The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Touring Mars]

The day cake and pie is a necessity to survive I will accept that a bakery is a public service, and I will demand that they install a custard faucet in my home.

And surely there is nothing more private than what a man does with his custard faucet in his own home.

 

[KSaiyu]

Surely we're at the stage with information so freely distributed that word of mouth is sufficient for private businesses to "protect" against discrimination (I think the more appropriate term would be "flag discrimination").

Just look at the Thomas Cook fallout.

Imagine if a estate agent were found to discriminate on the basis of race/sexuality.

 

[DK]

I'm in two thoughts about this ruling too. However, Ashers had no problem taking the money in the first place, and then turned around and refused to make the cake. If they had just straight up said "we don't agree with the cake's message, sorry" and refused to take the cash I'd have more sympathy for them.

I suppose they're not in danger of going under any time soon, considering that marriage equality failed to get "cross-community" support in Stormont as the majority of unionist MLAs voted against it and the DUP and TUV have made a lot of noise about the McArthurs being "persecuted".

 

[Touring Mars]

It depends on when they became aware of the slogan that was intended to be written on it I suppose, but I don't think that's the main issue anyway.

As someone else on the Guardian website pointed out, the ruling was apparently made on the assumption that the bakers were discriminating against the customers on the basis of their sexual orientation... but was that really the case? Arguably, there are more straight people in favour of gay marriage than gay people, so what if the person who ordered the cake was not gay... would the baker have refused to put the slogan on the cake? My guess is a pretty definite yes... and if that were the case, then how can it be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

[Joel]

It's seemingly a much more common topic of debate in the US than it is here - there seems to be a perception in the UK and in Europe that private businesses (shops, bars, hotels etc.) are infact public places - a distinction that isn't so readily made in the US... perhaps I am wrong or being unfair, but that's the way it feels at times.

I also made a few comments on the Guardian website about this issue and one response was 'there needs to be a distinction between the private and public realms. This baker is providing a public service and therefore can't discriminate'...

Yeah that's a distinction that gets used to justify a lot of legislation. Smoking bans in restaurants are justified by arguing that the restaurant is a public place and that the good of the public trumps your rights as an owner of private property. It's along the same lines as the "you didn't build that" idea, that because your business in its current form wouldn't exist without public roads, a publicly educated workforce, and a customer base kept healthy through public healthy initiatives, you can't close arbitrarily close off your business to those who paid for that public infrastructure which facilitates your business operating.

To me that's really shaky reasoning, government sets up a monopoly on this stuff with tax money on threat of force and then claims we couldn't live without them so we have to follow their rules on our private property. It's just fundamentally at odds with my view on private property, which is that nobody but the property owner has a stake in its use. If someone wants to start a bakery that only serves gay buddhist badminton players with pink hair, that's their decision, and I don't have a claim to their property if they don't wish to serve me (for any reason).

The way things are now it leads to business owners using things like dress codes or a code of conduct as a proxy for race/sexual orientation/social class based discrimination. Nightclub dress codes can be very specific, for example.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It depends on when they became aware of the slogan that was intended to be written on it I suppose, but I don't think that's the main issue anyway.

It kind of is for me, it goes to when people can be forced to say something. A hotelier excluding same-sex couples from renting private facilities is a completely different case from a flag-maker, or sign-writer, or cake-decorator being forced to produce a message that they don't want to.

 

[Danoff]

It kind of is for me, it goes to when people can be forced to say something. A hotelier excluding same-sex couples from renting private facilities is a completely different case from a flag-maker, or sign-writer, or cake-decorator being forced to produce a message that they don't want to.

How, exactly?

 

[LeMansAid]

It kind of is for me, it goes to when people can be forced to say something. A hotelier excluding same-sex couples from renting private facilities is a completely different case from a flag-maker, or sign-writer, or cake-decorator being forced to produce a message that they don't want to.

I'd take it somewhere else actually. In an environment with exclusively private health care, and complete freedom to discriminate within those private businesses, it would potentially be possible for a gay person to not be able to receive health care of any kind.

In the here and now, a lot of countries would not have their gay peeps left wanting with a system like that - but having it a concept that's universal and irrespective of era? A scary thought.

I want "the right for businesses to discriminate how they choose and let the market sort it out" thing to work - and it probably would in my country. Others.... not so much.

 

[mustafur]

I'd take it somewhere else actually. In an environment with exclusively private health care, and complete freedom to discriminate within those private businesses, it would potentially be possible for a gay person to not be able to receive health care of any kind.

In the here and now, a lot of countries would not have their gay peeps left wanting with a system like that - but having it a concept that's universal and irrespective of era? A scary thought.

I want "the right for businesses to discriminate how they choose and let the market sort it out" thing to work - and it probably would in my country. Others.... not so much.

Which country has Exclusively Private health-care?

