participating? If I produce a brand of flour, can I put "Not for gay wedding cakes" on the label?

And it's always about a struggling, small business owner. Why is it more reasonable for them to refuse service than a civil servant or the Hilton?

What if the business-owner/baker had no issues with wedding cakes for gay marriage, then found out that one of his workers had been turning gay couples away because it conflicted with their religion? Or a junior baker refused to work on those cakes. Should a business owner be able to fire those workers? Force compliance? Are worker's rights different than owner's?

Like you, I'd just take my business elsewhere, not sue. But then I haven't experienced much discrimination. I imagine it would wear on you if only one baker refused you, then one florist, then one reception hall, one printer, etc. And what if you live in a one-baker town?

[shiny!]

Re: America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -Shattered Consensus

There are probably much better arguments, but I've never understood how baking a cake is "participating". Where do we draw that line? Tux rentals, gown sales, flower shops? None of these people attend the ceremony. The person who hand-made the bracelets given to the bridesmaids? The foreign sweatshop workers that made the groomsmen's shoes? Are they participating? If I produce a brand of flour, can I put "Not for gay wedding cakes" on the label?

And it's always about a struggling, small business owner. Why is it more reasonable for them to refuse service than a civil servant or the Hilton?

What if the business-owner/baker had no issues with wedding cakes for gay marriage, then found out that one of his workers had been turning gay couples away because it conflicted with their religion? Or a junior baker refused to work on those cakes. Should a business owner be able to fire those workers? Force compliance? Are worker's rights different than owner's?

Like you, I'd just take my business elsewhere, not sue. But then I haven't experienced much discrimination. I imagine it would wear on you if only one baker refused you, then one florist, then one reception hall, one printer, etc. And what if you live in a one-baker town?

You raise good questions. There have been similar issues when hospital nurses, for example, are conscientious objectors to participating in routine infant circumscisions. I'm not intending to start a debate about circumscision, just pointing out that it's not uncommon for workers to object to doing certain jobs based on moral or religious grounds. One could argue that they should just work elsewhere, but what if (like the bakery customers who live in a "one bakery" town) the nurses lives in a "one hospital" town?

I'm convinced that making laws that attempt to anticipate and micromanage every situation in order to protect the rights all people at all times (or to control them) is impossible. We end up with laws that satisfy no one, or only satisfy one group at the expense of another. Laws are a poor substitute for people taking personal responsibility to treat other people with loving kindness, courtesy, dignity and respect.