Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

MadHatter wrote:

Atticus509 wrote: The Supreme Court once articulated a distinction based in "immutable characteristics" like skin pigment or gender. So please indulge me when I ask, if we swapped out gender or perceived gender for race or ethnicity, would you still be making this argument?

Yes I would. I might not agree with it. I would never do so myself. But I believe its the right of the businessmen to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It could be they dont like my face, my height, or my skin color, but it is their right. No one should be forced to do business against their will unless A: they signed a contract that binds them, B: They work for the government or are state funded thus are taking my money without my say, or C: They work for a business that refuses to allow such discrimination and as such can leave if they do not like the rules of the owner.
I am a Bisexual man and my boyfriend is Gay. We both support the bakers here in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a couple and think the courts violated their liberty by enacting the fines against them. I dont like what they did but I do not believe I have the right to use force to change that.

I respect you for holding to an extraordinarily principled stance, though I disagree. Thank you for helping me understand your position.

Atticus509 wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Atticus509 wrote: The Supreme Court once articulated a distinction based in "immutable characteristics" like skin pigment or gender. So please indulge me when I ask, if we swapped out gender or perceived gender for race or ethnicity, would you still be making this argument?

Yes I would. I might not agree with it. I would never do so myself. But I believe its the right of the businessmen to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It could be they dont like my face, my height, or my skin color, but it is their right. No one should be forced to do business against their will unless A: they signed a contract that binds them, B: They work for the government or are state funded thus are taking my money without my say, or C: They work for a business that refuses to allow such discrimination and as such can leave if they do not like the rules of the owner.
I am a Bisexual man and my boyfriend is Gay. We both support the bakers here in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a couple and think the courts violated their liberty by enacting the fines against them. I dont like what they did but I do not believe I have the right to use force to change that.

I respect you for holding to an extraordinarily principled stance, though I disagree. Thank you for helping me understand your position.

Trust me I dont like bigoted behavior and would never give a dime to such a business. I just do not think its moral for the government to use force to enact social change outside of its own institutions. It is one thing when a government employee is forced to conform to a set of standards as they are on the peoples dime. Its rather another to do so to the private person. When I joined the military I took an oath to the principles of liberty as written by our founding fathers. I do not have to like how people use such liberty to defend their right to do so. I enlisted when I was not even allowed to be open about who I loved which is how much I believe in such a concept. I might find these businesses loathsome personally but that doesnt make it my right to enact force or demand others enact force on my behalf if that makes sense.

MadHatter wrote:

Atticus509 wrote: I respect you for holding to an extraordinarily principled stance, though I disagree. Thank you for helping me understand your position.

Trust me I dont like bigoted behavior and would never give a dime to such a business. I just do not think its moral for the government to use force to enact social change outside of its own institutions. It is one thing when a government employee is forced to conform to a set of standards as they are on the peoples dime. Its rather another to do so to the private person. When I joined the military I took an oath to the principles of liberty as written by our founding fathers. I do not have to like how people use such liberty to defend their right to do so. I enlisted when I was not even allowed to be open about who I loved which is how much I believe in such a concept. I might find these businesses loathsome personally but that doesnt make it my right to enact force or demand others enact force on my behalf if that makes sense.

It does. I clearly perceive that we just have different views of the moral use of authority.

Atticus509 wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Atticus509 wrote: I respect you for holding to an extraordinarily principled stance, though I disagree. Thank you for helping me understand your position.

Trust me I dont like bigoted behavior and would never give a dime to such a business. I just do not think its moral for the government to use force to enact social change outside of its own institutions. It is one thing when a government employee is forced to conform to a set of standards as they are on the peoples dime. Its rather another to do so to the private person. When I joined the military I took an oath to the principles of liberty as written by our founding fathers. I do not have to like how people use such liberty to defend their right to do so. I enlisted when I was not even allowed to be open about who I loved which is how much I believe in such a concept. I might find these businesses loathsome personally but that doesnt make it my right to enact force or demand others enact force on my behalf if that makes sense.

It does. I clearly perceive that we just have different views of the moral use of authority.

Which is fine. I think that the right answer is likely somewhere in the middle of my ideas and yours. I dont necessarily think that might stance might be the most practical or healthy for the world at large. I simply think that there is a need for great caution and worry anytime we talk about using law to force change. As stated by yourself I might be too idealistic for the good of all but I think such hope and caution is needed to balance things out.

MadHatter wrote: I am a Bisexual man and my boyfriend is Gay. We both support the bakers here in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a couple and think the courts violated their liberty by enacting the fines against them. I dont like what they did but I do not believe I have the right to use force to change that.

I see your point, and I suppose if this were such a black and white issue it wouldn't creat controversy in the first place. There are merits to both sides of the argument, for sure.

Perhaps my view is tainted by the fact that I live in a much smaller country. If a business here in Ecuador were to decide to discriminate against a minority, that minority would not only not be able to purchase a good or product from that particular business, but because of the extensive networks of dealers and suppliers, the minority would be effectively locked out from consuming at many places, would not be able to get a job at all (because a business that discriminates against clientes would certainly not hire said minority), and would not many options in deciding where to purchase a home.

For a "mom and pop" business that usually doesn't create jobs and is run by the owner, it doesn't seem like such an issue if they refuse service to a particular minority. But what happens when it becomes the norm for big business?

MadHatter, thank you. For the last several days as I have been reading and replying to this thread I have been conflicted. You have managed to share a stance very similar to my own in better words than I.

