Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
lgbtqnation.com
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
You are viewing a single comment
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to "something you strongly disagree with" is not fitting analogy.
We aren't talking about "beliefs". We're talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.
And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.
We can and we do, all the time. That's part of living in society.
Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.
Let's say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says "Blood and Soil" with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.
For a wedding venue they'd like to have this excellent location and catering company.
They also need a wedding photographer and their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7' tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says "Arbeit Macht Frei" and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo's while they both kiss Hitler's cheeks. They plan to stop by Stak Studios tomorrow and talk to them about it.
How are you feeling about your statement right now?
You're confusing ideology with identity.
Which is equivalent to saying you want to bring back "whites only" or "no gays" signs and whatever else. No thanks.
And let's be clear. We aren't actually talking about getting "whatever" from "whomever." We are talking about people who are members of a group (not by choice) having the right to expect the same treatment as others from a business open to the public.
On the other hand, you have stated, essentially, bigoted owners of businesses open to the public can deny business to anyone who holds this proverbial membership card you mention.
Never said it was.
The rest of your comment is similarly meaningless. You must have misunderstood me. The service would, and could, be denied because they are asking for a Nazi-themed service. Being a Nazi is a choice, not an immutable trait, nor a protected class.
Nowhere have I said that gay people shouldn't be denied service for any reason, only that they shouldn't be denied service because they're gay.
Exactly the same as before you made your utterly irrelevant comment.
The thing's you say are very authoritarian. The disregard for individual thoughts and freedoms is honestly scary. You can't even differentiate private venture with public service. I suspect you discriminate against others all of the time, but it's fine since it's coming from you and your side of things, never questioning if you're the bad person or not.
It slowly gets worse and worse each time you type. That last part is just flat out disgusting to say.
The Handmaiden's Tale didn't get 8.4 on iMDB because people can't wait for that future enough.
Nothing but baseless assumptions and accusations. Waste of time.
Heh. Thank you. My point and case for anti-libertarian rests on that response perfectly.
And I appreciate you taking your time to state you're wasting your time. Best your words and outlook rest here than elsewhere. We're trying to progress as a species so, in a way, this is unintentionally helping.
More baseless accusations, without addressing anything I said.
You've been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you've said is in direct opposition of the protection of people's freedoms and beliefs. You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that's fine and that you can take people's beliefs from them and replace them, which is literally within definition of authoritatianism—the polar opposite of liberalism.
Are you simple?
More idiotic accusations, no substance.
What? I've said nothing of the sort.
Stop arguing with people you have imagined.
Yawn.
You know your text is still there, right? Like it's still totally readable and still totally there.
Yeah, okay. I'll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It's fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it's way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we're reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can't refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We'll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they'll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!
Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don't actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though. They don't get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.
I'm going to say it again: Stop arguing with people you have imagined.
Yes, they fucking do in this case. How they go about doing that is when discrimination could arise.
It's not discimination. They're not stopping these people from something everyone else gets. They're saying they won't do it.
What's your solution here if you think this is somehow discrimination? To stop "discrimination" all Musilims, Christians, Eastern orthodox, Catholics, some Buddhists, Hindus, and the Jews are now abolished from photography services...to stop discrimination.
Or do you have some practical plan better than what we already have which is...
"I would like you to do this."
"I won't do that based on my beliefs."
"Fair enough, I'll find someone else.""I'm going to shame you through public court and media, to obviously lose, but I don't like that the person you are isn't what I want."