The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[G.T.Ace]

i don't know, I thought it was pretty much a death sentence of you came out as gay in some Muslim countries?

Yeah, sorry, I meant in our western society, forgot to add this.
Most practicing muslims I met are more tolerant than the practicing christians I know.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My thought is that if it works with cash, a business owner cannot refuse service only if the service has been paid and agreed upon with the customer. That also meant that said owner can refuse payment if they didn't agreed with said customer.

You're into contract law there, I'd say that if such an issue were at play then the contract wouldn't have been entered into. After it is entered into then it's down to the terms of the contract. If non-settlement by either party is disputed by the other then it's a case-by-case job for the courts.

Which was correct, since the shop owners aren't able to prove if it offends their religion or not.

I disagree that it was correct. It's one thing to provide a "passive" service such as a hotel room that's going to be used in camera by the renting couple. It's another to be asked to partake in distributing a message that you don't want to further. That might be things like actively making a cake, stitching a flag or writing a sign.

 

[G.T.Ace]

It's another to be asked to partake in distributing a message that you don't want to further. That might be things like actively making a cake, stitching a flag or writing a sign.

Refusing someone service because of his sexual orientation is worse, than having to bake a cake for 'em and even earning money with it. Like I said, they cannot proof it offends their belief, only their personal bigotry.
The cake wasn't discriminating or mocking christianity from what I know.

If the gay couple said "we want *insert something offensive against christianity* on the cake" I'd agree.

 

[A2K78]

So you believe that some members of society have the right to belittle others, demean or offend them, as long as they use their religion as an excuse? That's not how a civilised society should operate. Where do you draw the line? If someone says "all gay people should die - oh, but that's what my religion says, so I'm allowed to echo the sentiment", isn't that along the same lines as "black people should die", "all women should die" or any similarly extreme points of view? Where do you draw a line between acceptably offensive and unacceptably offensive?

Yes. Where do you draw the line? private property of course e.g. I have every right to demean you as you also have the right to demean me provided that either of our property rights aren't being violated.

@G.T.Ace

How is refusing to perform a service a bad thing? People have every right to refuse a service in accordance with their right to private property and free association. The same goes for discriminating.

Sure you might not agree with those but they are the mark to real free society.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yes. Where do you draw the line? private property of course e.g. I have every right to demean you as you also have the right to demean me provided that either of our property rights aren't being violated.

Discriminating minorities should be one of the lines.

 

[A2K78]

Discriminating minorities should be one of the lines.

See my take on discrimination:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...e-passed-what-are-your-thoughts.345240/page-4

 

[G.T.Ace]

See my take on discrimination:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...e-passed-what-are-your-thoughts.345240/page-4

Yeah, you're narrowminded in my opinion, if I dare to voice it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Refusing someone service because of his sexual orientation is worse, than having to bake a cake for 'em and even earning money with it.

You think it's okay to force people to make particular speech? Isn't that against the whole idea of free speech?

 

[G.T.Ace]

You think it's okay to force people to make particular speech? Isn't that against the whole idea of free speech?

Baking a cake that doesn't contain a message for someone, isn't forcing someone to make a particular speech.
The doesn't have any meaning for anyone outside of the wedding, so I don't see an issue.
Like I said, if the cake had a mocking statement written on it, okay, but a simple wedding cake is just a neutral piece of food (barely food lol), which doesn't contain any message besides "you're celebrating, here are some calories for that".

 

[Danoff]

Baking a cake that doesn't contain a message for someone, isn't forcing someone to make a particular speech.

It's forcing someone to perform an action against their will - which is oppression.

 

[G.T.Ace]

It's forcing someone to perform an action against their will - which is oppression.

Then it would be oppression everytime someone would do something he doesn't like, like following certain laws, which also count in the private sector. They didn't want to do it because of their personal bigotry and because they're homophobic, both things shouldn't be protected, even if it means less "freedom".

Freedom always ends when you harm others, which they kinda did, considering how they gave homophobes oil on the flame.

 

[Exorcet]

If a private business opens a store that's completely open to the public, the only grounds on which a person should be refused the service is if they commit a criminal offence within the store or pose a safety threat. Anything like ethnicity, sexuality or gender should never be grounds to deny a service - if the shopkeeper is a devout Christian, his religious beliefs shouldn't dictate those who can and can't gain access to the service.

It's a private business. Shouldn't the rules of service be completely based on the whims of the owner? Is it any different from owning a house? Should a home owner with a basement for rent be force to take in the first person willing to pay the rent who shows up?

I'm firmly against schools that aren't fully inclusive and don't cater to the needs of all their students regardless of their intelligence

That's different than choosing from a pool of applicants, which is what I was referring to.

, but in the case of jobs, it could just be a case of who fits the bill best based on facts presented to the employers - that's not quite discrimination, it's just how business works.

