The Politics Thread

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

Honestly I don't recall you ever saying anything racial about the President or his family so I don't know where all that is coming from.

And for the record I do appreciate your attempts at a cordial debate and your POV. While I disagree strongly on a lot of things and I feel like you're a part of the Republican Party that is getting smaller each and every day I do think its important to hear your thoughts on things.

And frankly I'm starting to realize that I'm more Centrist that I used to be. Even this whole thing in Arizona has kinda stumped me. I don't believe in discrimination at all but I also don't believe in forcing myself on people who don't want my company. Specifically if I know that Person A as a Christian is uncomfortable (on the basis on their religion) about providing me a cake or some type of service then I honestly would not ask them to. I might talk to them calmly and try to reason with them but if I felt that they weren't being hateful or prejudice and it was really based on moral grounds then I would take my business elsewhere and leave it alone.

I don't approve of causing someone to go out of business simply because they refused to provide you a wedding cake. I think that's absolutely despicable. I think there's a fine line between protecting religious freedoms and preventing/reducing discrimination. I don't claim to have all the answers but I wish we as a nation could have a rational honest dialogue about things like that.

[Max]

Well, Roman, I never thought I would "compliment" somebody for suggesting I was a racist, but at least you had the "courage" this time to man up and specify to whom you were referring. It actually represents an improvement from your usual "some in this thread..." cowardly garbage.

Prince, thanks so much for your kind words, and for the important contributions you make to the dialogue in this thread.

I couldn't agree more regarding the fact that we need to have a rational dialogue over how to balance civil liberties with religious freedom, and I totally respect everything you are saying. IMO, I also would not want to see a business close its doors as the result of a civil rights lawsuit, but I also think that using religious freedom as the reason not to bake a cake for a gay wedding goes way too far. (On another matter, I certainly agree with you that, if I were gay, I would definitely not give a homophobe my business.)

However, if any one church was forced to marry a gay couple, I would consider that a violation of religious freedom (and would be in support of a proposed law that would prevent such a thing from happening, especially in light of the fact that there are many churches that now marry gay couples). IMO, the only legitimate way any bakery could claim religious freedom (in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding) was if it that bakery was a non-profit that happened to be owned-and-operated by a religious institution.

(My apologies if I went beyond the scope of what you addressed. I just wanted to state my own views that religious freedom is not a valid reason for a for-profit bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple and discriminate, even though I am willing to make exceptions for how not-for-profit religious institutions approach gay marriage.)

Edited March 3, 2014 by Max

[marceline]

I agree with you about not wanting to force people to accept your business. I don't really understand the mindset behind that. If you don't want to take my money, fine. I'll find someone who does. That's what Yelp is for.

For me the issue is that these laws are bad on their face. The "sincerely held beliefs" clause reminds me a lot of why I find "stand your ground" laws so noxious. It allows people to engage in damaging, disruptive behavior regardless of the reason, evidence or reality.

Could a paramedic refuse to treat someone who was in an accident just because they're gay? Could a firefighter refuse to fight a fire at an abortion clinic? Could people refuse to serve Mormons because of their history of racism and plural marriage? Could I decide not to serve nuns or priests given my "sincerely held beliefs" about the way the Catholic Church treats women or because of its history of sexual abuse? Laws need to be based on behavior and actions whenever possible. Plus these laws removed the option to sue so they offer a level of protection to religious bigotry that other "sincerely held beliefs" don't get. They also set up a nasty catch-22 for businesses. If your global company - like say an airline or hotel chain - has a non-discrimination policy, this lets some low level employee spit in the face of your customers and set you up for all kinds of negative legal and financial consequences and leaves managers with no way to redress it.

These are just bad laws based on hysteria and hatred.

Edited March 3, 2014 by marceline

[Vee]

It's discrimination. And while I expected those initiatives to get shot down because of that simple fact, just the fact that it was coming up in this day and age - through the weasel tactic of trying to make it about "religious freedom" instead of what it was, which was institutionalized discrimination - made my skin crawl. Someone will try again.

[DRW50]

Which is why we are seeing a big push, even from many "liberals" and, unsurprisingly, some gays who need to prove they aren't like all the others, to shame those who opposed these laws and insist that gays and lesbians should just shop elsewhere and leave Christians alone. It's groundwork to bring these laws back.

The business community knew better, and knew what these laws would truly do. It's a shame that loudmouth martyrs like Andrew Sullivan do not.

