Kasich: Gays (And Everyone Else) Need To Get Over It

[DogFood 1,649]

Just now, ctherainbow said:

If I vote for any Democrat, it'll be Hillary.  I'm one of those people who thinks that the establishment is a good thing.   

 

 

[ctherainbow 3,162]

4 minutes ago, PicklePower said:

Not to go off-topic, but perhaps if you'd care to inform me of why you think I should vote for Sanders, you might be able to convince me?

[DogFood 1,649]

1 minute ago, ctherainbow said:

Not to go off-topic, but perhaps if you'd care to inform me of why you think I should vote for Sanders, you might be able to convince me?

"ENOUGH BS"

and he's a daddy

 

[SKANK 14,288]

1 hour ago, DrewStevens said:

Well it really depends of the service and how do people interpret the law.

The Civil Rights Act says:

"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce". 

So basically discrimination towards people based on gender and sexual orientation can be considered "legal" unless there is a different law that protects those groups in that state.

Anyway I don't think the idea of letting people boycott private business is the best option. The discussion in the states where this kind of discrimination is legal is way more scandalous and divisive that in states where it's illegal to discriminate people based on their gender and sexual orientation. 

 

1 hour ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

But wouldn't just boycotting them into submission until they relent & serve LGBT people, just be the same result as the aforementioned approach anyway???!

 

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

But wouldn't this just be going back to the segregation days? I'm sure this is the same logic that was used back then. 

Imagine a society where you have to check if you can be served or attended before walking into a store. 

 

I haven't been convinced, and I'm open to being convinced. 

When it comes to government, we should have legislation in place to insure that everyone is treated equally. I don't believe that legislation should extent to private businesses. Individuals should have the right to practice their bigotry free from legal repercussions, and in turn the public should have the right to reject their bigotry.

I have a fundamental right to get married. I do not have a fundamental right to buy a wedding cake.

 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

This is why I can never vote Republican. There's never a sane one in the group. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

Haha, I love being able to make Clintonites run away just by using facts. Makes me giggle. 

At least my candidate will probably win their nomination.  

[RAMROD 118,056]

Nothing less from a Republican. Much expected reaction from them on this issue, why are people surprised? 

 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

1 hour ago, SKANK said:

 

 

 

I haven't been convinced, and I'm open to being convinced. 

When it comes to government, we should have legislation in place to insure that everyone is treated equally. I don't believe that legislation should extent to private businesses. Individuals should have the right to practice their bigotry free from legal repercussions, and in turn the public should have the right to reject their bigotry.

I have a fundamental right to get married. I do not have a fundamental right to buy a wedding cake.

 

I don't really want to convince you so that's not my goal.

The whole cake thing is very complicated since it's different than a restaurant or a supermarket. It's a semi-public space with a private service. An special order is a private service but if they sell a premade cake then it's not a private service. 

"Individuals should have the right to practice their bigotry free from legal repercussions" Well that's not entirely true. You will not be free from legal repercussions if you deny the service in a restaurant to a black person or a Muslim. It's illegal according to the Civil Rights Act. The only reason why this doesn't apply to gay people is because in that time when the act was created and signed LGBT rights were not even a thing while race and religion were somehow relevant.

So they actually don't have the right to deny their services no anyone they want to if they have a public or semi-public space.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

So much for moderation & seemingly being the consensus one left out of the 3 remaining republicans!!!  

I guess every repressed group throughout history should just GET OVER IT, or find a middle ground...  Smh 

I knew he was too good to be true!  

I know, right? I was so hoping we had at least one moderate Republican in the bunch. 

He still seems to be the least crazy...but I don't know if that is saying much. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Just now, Whispering said:

I know, right? I was so hoping we had at least one moderate Republican in the bunch. 

He still seems to be the least crazy...but I don't know if that is saying much. 

It's not.  Lol  

[SKANK 14,288]

1 hour ago, DrewStevens said:

I don't really want to convince you so that's not my goal.

The whole cake thing is very complicated since it's different than a restaurant or a supermarket. It's a semi-public space with a private service. An special order is a private service but if they sell a premade cake then it's not a private service. 

"Individuals should have the right to practice their bigotry free from legal repercussions" Well that's not entirely true. You will not be free from legal repercussions if you deny the service in a restaurant to a black person or a Muslim. It's illegal according to the Civil Rights Act. The only reason why this doesn't apply to gay people is because in that time when the act was created and signed LGBT rights were not even a thing while race and religion were somehow relevant.

