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

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote: "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.

Its is not hypocrisy in my eyes to seek the right to exercise a freedom. Which running your business as you wish so long as it does not cause physical harm to others is a freedom. Might not like how they are using that liberty but that doesnt change that it exists.

You just pointed out the hypocrisy perfectly. "Seek the right to exercise a freedom" is exactly what transgender people are asking for and these business owners are using religion to manipulate the government into writing laws to deny those rights. Thanks for making that point more clearly than I did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You do not have the right to the property of others against their will. That is not a right, im sorry but its not. You do not own other people or their property so what right are you claiming they are exercising.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to start. Or equal protection under the law as defined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. Or the civil rights act of 1964. All of which say this law in Mississippi is illegal, but none of which have anything to say about the rights of business owners to sell stuff. I'd bet neither the Constitution or any other law anywhere says being required to sell stuff to people you don't like makes you a victim of a crime. Show me where that "right" is protected.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Refusing you service does not take away your rights to life or liberty. You are not free to pursue happiness at the expense of other peoples liberty. Equal protection under the law? What law is applied unequally? That only applies to how the GOVERNMENT applies the law. The civil rights act while I will admit it might have been needed at the time is still a violation of a right to control your property. What law protects your right to control your property? What law protects your rights to associate with people as you please or refuse service? Several. No one owns your property or your body so making you sell them to a person against your will is a violation of your rights. Im sorry but you are claiming a right to the labor or property of other people against their will. That is theft and slavery.

This has never once been an argument about property, but putting your property or service FOR SALE means it can't be STOLEN if someone compensates you for it with money. Slaves aren't PAID. That's how commerce works. If you want to keep your property, don't SELL IT. If you don't want to provide a service, you don't offer it.

This is an argument about whether your RELIGIOUS beliefs allow you to discriminate against certain potential customers and whether that should be LEGAL (which it isn't under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act so the feds will shoot it down anyway).

There aren't gangs of angry transsexuals looting small businesses or forcing people to sell them things. In fact, transsexuals and homosexuals are already AVOIDING these businesses because they know the owners are bigots. The issue here is that Mississippi has decided to make a sweeping piece of legislation that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with a state government trying to define certain gender identifications as wrong for religious reasons. Leave business out of it and read the original post first. Florists don't need government protection from transsexuals in order to sell flowers.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So I can come to your house kick the door in and take a craigslisted TV and toss money at you and its not theft. Im sorry but if I own a business and do not wish to sell to someone then forcing me to is theft no matter the money you toss at me afterwards. I am Bisexual and if a member of the Phelps family calls me and asks me to fix a computer which is a service I offer should I be compelled to do the work? Also forcing you to work against your will isnt slavery because you are paid? So I could capture a person and make them work my yard so long as they get money? Im sorry but then slavery never existed in the US by that logic as those supposedly enslaved got compensation via housing, food, clothing, and some medical care. Im sorry but you have no right to the property of others against their will. If a person doesnt want to sell to you then you dont have a right to force it at the barrel of a government gun. I covered almost all of this in other posts already really.

I don't list my TV on Craigslist and then refuse to sell it, I don't offer my services to the Phelps and then tell them to scree themselves, and I don't kidnap people at gun point and make them do yard work. I don't do anything against anyone's "will" and nobody does to me. I would expect to be arrested if I did most of those things. These are all completely illogical and unfounded arguments, but the fact that you believe anyone could justify slavery because they were "compensated" with food and a roof is offensive and proves how absurd this whole line of reasoning of yours is. They were kidnapped and sold in the first place which is the exact behavior you are arguing against, but none of this was done in the name of RELIGION.

One more time, this has nothing to do with PROPERTY. This is a government saying RELIGION is a valid excuse to treat some people as less of a person than others. Not just business owners, but ANYONE can use this excuse in Mississippi now. EMTs can refuse to treat someone that doesn't agree with their religion. Store owners can be dicks all they want and nobody will care, but when I am refused medical treatment from a Jewish doctor because I'm wearing a cross around my neck, it becomes a problem. This goes WAY beyond who you have to serve a hamburger to. State governments cannot and should not legislate anything based on religion. That is at the core of the founding principles of this nation. Worrying about a bisexual stealing your TV is the least of your problems.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote: "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.

