(cache) RaisedRight1776がHundreds of people gather outside Indiana Statehouse, some carrying "no hate in our state" signs, to rally against a new law that opponents say could sanction discrimination against gay people.について記入したコメント

894

895

896

Hundreds of people gather outside Indiana Statehouse, some carrying "no hate in our state" signs, to rally against a new law that opponents say could sanction discrimination against gay people. (sltrib.com)

mellowmonk が 9 時間前投稿

あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]RaisedRight1776 -42 ポイント-41 ポイント-40 ポイント 3 時間前 (49子コメント)

[–]thestrugglesreal 31 ポイント32 ポイント33 ポイント 3 時間前 (17子コメント)

[+]RaisedRight1776 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17 ポイント-16 ポイント-15 ポイント 2 時間前 (16子コメント)

It isn't a public business, it is a private business. Hello, this is America, not Europe. We own our businesses here. The State has no right to dictate how someone runs their business.

And to the person who foolishly brought public roads into the argument....chances are that small business owner pays more taxes than you so according to your logic they should have more of a right to decide public policy which they obviously believe should include the right to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex union. If I went into a gay bar and asked that they start playing Christian gospel music and they refused me (which they would) would I have a right to sue them because it offended me? Should I be able to have them closed down? What if I went to a Kosher deli and asked them to package some non kosher meat for me? What if I wanted to force all businesses to close on the Sabbath because that is what my religion dictates?

Stop being so damn hoity-toity. You are fine with people's rights being walked on until it is your rights on the ground. It's also sad that you people have to resort to personal insults just because someone disagrees with you. You should be ashamed.

P.S. a relationship is about love. Marriage is about so much more so don't pull that on me. I fully support legalized and equalized same sex unions but I know that their is a difference. Marriage is NOT a union ordained by the government.

[–]skribeiv 13 ポイント14 ポイント15 ポイント 2 時間前 (6子コメント)

If I went into a gay bar and asked that they start playing Christian gospel music and they refused me (which they would) would I have a right to sue them because it offended me? Should I be able to have them closed down? What if I went to a Kosher deli and asked them to package some non kosher meat for me? What if I wanted to force all businesses to close on the Sabbath because that is what my religion dictates?

In each of these cases the basis of discrimination is something other than the individual being served. This is the simple distinction you're ignoring.

The gay bar is not refusing to play gospel music because you're Christian, they're refusing because it doesn't match the business. The kosher deli isn't refusing to serve you meat that isn't kosher because of who you are...they just don't carry that product. Your last example is rightly illegal and bears nothing in common with the previous two...it just isn't about discrimination.

In your example, the baker is still baking cakes. Nobody is asking that business to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do for another customer. The only difference is the identity of WHO they are doing it for.

This is an obvious distinction that you are choosing to ignore...not that I think there isn't a high likelihood that you're just trolling here.

[+]RaisedRight1776 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12 ポイント-11 ポイント-10 ポイント 2 時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]skribeiv 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前* (2子コメント)

Listen, there are a million ways that you can do your mental gymnastics to re-frame those hypotheticals in ways that reinforce your point. If I were to say "bars don't play gospel music," you would just try to justify all music in bars. If I were to point out that delicatessens don't actually perform the kosher ritual themselves, you would argue that they should just have to stock the meat before it's blessed. This is a game we could play for a long time.

While I'm sure it would continue to be really cute how you think you're educating me, we, fortunately, don't have to play this came because I've already addressed a more fundamental point that you have yet to acknowledge: In all cases, and even your newer re-framed hypotheticals, the basis of discrimination is NOT the individual whom you are serving. This is an absolutely critical point which you are, STILL, trying to ignore. It doesn't matter what else the reasoning is...you can use your creativity to come up with thousands I'm sure. What is important is what the basis ISN'T, and what it ISN'T is predicated on the individual being served.

Now, do you have some sort of a response to that point, or should I just assume that it's too inconvenient for you to address and expect more reasons your hypothetical examples are fair?

[–]RaisedRight1776 [スコア非表示] 28 分前 (0子コメント)