Because even the US system is heavily subsidized by the government, not to mention there is still Public Health clinic's(Given the nature of the funding it would quantify some sort of Psuedo-Public Business and Give up it's right to refuse service at this point).

At the end of the day, when it comes to Private businesses it is not your right for them to serve you, that is technically slavery regardless if you pay them or not.

We have seen already that Laws don't need to be in place to enforce this as Social Censorship does the job already(The premise being don't bite the hand that feeds you, the hand being the consumer of Said Business).

 

[LeMansAid]

Which country has Exclusively Private health-care?

None, as far as I know. Wouldn't a libertarian system seek that though?

At the end of the day, when it comes to Private businesses it is not your right for them to serve you, that is technically slavery regardless if you pay them or not.

Not such long bow to draw to say that mandated public health payments sit in the same area.

 

[mustafur]

None, as far as I know. Wouldn't a libertarian system seek that though?

Yeah, but the reality is that it wouldn't happen(Refusal of service in a hospital) so long as people have a voice, and people have money(one off religious hospitals and such would be understandable but Public Censorship would definitely pressure the change in todays age, since they don't have the ability to refuse service today this isn't highlighted.

Not such long bow to draw to say that mandated public health payments sit in the same area.

Yeah it would.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How, exactly?

Because the private facilities example is no different from customer to customer; a same-sex couple require no treatment different from any other customer (disabled customers excepted). Once a company has to actively engage in producing and distributing a message that they don't wish to I feel they're being forced to speak.

If I wanted a cake for my Uncle's birthday that said "**** Off Bob" then Asda would refuse to make it, a right that they should have.

While it's my personal view that in an ideal world no outlet will have a problem with creating wedding cakes for same-sex couples it's also my view that nobody should be forced to repeat a message that they don't wish to.

I'd take it somewhere else actually. In an environment with exclusively private health care, and complete freedom to discriminate within those private businesses, it would potentially be possible for a gay person to not be able to receive health care of any kind.

I agree, and that's one of the reasons that I think private health provision on a national level is bad thing.

 

[Danoff]

Because the private facilities example is no different from customer to customer; a same-sex couple require no treatment different from any other customer (disabled customers excepted). Once a company has to actively engage in producing and distributing a message that they don't wish to I feel they're being forced to speak.

If I wanted a cake for my Uncle's birthday that said "**** Off Bob" then Asda would refuse to make it, a right that they should have.

While it's my personal view that in an ideal world no outlet will have a problem with creating wedding cakes for same-sex couples it's also my view that nobody should be forced to repeat a message that they don't wish to.

They're not being forced to speak, they're decorating a cake for a customer just like they decorate any other cake for a customer. What's the difference? It's not their speech.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree, and that's one of the reasons that I think private health provision on a national level is bad thing.

I think your view of how a private health system works/would work is very skewed.

There are a few things at play that you don't seem to take into account (Using the US as my only base of knowledge here):

1) There are 122 medical schools in the US and they all have their medical graduates take the Hippocratic Oath or Declaration of Geneva, so every doctor trained in the system has stated a moral obligation to treat every patient that it is in their power to treat. The Declaration of Geneva even specifically states sexual orientation.

2) Very few doctors are their own boss. Nearly every private practice is either owned by a larger company or multiple doctors who partnered in the business. Unless that one very specific ownership group has a discriminatory policy then doctors would be expected to work within a contract of moral and ethical rules and would not be able to maintain their job and discriminate at the same time. Even if they did allow a doctor to discriminate, they have a staff of multiple doctors.

3) While a libertarian world would be unlikely to require a licensure process, licensure would still exist. Much like any other job you hire someone for, you want the guy that is heavily credentialed. I'm currently doing a lot of work on my house. We have had electricians and HVAC guys coming in and giving us quotes. There is no law requiring a license to perform these jobs, but we only took quotes from fully licensed professionals who were able to show their credentials. Licensure boards would be likely to create their own set of rules for a doctor to maintain their license, if necessary.

4) Also like any other private industry, in today's world it would be harder for a discriminatory doctor to pass under the radar. This is the world of Yelp, Urban Spoon, and Trip Advisor. Or, as is more fitting, this is the world of HealthGrades.com, RateMD.com, and Vitals.com. Just like I checked Yelp when looking at contractors I check Health Grades when looking for a new doctor.


In a purely private system could homosexuals (or others) be discriminated against? Yes. Could the doctor get away with it and easily be able to continue practicing? Most likely not.

Should a doctor be forced to take on a patient he doesn't want to? No.

 

[Danoff]

Should a doctor be forced to take on a patient he doesn't want to? No.

...and yet, what is the fundamental difference between the doctor and the cake maker? Or the hotel for that matter? Or a fast food restaurant?