Its is not hypocrisy in my eyes to seek the right to exercise a freedom. Which running your business as you wish so long as it does not cause physical harm to others is a freedom. Might not like how they are using that liberty but that doesnt change that it exists.

You just pointed out the hypocrisy perfectly. "Seek the right to exercise a freedom" is exactly what transgender people are asking for and these business owners are using religion to manipulate the government into writing laws to deny those rights. Thanks for making that point more clearly than I did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You do not have the right to the property of others against their will. That is not a right, im sorry but its not. You do not own other people or their property so what right are you claiming they are exercising.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to start. Or equal protection under the law as defined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. Or the civil rights act of 1964. All of which say this law in Mississippi is illegal, but none of which have anything to say about the rights of business owners to sell stuff. I'd bet neither the Constitution or any other law anywhere says being required to sell stuff to people you don't like makes you a victim of a crime. Show me where that "right" is protected.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Refusing you service does not take away your rights to life or liberty. You are not free to pursue happiness at the expense of other peoples liberty. Equal protection under the law? What law is applied unequally? That only applies to how the GOVERNMENT applies the law. The civil rights act while I will admit it might have been needed at the time is still a violation of a right to control your property. What law protects your right to control your property? What law protects your rights to associate with people as you please or refuse service? Several. No one owns your property or your body so making you sell them to a person against your will is a violation of your rights. Im sorry but you are claiming a right to the labor or property of other people against their will. That is theft and slavery.

This has never once been an argument about property, but putting your property or service FOR SALE means it can't be STOLEN if someone compensates you for it with money. Slaves aren't PAID. That's how commerce works. If you want to keep your property, don't SELL IT. If you don't want to provide a service, you don't offer it.

This is an argument about whether your RELIGIOUS beliefs allow you to discriminate against certain potential customers and whether that should be LEGAL (which it isn't under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act so the feds will shoot it down anyway).

There aren't gangs of angry transsexuals looting small businesses or forcing people to sell them things. In fact, transsexuals and homosexuals are already AVOIDING these businesses because they know the owners are bigots. The issue here is that Mississippi has decided to make a sweeping piece of legislation that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with a state government trying to define certain gender identifications as wrong for religious reasons. Leave business out of it and read the original post first. Florists don't need government protection from transsexuals in order to sell flowers.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So I can come to your house kick the door in and take a craigslisted TV and toss money at you and its not theft. Im sorry but if I own a business and do not wish to sell to someone then forcing me to is theft no matter the money you toss at me afterwards. I am Bisexual and if a member of the Phelps family calls me and asks me to fix a computer which is a service I offer should I be compelled to do the work? Also forcing you to work against your will isnt slavery because you are paid? So I could capture a person and make them work my yard so long as they get money? Im sorry but then slavery never existed in the US by that logic as those supposedly enslaved got compensation via housing, food, clothing, and some medical care. Im sorry but you have no right to the property of others against their will. If a person doesnt want to sell to you then you dont have a right to force it at the barrel of a government gun. I covered almost all of this in other posts already really.

I don't list my TV on Craigslist and then refuse to sell it, I don't offer my services to the Phelps and then tell them to scree themselves, and I don't kidnap people at gun point and make them do yard work. I don't do anything against anyone's "will" and nobody does to me. I would expect to be arrested if I did most of those things. These are all completely illogical and unfounded arguments, but the fact that you believe anyone could justify slavery because they were "compensated" with food and a roof is offensive and proves how absurd this whole line of reasoning of yours is. They were kidnapped and sold in the first place which is the exact behavior you are arguing against, but none of this was done in the name of RELIGION.