Edited March 4, 2014 by DRW50

[Vee]

Oh, Sully is just a big emotional quasi-centrist galoot who vacillates a lot. He'll see sense eventually, even if he couldn't handle New York.

I don't think these initiatives will ever succeed. But I do think they should be loudly fought against.

[Roman]

I just want to ask just a handful of these Republicans why is it so important for them to know someone's sexual orientation? So many things since the beginning of man has been used from the Bible to justify some of the most evil things that man has done to his fellow man. If I were gay I would go into a restaurant and just wait for someone to kick me out because they THINK I MIGHT be gay. So much to be focused on....but the hatred still rears itshead.

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

What makes you so certain that for some of those people it wasn't about religious freedom? Is the next step that gay people will have the right to go into any church and demand to be married?

I'm not saying that there are people who were using it as a cover for prejudice but for those that weren't I think they deserve to be acknowledged as well. And for me it has nothing about shaming other gays. I have own views as a gay person and they don't have to agree with every single other gay person out there. For one thing I don't agree with transsexuality. Sorry I just don't. I think God made us man or woman and that's how we were meant to be.

So while this law in Arizona was vaguely worded and might have had more negative effects than positive I think the underlying philosophical argument/debate should be had. Again I ask why would anyone want to give their money to and a force a business that doesn't feel comfortable with their sexuality to do the service? Is it right that that baker in whatever state is now bankrupt? To me I think the answer is no.

[quartermainefan]

Because religious freedom is only an excuse since the law doesn't address religious freedom in the slightest. There is nothing in Christianity which mandates prejudice. The pope himself said "who am I to judge?" and your place of business is not your house of worship.

Why would anyone want to give their money to a business where they didn't want them? Why did those kids want to go to schools in the 1950s even though they knew they were not wanted? Why did they want to drink from water fountains designated for white people if they knew the white people didn't want them? It isn't this particular business or that, it is the whole idea of legalizing and codifying prejudice. Maybe next they will say "well I am christian, you are jewish/muslim/athiest, I don't want you in this restaurant. Better yet, "you're gay? You are not allowed to live in this apartment building/on this street/in this town".

No one is saying a church should conduct ceremonies against their religion, but how does the exchange of money and services in any way address religious freedom? All that law does is legalize hate and prejudice. Better yet, just imagine christians come to NY and get turned away from a jewish restaurant because christians believe in the messiah and that is against their religion. What do you think christians from coast to coast would say about those jews? I'm jewish, and I know exactly what they would say.

[marceline]

Has anybody actually been forced to provide a service to a gay couple? All the arguments in favor of these laws have been based on hypotheticals. Has anybody actually been forced to provide their services? I'm not talking about businesses that refused and then were punished by the marketplace. That's just the free market working the way it should.

[Max]

Marceline, I don't believe that anyone can be forced to provide services to someone, but they can be forced to face the legal consequences for refusing to serve certain customers. I remember a lot of press was generated when an Oregon bakery was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/

This WSJ article (about a Colorado bakery that was sued for the same reason) mentions this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579242750485975452

To the best of my knowledge, however, none of these cases have happened in Arizona, because no anti-gay discrimination laws are in place there (thus weakening the case even further for SB 1062).

Edited March 7, 2014 by Max

[Roman]

The hypocrisy of some in the RP....use religious freedom legislation to discriminate against Americans. But, I thought Republicans don't want government in people's homes, and don't want government to tell them how to live their lives.

[marceline]

Those businesses broke state law. If they want to be bigots they need to move to a state where bigotry is approved of or find a way to become a private club that sells memberships.

Yeah, the limited government mantra is a complete lie. Republicans don't want limited government they want government they can manipulate and misuse for profit and to advance an ideological agenda. They want limited government for the same reason criminals want fewer cops on the street.

Edited March 7, 2014 by marceline

[Max]

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just giving real-life examples of businesses getting sued for failing to serve gays.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Max

[Roman]

This is true. I guess they want limited government when it comes to financial matters. I mean hell, both parties get millions under the table from Big Whatever but Republicans seem to get downright apoplectic when anyone says they should have their taxes raised. And then, you ask one of them why they are upset and the say whatever they heard on television. I still remember the Real Time segment where these people refused to consider voting for Pres. Obama even after they were told that they could received better healthcare at a more affordable rate. And it also goes back to what i heard the former reporter from the Russian station say that 90% of what we read, hear and watch news wise is controlled by 6 major corporations. It's like Equilibrium meets Network.