Doctors provide a service just as cake makers and fast food workers. Money is exchanged for services rendered. Why we feel we can compel some of these people to provide services regardless of their will is beyond me.

 

[FoolKiller]

...and yet, what is the fundamental difference between the doctor and the cake maker? Or the hotel for that matter? Or a fast food restaurant?

In my mind? None. They are all individuals with free will that should not be subject to forced servitude of any form in any society which wishes to call itself free.

Doctors provide a service just as cake makers and fast food workers. Money is exchanged for services rendered. Why we feel we can compel some of these people anyone to provide services regardless of their will is beyond me.

Fixed.

 

[KSaiyu]

Hrrrmmmm and that's where I have issues (as we debated in another thread). In such a system there would be no mandatory GMC registration (equivalent would be Board registered in US) which would effectively "force" a doctor to treat a patient they may not want to, and as such poor doctors would be "free" to move to another post if they were found to provide poor care.

I know the safeguard in such a system is the threat of legal action, but if you look through the details of current GMC hearings can we be sure insurance costs and legal consequences would be enough to give a similar amount of protection?

EDIT: Here's one example. As you can see if you follow the GMC link there are quite a few!!

http://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/AHMED_22_April_2015.pdf

 

[FoolKiller]

Hrrrmmmm and that's where I have issues (as we debated in another thread). In such a system there would be no mandatory GMC registration (equivalent would be Board registered in US) which would effectively "force" a doctor to treat a patient they may not want to, and as such poor doctors would be "free" to move to another post if they were found to provide poor care.

Read my paragraph on licensure again for my response. I addressed this already. Licensure = receiving a license from a medical licensure board.

And since I've been saying that no doctor should be forced to treat someone they don't want to your issue does nothing to my argument.

I know the safeguard in such a system is the threat of legal action, but if you look through the details of current GMC hearings can we be sure insurance costs and legal consequences would be enough to give a similar amount of protection?

EDIT: Here's one example. As you can see if you follow the GMC link there are quite a few!!

http://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/AHMED_22_April_2015.pdf

I don't know what this has to do with anything being discussed in the thread, other than to prove that the conduct we are discussing can still happen with the safeguards you are arguing should be in place. I'm not sure it helps your case that it is necessary.

 

[KSaiyu]

I didn't see the licensure part, I assumed there wouldn't be mandatory licensure in a system.

The whole "forcing someone to treat" is covered by the GMC (or other license board) ethical code of conducts. If a doctor refused to treat someone on the basis of sexuality/race they would be subject to one of those hearings for violation. Basically with mandatory licensure to a medical body comes the "requirement" that a doctor will have to treat someone regardless of their beliefs/prejudices. An exemption to this is with more controversial topics such as abortion/contraception.

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't see the licensure part, I assumed there wouldn't be mandatory licensure in a system.

The whole "forcing someone to treat" is covered by the GMC (or other license board) ethical code of conducts. If a doctor refused to treat someone on the basis of sexuality/race they would be subject to one of those hearings. Basically with mandatory licensure to a medical body comes the "requirement" that a doctor will have to treat someone regardless of their beliefs/prejudices.

Like I said, there are many services that use a certified licensure board, but aren't required to perform the job. Despite that, many do get licensed because it creates a documented history of their qualifications and attracts many more customers than if they didn't have it. Anyone wanting to know they are being treated properly would us a clinic that only has licensed doctors on staff.

An exemption to this is with more controversial topics such as abortion/contraception.

So they make exemptions for topics that may conflict with religious beliefs? Isn't that the general claim for people who have an issue with homosexuals?

 

[Danoff]

In my mind? None. They are all individuals with free will that should not be subject to forced servitude of any form in any society which wishes to call itself free.

I was really aiming that at @TenEightyOne

 

[FoolKiller]

I was really aiming that at @TenEightyOne

Yeah, but I was liking my soapbox.






Hey, I can see my house from here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...and yet, what is the fundamental difference between the doctor and the cake maker? Or the hotel for that matter? Or a fast food restaurant?

Doctor: Case-specific action, only required to act on behalf of a human whatever their ailment. The sexuality (or other nature) of the patient is unimportant in the variance of presentation.

Hotel: Case-inspecific action, same service required for all except those with physical disabilities. Effectively a passive one-size-fits-all service. Unless homosexual couples are going at it in the snug then the idea of willies-into-anuses is all in the hotelier's head. Not that they ban heterosexual buggery, of course.

Cake-maker/sign-writer/flag-stitcher: Actively creates and image/message on a case-by-case basis.

The latter companies work to visualise/distribute/promote a message and only that, it's my opinion (though clearly not that of law in the discussed case) that they shouldn't be forced to promote any message they don't wish to be contracted to. That may be "Go Hull City", "Dave loves Brian", "**** Off Bob" or whatever.