One more time, this has nothing to do with PROPERTY. This is a government saying RELIGION is a valid excuse to treat some people as less of a person than others. Not just business owners, but ANYONE can use this excuse in Mississippi now. EMTs can refuse to treat someone that doesn't agree with their religion. Store owners can be dicks all they want and nobody will care, but when I am refused medical treatment from a Jewish doctor because I'm wearing a cross around my neck, it becomes a problem. This goes WAY beyond who you have to serve a hamburger to. State governments cannot and should not legislate anything based on religion. That is at the core of the founding principles of this nation. Worrying about a bisexual stealing your TV is the least of your problems.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And if you read my former posts you will see I am against government employees and anyone taking a government paycheck having the ability to refuse service as they are paid with taxpayer money. So that means you already have given them money for their service. The separation here is that if I open a PC repair store and the Phelps walk in I didnt offer them service they came seeking it and I turned them away. Further I did not justify slavery I used it as an example. If forcing a sale is not theft because you toss money at them then slavery isnt slavery so long as they are compensated. Its a simple matter to me, if agree that you do not own a persons body or goods then you cant make them work for or sell to you if they wish to turn you away. The government is a separate issue as I said they already take your money without your say.

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote: "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.

Its is not hypocrisy in my eyes to seek the right to exercise a freedom. Which running your business as you wish so long as it does not cause physical harm to others is a freedom. Might not like how they are using that liberty but that doesnt change that it exists.

You just pointed out the hypocrisy perfectly. "Seek the right to exercise a freedom" is exactly what transgender people are asking for and these business owners are using religion to manipulate the government into writing laws to deny those rights. Thanks for making that point more clearly than I did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You do not have the right to the property of others against their will. That is not a right, im sorry but its not. You do not own other people or their property so what right are you claiming they are exercising.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to start. Or equal protection under the law as defined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. Or the civil rights act of 1964. All of which say this law in Mississippi is illegal, but none of which have anything to say about the rights of business owners to sell stuff. I'd bet neither the Constitution or any other law anywhere says being required to sell stuff to people you don't like makes you a victim of a crime. Show me where that "right" is protected.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Refusing you service does not take away your rights to life or liberty. You are not free to pursue happiness at the expense of other peoples liberty. Equal protection under the law? What law is applied unequally? That only applies to how the GOVERNMENT applies the law. The civil rights act while I will admit it might have been needed at the time is still a violation of a right to control your property. What law protects your right to control your property? What law protects your rights to associate with people as you please or refuse service? Several. No one owns your property or your body so making you sell them to a person against your will is a violation of your rights. Im sorry but you are claiming a right to the labor or property of other people against their will. That is theft and slavery.

This has never once been an argument about property, but putting your property or service FOR SALE means it can't be STOLEN if someone compensates you for it with money. Slaves aren't PAID. That's how commerce works. If you want to keep your property, don't SELL IT. If you don't want to provide a service, you don't offer it.

This is an argument about whether your RELIGIOUS beliefs allow you to discriminate against certain potential customers and whether that should be LEGAL (which it isn't under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act so the feds will shoot it down anyway).

There aren't gangs of angry transsexuals looting small businesses or forcing people to sell them things. In fact, transsexuals and homosexuals are already AVOIDING these businesses because they know the owners are bigots. The issue here is that Mississippi has decided to make a sweeping piece of legislation that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with a state government trying to define certain gender identifications as wrong for religious reasons. Leave business out of it and read the original post first. Florists don't need government protection from transsexuals in order to sell flowers.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So I can come to your house kick the door in and take a craigslisted TV and toss money at you and its not theft. Im sorry but if I own a business and do not wish to sell to someone then forcing me to is theft no matter the money you toss at me afterwards. I am Bisexual and if a member of the Phelps family calls me and asks me to fix a computer which is a service I offer should I be compelled to do the work? Also forcing you to work against your will isnt slavery because you are paid? So I could capture a person and make them work my yard so long as they get money? Im sorry but then slavery never existed in the US by that logic as those supposedly enslaved got compensation via housing, food, clothing, and some medical care. Im sorry but you have no right to the property of others against their will. If a person doesnt want to sell to you then you dont have a right to force it at the barrel of a government gun. I covered almost all of this in other posts already really.