So they actually don't have the right to deny their services no anyone they want to if they have a public or semi-public space.

 

When I said I was willing to be convinced it wasn't a challenge, it was a friendly reassurance that I'm keeping my mind open. I hope you didn't misunderstand.

 

I know that it is illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, religion, ect. I'm not disputing the legality of it. I disagree with the article in the Civil Rights Act which pertains to private businesses, that is my entire point.

A law which abolishes discrimination by the government (like  the Civil Rights Act did with Jim Crow laws) I support, but why in your opinion, should the government prevent a private company from denying their business whomever they chose?

 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

28 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

When I said I was willing to be convinced it wasn't a challenge, it was a friendly reassurance that I'm keeping my mind open. I hope you didn't misunderstand.

 

I know that it is illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, religion, ect. I'm not disputing the legality of it. I disagree with the article in the Civil Rights Act which pertains to private businesses, that is my entire point.

A law which abolishes discrimination by the government (like  the Civil Rights Act did with Jim Crow laws) I support, but why in your opinion, should the government prevent a private company from denying their business whomever they chose?

 

In my opinion this law and other state laws have reduced the amount of disputes between habitants. No big boycotts and huge media coverage, unlike in states where they allow businesses to deny a service to someone based on their apparence, gender or sexual orientation. What is happening in NC would not have happened if they would have forced people to get over themselves, but now there's a national outrage over this and even artists, organizations, companies and events are boycotting the state.

[Mikey Monster 1,561]

I think that him and his "Christian" buddies need to get over having to not judge and treat people equally under the law 

[uo111 5,285]

23 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

When I said I was willing to be convinced it wasn't a challenge, it was a friendly reassurance that I'm keeping my mind open. I hope you didn't misunderstand.

 

I know that it is illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, religion, ect. I'm not disputing the legality of it. I disagree with the article in the Civil Rights Act which pertains to private businesses, that is my entire point.

A law which abolishes discrimination by the government (like  the Civil Rights Act did with Jim Crow laws) I support, but why in your opinion, should the government prevent a private company from denying their business whomever they chose?

 

A business that opens itself to the public can hardly consider the products or services it sells a private affair.

A gay person buying chips from a store carries only a monetary effect. The only purpose to prevent them from buying the chips is to discriminate, nothing else. If it was a private exchange between individuals, that would be fine. But businesses abide by different laws because of the scope in which they operate. Businesses open to the public do not have the right to discriminate like their owners do in their personal lives because it can and has caused serious hardships for minority groups. This is what was decided, and thus the Civil Rights Act was born.

Simply put, individual rights do not apply to businesses. The only argument in favor of allowing businesses to discriminate is just because. A business that really doesn't want to serve gay people should require membership for their services. They would go out of business immediately when "Are you a member of the lgbt community?" is a question to determine membership eligibility, but hey, they wouldn't have to serve gay people.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either be open to the public, or don't be.

"The government" is also kind of a loaded phrase. In the US, some of our laws, including the civil rights act, enforce the will of the people. So what you are actually asking is why should private businesses have to abide by the laws put in place by the society in which they exist. You can try to change it if you want to, but you will have to ask harder questions than "why should businesses abide by the law." Or move to a different country.

[SKANK 14,288]

16 hours ago, uo111 said:

A business that opens itself to the public can hardly consider the products or services it sells a private affair.

A gay person buying chips from a store carries only a monetary effect. The only purpose to prevent them from buying the chips is to discriminate, nothing else. If it was a private exchange between individuals, that would be fine. But businesses abide by different laws because of the scope in which they operate. Businesses open to the public do not have the right to discriminate like their owners do in their personal lives because it can and has caused serious hardships for minority groups. This is what was decided, and thus the Civil Rights Act was born.

Simply put, individual rights do not apply to businesses. The only argument in favor of allowing businesses to discriminate is just because. A business that really doesn't want to serve gay people should require membership for their services. They would go out of business immediately when "Are you a member of the lgbt community?" is a question to determine membership eligibility, but hey, they wouldn't have to serve gay people.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either be open to the public, or don't be.

"The government" is also kind of a loaded phrase. In the US, some of our laws, including the civil rights act, enforce the will of the people. So what you are actually asking is why should private businesses have to abide by the laws put in place by the society in which they exist. You can try to change it if you want to, but you will have to ask harder questions than "why should businesses abide by the law." Or move to a different country.

 

I very much appreciate that you took the time to explain this in a thoughtful and informed way.