 

[Danoff]

Doctor: Case-specific action, only required to act on behalf of a human whatever their ailment. The sexuality (or other nature) of the patient is unimportant in the variance of presentation.

Hotel: Case-inspecific action, same service required for all except those with physical disabilities. Effectively a passive one-size-fits-all service. Unless homosexual couples are going at it in the snug then the idea of willies-into-anuses is all in the hotelier's head. Not that they ban heterosexual buggery, of course.

Cake-maker/sign-writer/flag-stitcher: Actively creates and image/message on a case-by-case basis.

Cake-maker: Case-inspecitic action, same service required for all who want a cake decoration (apply frosting to cake according to design).

The latter companies work to visualise/distribute/promote a message and only that, it's my opinion (though clearly not that of law in the discussed case) that they shouldn't be forced to promote any message they don't wish to be contracted to. That may be "Go Hull City", "Dave loves Brian", "**** Off Bob" or whatever.

Nope, they work to decorate a surface according to whatever their customer wants. What their customer intends to do or say with that is not their concern, just like what the customer wants to do in the hotel room, or what the customer later wants to do with their healthy body is also not the concern of the doctor or hotel worker.

I agree, they shouldn't be forced to serve anyone they don't want to serve.

 

[Touring Mars]

Cake-maker: Actively creates and image/message on a cake-by-cake basis.

FTFY

I had a (brief) discussion about this with my family last night and I was rather surprised to discover that we all seemed to agree that the ruling regarding the cake incident was wrong... this is despite the fact that we are all non-religious and all pro-gay marriage/gay rights etc.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Cake-maker: Case-inspecitic action, same service required for all who want a cake decoration (apply frosting to cake according to design)..

It's a little more than that, in my opinion, the designer (usually the customer) would normally request some very specific imagery. If it was a default, un-messaged design then I'd agree with you. Generally I think it isn't.

Nope, they work to decorate a surface according to whatever their customer wants. What their customer intends to do or say with that is not their concern

But the maker facilitates that message for somebody else to present... why should anybody be forced to facilitate the distribution of a message, however much I/you/others may agree or disagree with the message they're asked to manufacture?

I had a (brief) discussion about this with my family last night and I was rather surprised to discover that we all seemed to agree that the ruling regarding the cake incident was wrong... this is despite the fact that we are all non-religious and all pro-gay marriage/gay rights etc.

I'm finding the same amongst friends, some of them have quite surprised me

 

[KSaiyu]

So they make exemptions for topics that may conflict with religious beliefs? Isn't that the general claim for people who have an issue with homosexuals?

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/21171.asp

You must explain to patients if you have a conscientious objection to a particular procedure. You must tell them about their right to see another doctor and make sure they have enough information to exercise that right. In providing this information you must not imply or express disapproval of the patient’s lifestyle, choices or beliefs. If it is not practical for a patient to arrange to see another doctor, you must make sure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over your role.

So you can refuse, but you have to make sure the patient has access to someone who may not refuse. Oh and you have to be nice about it. I know a Catholic GP who uses this rule to get out of supplying the oral contraceptive pill. It also allows students to opt out of abortion placements or Muslim medics to avoid learning to exam members of the opposite sex:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/38/10/602

So yes, same reason as the cake maker, except the cake maker would be forced into having to provide another cake maker if the law followed the GMC example.

 

[Danoff]

But the maker facilitates that message for somebody else to present... why should anybody be forced to facilitate the distribution of a message, however much I/you/others may agree or disagree with the message they're asked to manufacture?

Why should anyone be forced to save the life of someone who does things they consider immoral? Why should anyone be forced to give a heart transplant that could keep someone whose ethics they agree with alive to someone who does things they consider to be abhorrent? Why should anyone be forced to let people engage in actual acts that they consider immoral on their own property (hotel sex)?

None of them should be forced to do any of it.

 

[Rich S]

A bit interesting news. A high up within the family research council is in trouble, the TV show star Josh Duggar. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...nderage-sexual-abuse-report-article-1.2231301

For those that aren't aware FRC is one of the fiercest anti gay organizations here in the USA. Tony Perkins is on Fox news alot with their viewpoints.

My take is that Duggar is one of many many boys who molested or "diddled" with younger children. He's lucky that his family and associates covered for him. Now the statute of limitations likely applies to keep him free. He very well could be dead or essentially unemployed for life if he were to have been charged while this was happening. The sex offender registry is basically a life sentence regardless of the seriousness.

Why should anyone be forced to save the life of someone who does things they consider immoral?

I believe that the health care providers also have the right to fire anyone they dont see fit to work...

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Rich S... That kind of filthy coverup just as easily belongs in The God Thread, also disturbing to see that the Family Council's response is that they're praying. Wow, that'll help.

EDIT: It was a heterosexual crime... why did you put it in this thread???