I don't list my TV on Craigslist and then refuse to sell it, I don't offer my services to the Phelps and then tell them to scree themselves, and I don't kidnap people at gun point and make them do yard work. I don't do anything against anyone's "will" and nobody does to me. I would expect to be arrested if I did most of those things. These are all completely illogical and unfounded arguments, but the fact that you believe anyone could justify slavery because they were "compensated" with food and a roof is offensive and proves how absurd this whole line of reasoning of yours is. They were kidnapped and sold in the first place which is the exact behavior you are arguing against, but none of this was done in the name of RELIGION.

One more time, this has nothing to do with PROPERTY. This is a government saying RELIGION is a valid excuse to treat some people as less of a person than others. Not just business owners, but ANYONE can use this excuse in Mississippi now. EMTs can refuse to treat someone that doesn't agree with their religion. Store owners can be dicks all they want and nobody will care, but when I am refused medical treatment from a Jewish doctor because I'm wearing a cross around my neck, it becomes a problem. This goes WAY beyond who you have to serve a hamburger to. State governments cannot and should not legislate anything based on religion. That is at the core of the founding principles of this nation. Worrying about a bisexual stealing your TV is the least of your problems.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And if you read my former posts you will see I am against government employees and anyone taking a government paycheck having the ability to refuse service as they are paid with taxpayer money. So that means you already have given them money for their service. The separation here is that if I open a PC repair store and the Phelps walk in I didnt offer them service they came seeking it and I turned them away. Further I did not justify slavery I used it as an example. If forcing a sale is not theft because you toss money at them then slavery isnt slavery so long as they are compensated. Its a simple matter to me, if agree that you do not own a persons body or goods then you cant make them work for or sell to you if they wish to turn you away. The government is a separate issue as I said they already take your money without your say.

Not all EMTs take government money. Not all doctors don't take government money. If you've ever had an ambulance ride, you'll know the government doesnt pay for it. YOU do, and its expensive. A crap ton of services you think are paid for by your taxes are not. Your city hires private contractors. Guess what? This law let's them refuse service to you based on their religious beliefs. You see the problem now? By your argument, we shouldn't expect an EMT who thinks women should have their heads covered to treat my mother after a car accident. And why would any of these private business owners know who is transsexual and who isn't? And if their money is green, why should they care? The Jedi answer seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess I just don't understand Mississippi.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote: "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.

Its is not hypocrisy in my eyes to seek the right to exercise a freedom. Which running your business as you wish so long as it does not cause physical harm to others is a freedom. Might not like how they are using that liberty but that doesnt change that it exists.

You just pointed out the hypocrisy perfectly. "Seek the right to exercise a freedom" is exactly what transgender people are asking for and these business owners are using religion to manipulate the government into writing laws to deny those rights. Thanks for making that point more clearly than I did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You do not have the right to the property of others against their will. That is not a right, im sorry but its not. You do not own other people or their property so what right are you claiming they are exercising.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to start. Or equal protection under the law as defined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. Or the civil rights act of 1964. All of which say this law in Mississippi is illegal, but none of which have anything to say about the rights of business owners to sell stuff. I'd bet neither the Constitution or any other law anywhere says being required to sell stuff to people you don't like makes you a victim of a crime. Show me where that "right" is protected.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Refusing you service does not take away your rights to life or liberty. You are not free to pursue happiness at the expense of other peoples liberty. Equal protection under the law? What law is applied unequally? That only applies to how the GOVERNMENT applies the law. The civil rights act while I will admit it might have been needed at the time is still a violation of a right to control your property. What law protects your right to control your property? What law protects your rights to associate with people as you please or refuse service? Several. No one owns your property or your body so making you sell them to a person against your will is a violation of your rights. Im sorry but you are claiming a right to the labor or property of other people against their will. That is theft and slavery.

