1 - 10 Next
The point is, vendors aren't vetting ALL of their customer's sexual morality on religious grounds. Nor informing them of what religion they are. You can't be more religious about one group of people than you are about another and use it as a means of denying services you provide to anyone without the same invisible, uninformed test. Where the PHOTOGRAPHER messed up, was in not doing this. That's not a gay person's fault, nor within the gov't's ability to protect. If you think she has a right to religiously discriminate, then she better do it to ALL her customers for the same reason. A lot of us have been raised in Sunday school and know all the same things about what Christians are supposed to do. Heterosexuals actually have more restrictions and rules against them then gays do. "The right to refuse service" only applies if the customer isn't reasonable in what they expect from a vendor. Such as a meat eater wanting a beef entree in a vegetarian restaurant. Or if the customer is disruptive or refuses to pay. That does not apply to discrimination, nor refusing reasonable accommodation for the services you provide.
'sin friendly'? Darby, you're a dinosaur. You really are. Had you ever experienced the days of Torquemada, I doubt you'd consider that period moral. But then, you've NEVER had to experience any of what it means to truly lose your civil and human rights in this country. You just don't want to SHARE them. Our civil laws are not based on what's a sin and what isn't. But that equal justice, opportunity and protections work for ALL people regardless their backgrounds.
FACT: Homosexuality and homosexual people are universal to all human life, cultures and history. Without exception. This would be impossible were being gay a cultural choice. FACT: The genomic ladder does prove that SEXUAL ORIENTATION, that we all have, IS genetic and biological in origin and cannot be changed. Especially through religious discipline or intimidation. It's impossible for such a thing to occur spontaneously also. There is no specific genetic differences in hetero or homosexuality. Meaning, it's a NORMAL and non distinct aspect in a person. FACT: Homosexuality is not an ANTI SOCIAL or disabling aspect of human life. Gay people function at the same levels in everything that heterosexuals do. There is no reason to incarcerate or be hostile to gay behavior. In all things it's normal and gay people can and do integrate with heterosexuals without threat. FACT: There is historical and socio/political proof that denying human and civil rights to a normal and functional human being is what causes damage and unnecessary suffering. To take the single distinct aspect and use it as a means of segregation, defamation and cruelty, has proven no good to society or the individual gay person. This has happened to other minorities such as jews and blacks, therefore it's the discrimination and teaching to be hostile to gay people that is damaging. Not gay people themselves. You wish that this progress hasn't been made and you can continue to be ignorant and privileged. But it has. Get smart, grow up and move on. It's a new day.
It wasn't just his OPINION, but support of laws actuated against gay people. You like to think it's only what he THOUGHT. Not what he DID or actions on his part. But he acted AGAINST the interests of gay people's civil rights. And considering gay people work for the company he was supposed to head, that's inappropriate BEHAVIOR on his part. As we say, would you expect him to act the same way towards Jews or blacks? You are obviously someone that doesn't understand, nor EXPERIENCED the corrosive and dangerous way bigotry can be pervasive in one's life. Bigots and the damage they do can be covert. Just because he doesn't attend klan rallies in a hood, doesn't mean his attitude and policies he wants in place aren't any less damaging.
That ship sailed when business owners NEVER vetted ALL their customers regarding sexual morality. They already chose between their faith and PROFIT when NO ONE else is subjected to an invisible, religious test for fitness to be their customer. Nor informed any of their customers WHAT religion they were in the first place. That's not a gay person's fault. So when that owner is ONLY denying service to gay people, then it's anti gay discrimination, NOT religious freedom or practice. It's illegal discrimination on the basis that no business is allowed to discriminate. Proves you're ignorant about civil anti discrimination laws. And business owners are selective, hypocrites when it comes to their religion. In other words, they only got religion when it came to gay people, not anyone or anything else. No civil society can tolerate such behavior.
He's entitled to have his beliefs. And he has them. Doesn't mean that he can have the job he wants, nor that there be no consequences for his beliefs. How does his belief constitute anti gay discrimination? He donated to and supported politicians and civil policy that DOES discriminate. That's how. Had he done this with Jews or blacks, would you object to his beliefs? Or don't you think that bigotry against gays isn't bigotry, just 'beliefs'? Get real. The legacy of damage done to gay people isn't any more deserving to them than that done to blacks and Jews. Minorities MUST have Constitutional protections. THAT is America.
What IS true, is that Dan Cathy hadn't vetted his employees or customers for being gay. He's willing to have gay people make MONEY for him. He's just not willing to accept gay people as equals or allowed to have the same freedoms and protections HE has. It's possible for bigoted people to be that way. I grew up in a neighborhood where white business owners routinely had black customers they wouldn't turn away. And they had underpaid black employees too. But they supported segregationist policies and laws that kept blacks from realizing the full potential they deserved. Some bigots accept this from minorities, doesn't mean they LIKE said minorities. Just means they don't want their bottom line damaged, nor consequences for their attitudes.
No, but I remember that a man who went through a Chik Fil A drive through and only ordered water and said he supported marriage equality WAS fired from HIS job for it. But there was no protest that HIS free speech was violated. And let's not forget the three justices of IA and NOM launching a campaign to vote them out with the retention option. That had NEVER been used before on the basis of justices FOLLOWING the tenets of the Constitutional. Which IS their job. That is the truth that those who support how the laws actually are supposed to go, or work places that are just, are the ones who get fired.
No, actually it's YOUR logic that's twisted. And Eich wasn't fired, he chose to step out seeing the winds weren't in his favor. He's proven himself to support bigoted policies that damage tax paying gay citizen's lives. That's not a free speech issue. Gay men and women work for the company he was CEO of. In other words, he's broken a trust necessary for a non hostile and cohesive work place for ALL law abiding citizens. THAT is why he doesn't deserve the job. And you'd say the same thing if there were anyone in charge of a company with bigoted attitudes about any other group.
So when such men were required to accept intermarriage, integrated schools and neighborhoods, would you still say HIS rights were restricted? That HE is a victim of unfair gov't policy? Why wouldn't you think it was the gays/blacks who were all along? See? As a black woman who is old enough to have experienced Jim Crow, I find Starnes's complaints ludicrous at best. Ludicrous and unworthy of any other complaints about who has been dealt the brunt of employment policy without protections.
1 - 10 Next