Manu and Atticus, you have both done a very good job of trying to understand this view despite your disagreement. I was very concerned that talking about not believing that the government should get too involved in private businesses would lead people to believe that I support the decisions of said businesses when in fact I do not. You two responding to MadHatter as you have has helped me to be less worried about that.

This is a discussion worthy of Jedi.

I do very much like the fact that larger businesses and groups have decided to take a stance against these laws. The NCAA discussing that it might exclude holding events in those states, Bruce Springsteen canceling a sold out show in North Carolina, and many other such things. Hopefully this kind of pressure from the people of this country can be enough to win over these people and help those whom they are discriminating against.

I would say that it is my sincerest hope that for every business that turns people away for reasons beyond their own control there will be three more that welcome them with open arms. I believe that this is a chance for the good people of those areas to stand up and say that they will help those who are suffering because of bigotry and hate. A chance for new businesses to prosper. This is the kind of solution that I hope to see.

If the Federal Government, however, feels that it is necessary to strike these new laws down and enact their own new anti-LGBT Discrimination laws I would not oppose them, though I would be sad that it came to that. It is a sad day when we as a society must be told to treat our fellow humans as fellow humans.

I'm gonna make a video about this today, I think. I have very strong opinions on this. (imagine that. steamboat with an opinion. )

I'm a fan of free enterprise and letting a business prosper or fail based on its performance. Hopefully businesses that discriminate against a certain group of consumers would suffer the negative financial consequences and I would also hope that other businesses would spring up and create competition to take advantage of this vulnerability.

This scenario becomes a lot less likely when discrimination is condoned (and sometimes even sanctioned) by a government. This particular issue is a state government putting in writing that it will not stop or even discourage outright discrimination against a particular group by private business owners.

Why is this a problem? It is dangerous because it is hypocritical. The same businesses who want the government to quit writing legislation that violates their own religious freedoms are now relying on legislation by that same government to allow them to use those religious freedoms to discriminate against others.

"Don't write laws that violate my right to do business a certain way based on my religious beliefs... unless I need your laws to grant me permission to discriminate against someone based on my religious beliefs. In that case, please write some laws to help me out."

They are trying to use the very same legislative weapon against others that they were screaming about when it was used against them. It is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Manu wrote: Asking people not to treat you poorly for being different is not the same as forcing them to accept it is ok. Gay people aren't saying "be gay like me!", what they are saying is "treat me as person, my sexual orientation is my own business, not yours". Imagine if for some reason, the majority of the world decided that Jedi are lunatics, and decided not to do business with them. Even if you try to go somewhere else, they are closing doors in your face as well. How would you feel?

You obviously feel Ok with homosexuality. Others believe it to be a great evil. Forcing them to accept it, is not OK at all to them. Teaching their kids that homosexuality is cool is not OK with them. etc. Beliefs, conscience, kid's education are their human rights too.

"treat me as person, my sexual orientation is my own business, not yours"
If this were the case we'd have no idea who has what sexuality (or if they have a sexuality at all), and therefore it would be impossible to discriminate on those grounds.

" How would you feel?"
Perfectly fine and move on.

...

AveryR1988 wrote: And now there is a state (Mississippi I think), that just put a measure allowing mental health providers and health care providers, to refuse us service.

Well that's just stupid. With a few exceptions (intersex/hermaphrodite/etc), transgender people obviously suffer from a mental illness. While the "correct" thing these days is to let them indulge in their follies and help them do so, refusing mental health treatment seems like an additional layer of unnecessary madness.

By allowing people to refuse services based on their personal or religious beliefs, could cost us our lives when an ER staff member, police officer, school employees, and even life guards refuse services.

Good point, that's why these professions are so heavily regulated, and should remain so. People don't want doctors who believe in killing patients or school teachers who believe in having sex with kids. It should be noted that such people are employees, or otherwise allowed by society to practise(like private doctors). Employees should do what they get paid to do or walk out IMO. So if (as a shop owner) an employee were to refuse to serve a customer because the customer is transgender, I want the right to fire that employee, not be told "oh but employee believes in SpaghettiMonster and it is against religion therefore discrimination). It works both ways.

sounds like separate but unequal to me when we don't even get basic human rights (like to pee)

I hear this all the time from transgenders, but in the world I live in only women seem to be bothered about who does what and how in the bathroom. Everyone else seems fine as long as body fluids end up in the appropriate receptacle (and then again kids don't seem all that bothered). Go to the men's, if anyone bothers you whilst you do your business the rules are clear.

ren wrote:

Manu wrote: Asking people not to treat you poorly for being different is not the same as forcing them to accept it is ok. Gay people aren't saying "be gay like me!", what they are saying is "treat me as person, my sexual orientation is my own business, not yours". Imagine if for some reason, the majority of the world decided that Jedi are lunatics, and decided not to do business with them. Even if you try to go somewhere else, they are closing doors in your face as well. How would you feel?

You obviously feel Ok with homosexuality. Others believe it to be a great evil. Forcing them to accept it, is not OK at all to them. Teaching their kids that homosexuality is cool is not OK with them. etc. Beliefs, conscience, kid's education are their human rights too.

Let's substitute "homosexuality" with "women voting" (since they are equally evil in the Bible).

You obviously feel Ok with women voting. Others believe it to be a great evil. Forcing them to accept it, is not OK at all to them. Teaching their kids that women voting is cool is not OK with them. etc. Beliefs, conscience, kid's education are their human rights too.