This has never once been an argument about property, but putting your property or service FOR SALE means it can't be STOLEN if someone compensates you for it with money. Slaves aren't PAID. That's how commerce works. If you want to keep your property, don't SELL IT. If you don't want to provide a service, you don't offer it.

This is an argument about whether your RELIGIOUS beliefs allow you to discriminate against certain potential customers and whether that should be LEGAL (which it isn't under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act so the feds will shoot it down anyway).

There aren't gangs of angry transsexuals looting small businesses or forcing people to sell them things. In fact, transsexuals and homosexuals are already AVOIDING these businesses because they know the owners are bigots. The issue here is that Mississippi has decided to make a sweeping piece of legislation that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with a state government trying to define certain gender identifications as wrong for religious reasons. Leave business out of it and read the original post first. Florists don't need government protection from transsexuals in order to sell flowers.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So I can come to your house kick the door in and take a craigslisted TV and toss money at you and its not theft. Im sorry but if I own a business and do not wish to sell to someone then forcing me to is theft no matter the money you toss at me afterwards. I am Bisexual and if a member of the Phelps family calls me and asks me to fix a computer which is a service I offer should I be compelled to do the work? Also forcing you to work against your will isnt slavery because you are paid? So I could capture a person and make them work my yard so long as they get money? Im sorry but then slavery never existed in the US by that logic as those supposedly enslaved got compensation via housing, food, clothing, and some medical care. Im sorry but you have no right to the property of others against their will. If a person doesnt want to sell to you then you dont have a right to force it at the barrel of a government gun. I covered almost all of this in other posts already really.

I don't list my TV on Craigslist and then refuse to sell it, I don't offer my services to the Phelps and then tell them to scree themselves, and I don't kidnap people at gun point and make them do yard work. I don't do anything against anyone's "will" and nobody does to me. I would expect to be arrested if I did most of those things. These are all completely illogical and unfounded arguments, but the fact that you believe anyone could justify slavery because they were "compensated" with food and a roof is offensive and proves how absurd this whole line of reasoning of yours is. They were kidnapped and sold in the first place which is the exact behavior you are arguing against, but none of this was done in the name of RELIGION.

One more time, this has nothing to do with PROPERTY. This is a government saying RELIGION is a valid excuse to treat some people as less of a person than others. Not just business owners, but ANYONE can use this excuse in Mississippi now. EMTs can refuse to treat someone that doesn't agree with their religion. Store owners can be dicks all they want and nobody will care, but when I am refused medical treatment from a Jewish doctor because I'm wearing a cross around my neck, it becomes a problem. This goes WAY beyond who you have to serve a hamburger to. State governments cannot and should not legislate anything based on religion. That is at the core of the founding principles of this nation. Worrying about a bisexual stealing your TV is the least of your problems.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And if you read my former posts you will see I am against government employees and anyone taking a government paycheck having the ability to refuse service as they are paid with taxpayer money. So that means you already have given them money for their service. The separation here is that if I open a PC repair store and the Phelps walk in I didnt offer them service they came seeking it and I turned them away. Further I did not justify slavery I used it as an example. If forcing a sale is not theft because you toss money at them then slavery isnt slavery so long as they are compensated. Its a simple matter to me, if agree that you do not own a persons body or goods then you cant make them work for or sell to you if they wish to turn you away. The government is a separate issue as I said they already take your money without your say.