It is discrimination. The business is choosing some people over others based on the differences between them. You feel uncomfortable with some forms of discrimination, and I can see why because I feel the same. I don't think the answer is forced compliance though. This stands even when it comes to things that might typically revolve around bigotry. For example if someone feels uncomfortable working around homosexuals, maybe it's in everyone's best interest that they don't work with homosexuals. The reasons behind their discomfort won't change that it exists, and forcing them to deal with the discomfort constantly may not prove very effective in alleviating the problem.

There are forms of discrimination that I am critical of and don't support, but in the end I have no say on how anyone can live except me. That's how it should be for everyone.

Then it would be oppression everytime someone would do something he doesn't like, like following certain laws, which also count in the private sector. They didn't want to do it because of their personal bigotry and because they're homophobic, both things shouldn't be protected, even if it means less "freedom".

Freedom always ends when you harm others, which they kinda did, considering how they gave homophobes oil on the flame.

There can certainly be oppressive laws. Choosing not to put others in front of you is not harm. Harm is when you force others to put your interests in front of their own. It might not be nice to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, but they were never owed the cake in the first place.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They didn't want to do it because of their personal bigotry and because they're homophobic, both things shouldn't be protected, even if it means less "freedom".

I share your repugnance at the thoughts and feelings of the people you describe but I don't believe that forcing people to partake in speech (eg by forcing them to provide service-enabling goods) is the right way to go. Let the people decide whether or not that's a business they wish to return to.

Then it would be oppression everytime someone would do something he doesn't like, like following certain laws, which also count in the private sector.

Such as?

 

[Fgame]

I go to a Muslim bakery for a cake. I decide that the design I want is a picture of the Prophet and the words "Mo the Nonce" in Arabic beneath.

Should his religious beliefs allow him to refuse my custom simply because he is a shopkeeper?


No-one is required to provide you - or anyone - with any service, and ought to be able to refuse anyone for any reason.

That should be the case but the law forbids denial of service if the reason is connected to one of the protected characteristics of the customer. But in your case you don't present anything to protect about the customer. The only law breaking would be something like intent or incitement to cause racial hatred by the customer.
I'm just jumping in here, the example might be specific to something.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Such as?

Domestic violence, child care, rape... pretty much everything that can happen in someone's home. I know these are radical examples, but they still fit.

 

[Exorcet]

Domestic violence, child care, rape... pretty much everything that can happen in someone's home. I know these are radical examples, but they still fit.

The problem with these things is that they involve forcing someone into giving in to another's desires. They are wrong for the same reason that it's wrong to force someone to provide you a service. They aren't wrong just because they are illegal.

 

[G.T.Ace]

The problem with these things is that they involve forcing someone into giving in to another's desires. They are wrong for the same reason that it's wrong to force someone to provide you a service. They aren't wrong just because they are illegal.

But when you deny someone something because of discriminating reasons, you're hurting that someone, maybe even pretty harsh. Homosexuals have to go through a lot, so I personally think that denying them a damn cake because "gays are unholy yaddayadda" is a pretty big offense. It's not a physical crime, but can damage someone psychological.

 

[Exorcet]

But when you deny someone something because of discriminating reasons, you're hurting that someone, maybe even pretty harsh. Homosexuals have to go through a lot, so I personally think that denying them a damn cake because "gays are unholy yaddayadda" is a pretty big offense. It's not a physical crime, but can damage someone psychological.

What about something like marriage? If someone proposes to you and you don't like them, you discriminate against them. They can take it pretty badly too, does that mean you're obliged to give in to their wants?

Also if you feel that someone discriminating against a group is wrong you can discriminate against them. Discrimination does not have to be malicious, just don't support what they do.

 

[G.T.Ace]

What about something like marriage? If someone proposes to you and you don't like them, you discriminate against them. They can take it pretty badly too, does that mean you're obliged to give in to their wants?

Also if you feel that someone discriminating against a group is wrong you can discriminate against them. Discrimination does not have to be malicious, just don't support what they do.

I think we're both stretching it a bit here now. You know just as much as I, that you cannot really compare these things.

 

[Exorcet]

I think we're both stretching it a bit here now. You know just as much as I, that you cannot really compare these things.

I brought up the example because it seemed to fit in very well with what you were saying about discrimination against gays. Surely, you can hurt someone by telling them you don't like them enough to spend the rest of your life with them?

You're also making an assumption by stating that the refusal of service comes from religious reasons. It could spawn from misinformation. If someone thinks that gay marriages harm society, you would expect them to be against it. What they think may not be accurate but people aren't always right all the time. In this case, I think trying to propery inform the other person is the best course of action. If they are reasonable and you are correct, they should change their mind. It also gives you the opportunity to test your thoughts and knowledge and possibly make corrections of your own.

I'm not trying to promote the boycott of homosexuals from businesses, I would pretty actively stand against that in fact. I just would not do it by force.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Domestic violence, child care, rape... pretty much everything that can happen in someone's home. I know these are radical examples, but they still fit.

And who has been forced to do that? There is nothing forcing anybody to do those things.

 

[stonesfan129]

Then it would be oppression everytime someone would do something he doesn't like, like following certain laws, which also count in the private sector. They didn't want to do it because of their personal bigotry and because they're homophobic, both things shouldn't be protected, even if it means less "freedom".