Not all EMTs take government money. Not all doctors don't take government money. If you've ever had an ambulance ride, you'll know the government doesnt pay for it. YOU do, and its expensive. A crap ton of services you think are paid for by your taxes are not. Your city hires private contractors. Guess what? This law let's them refuse service to you based on their religious beliefs. You see the problem now? By your argument, we shouldn't expect an EMT who thinks women should have their heads covered to treat my mother after a car accident. And why would any of these private business owners know who is transsexual and who isn't? And if their money is green, why should they care? The Jedi answer seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess I just don't understand Mississippi.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

They all take medicade and medicare which is government money so unless they dont want that they cant take that any more. Further if they are hired by the city they are STILL paid by taxes. Further those in the medical field take an oath against such action. A business shouldnt care but that doesnt mean we get to use guns to make them do what we think is right. Like I said I dont like it but I support the right to run your business as you see fit unless you defraud or harm someone

Honestly I am not sure how this is an argument. If a business owner refuses to sale to someone regardless of who they are. It is the business owner that is losing Business. If that is what he wants - That's his business (Pun intended)

Instead of complaining about it, go spend your money elsewhere and benefit someone that Does support your system, give them a tip even! They will thank you for it and all is happy.

Simple fact of the matter is. People have rights for or against. They do not have the right however to force another's right to there own.

I believe that I am a Jedi. I know several people who would think i have demons in my soul, I do not force these people to accept my way. I simply accept that they are different and maintain a positive interaction by keeping my beliefs to myself.

Trisskar wrote: Honestly I am not sure how this is an argument. If a business owner refuses to sale to someone regardless of who they are. It is the business owner that is losing Business. If that is what he wants - That's his business (Pun intended)

The issue is it isn't quite that simple, Trisskar. Masking discrimination as personal choice legitimizes that discrimination in the eyes of others who hold similar prejudices.

MadHatter wrote:

Manu wrote:
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.

Except voting is a right. Being accepted is not. No one has to like that I am Bisexual and I have no right to a persons goods or acceptance against their will. I think that is a rather important separation.

Maybe I chose a poor example. But the point is the same. Let's assume your religious beliefs lead you to think that society is going to hell because women have been granted equal rights, while your sacred text states that men are to do business and women should stay at home, in submission to their husband/father. You start a business and decide to only hire men, and will not serve women who walk in on their own (unaccompanied by their husband). Is that fair?

Trisskar wrote: I believe that I am a Jedi. I know several people who would think i have demons in my soul, I do not force these people to accept my way. I simply accept that they are different and maintain a positive interaction by keeping my beliefs to myself.

There are many people who are gay or bisexual, and you would never be able to tell. But transgendered people don't always have the luck of being able to match the look of the gender they identify with.

And by the way, how would a black person keep his blackness to himself?

Thanks for the engaging conversation, MadHatter. I think I got a little carried away with the back and forth, but it made me think and I appreciate that. We should keep talking.

Apologies to everyone else who tried to wade through my many ramblings. Passion, yet Serenity

steamboat28 wrote: The issue is it isn't quite that simple, Trisskar. Masking discrimination as personal choice legitimizes that discrimination in the eyes of others who hold similar prejudices.[/quote

And? People have a right to their views no matter how loathsome we might find them. Or should we do away with freedom of association and speech all together because those also help legitimize such views in the eyes that hold them.

Manu wrote: Maybe I chose a poor example. But the point is the same. Let's assume your religious beliefs lead you to think that society is going to hell because women have been granted equal rights, while your sacred text states that men are to do business and women should stay at home, in submission to their husband/father. You start a business and decide to only hire men, and will not serve women who walk in on their own (unaccompanied by their husband). Is that fair?

What does it being fair have to do with it? Life is not fair. Not everyone will like everything. I mean there are women only gyms is that fair? There are charities that help only people of color is that fair? Is it fair that there are scholarships for only LGBT people? What about clubs that only accept Italian Americans? I mean really all of those things discriminate but people largely ignore it. Heck there is a taxi service run by and for just women starting up so women feel safer then using Uber is that fair? Those things are pretty much all the same as what we have covered here but people wont get up in arms about them.

Senan wrote: Thanks for the engaging conversation, MadHatter. I think I got a little carried away with the back and forth, but it made me think and I appreciate that. We should keep talking.

Apologies to everyone else who tried to wade through my many ramblings. Passion, yet Serenity

LOL you are welcome. As I said to others in this thread I dont like the idea of discrimination I just like the idea of government enforced morals far less.