Freedom always ends when you harm others, which they kinda did, considering how they gave homophobes oil on the flame.

What defines "harm?" It seems like you're insinuating that someone's freedom should end when it offends others. Should the freedom of homosexuals to live their own lives end because Christianity teaches that it's a sin? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Having a different opinion, and being able to express it, should never be illegal and that is one of the founding principles of our society, protected in the first amendment (free speech).

 

[A2K78]

On the issue of discrimination not only do I personally discriminate but I support someone right to discriminate against whatever they want because they are exercising their right to private property and free was association.

BTW there is no such thing as a wrong or right form of discrimination other than discrimination done with the force of government.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If a private business opens a store that's completely open to the public, the only grounds on which a person should be refused the service is if they commit a criminal offence within the store or pose a safety threat. Anything like ethnicity, sexuality or gender should never be grounds to deny a service - if the shopkeeper is a devout Christian, his religious beliefs shouldn't dictate those who can and can't gain access to the service.

What rules would apply to me? I am in the drain cleaning business and I get calls every day from strangers wanting service. Much of our business is repeat business but I do go into homes several times a week without knowing anything about the customer other than what I learn over the phone. Do you think I should be forced to respond to every service call, regardless of what I hear on the other end of the phone? Regardless of the neighbourhood they live in and the time of day? Regardless of their attitude and ability to communicate effectively with me? Under what grounds can I deny them service? Do those grounds change if I operate from a bricks and mortar home base?

 

[A2K78]

Under what grounds can I deny them service?

You can deny anyone service on the grounds of private property and free association however in your case you're driven by the profit motive hence why no businessman in his right mind will refuse service.

https://fee.org/articles/how-free-markets-break-down-discrimination/

 

[Danoff]

Then it would be oppression everytime someone would do something he doesn't like, like following certain laws, which also count in the private sector.

Protection of human rights (which is the purpose of laws) is the recognition of the implications of the initiation of force against an individual with rights. What you're talking about is the initiation of force. Here are two examples:

Example 1 - Bob wants to kill John. John is innocent. Bob kills John anyway. Bob has now given up his rights and can be incarcerated.
Example 2 - Bob doesn't like John's skin color. John is innocent. Bob calls john a racial slur and refuses to invite him to his party. Bob has not given up his rights (because he has not violated any of John's rights). Bob cannot be incarcerated legitimately.

 

[DG_Silva]

Bob has violated John's rights with the racial slur, as it is defined as a hate crime, however he has not violated John's rights by refusing him an invitation to his party; he doesn't have to, and doesn't.

To put that into comparison, the baker has no obligation to bake a wedding cake for two gay men, as it is up to them to accept the business - if they had accepted the contract and then reneged based on their sexuality, then that is wrong.

I'm gay myself, with a partner of 14 years, so I am very against discrimination. However forcing people to do something against their will, whatever their reason, is akin to oppression and is wrong. Simply choose another baker who is willing to bake a cake for you, and don't prosecute for no reason.

 

[LeMansAid]

Bob has violated John's rights with the racial slur, as it is defined as a hate crime

Every description I'm finding describes a hate crime as basically a standard crime with a discriminatory (race, sexual preference, etc.) addendum. That doesn't fit with your description. The example has the hate bit, but not the crime bit.

 

[A2K78]

I am very against discrimination.

How you rightly you're against discrimination? Whenever you make a choice or preference technically you're discriminating, in your case by saying that you're gay you are discrminating against those of the opposite sex given your preference for someone of the same sex, the same can be said about any heterosexual who prefer someone of the opposite sex.

 

[DG_Silva]

Every description I'm finding describes a hate crime as basically a standard crime with a discriminatory (race, sexual preference, etc.) addendum. That doesn't fit with your description. The example has the hate bit, but not the crime bit.

It is a crime to verbally abuse someone (whether the victim decides to take it further), so to verbally abuse someone based on the colour of their skin becomes a hate crime.

How you rightly you're against discrimination? Whenever you make a choice or preference technically you're discriminating, in your case by saying that you're gay you are discrminating against those of the opposite sex given your preference for someone of the same sex, the same can be said about any heterosexual who prefer someone of the opposite sex.

I feel that personal choice must be taken into consideration with discrimination cases; it's too easy to be a victim today when you don't get what you want, for such a precious snowflake, so someone else has to pay for your hurt feelings. If someone decides that they don't want to serve me, then I'll go elsewhere. It must just be me with thicker skin.

As a business owner or as a customer service assistant, certainly in the UK at least, you have the right to refuse service without defining a reason. Admittedly, this is mainly meant for abusive customers, but it is the choice of the member of staff.

Using your logic, nobody would be able to make any decision without upsetting someone, so then no one has the right to make any decision based on their ideals. That way lies the thought police and oppression, which is more dangerous than discrimination. To me, discrimination is a wholesale refusal to serve based on a race, disability or sexuality - such as what was happening in Birmingham in the 50s with the Irish or in the 90s with the white English.