|
|
Post by mwalker96 on Dec 21, 2019 12:27:32 GMT 10
As a born again Christian I agree to a degree. I don't feel that you should down right exculd gays from a business but if you are promoting a prative that goes against the Bible i.e gay marriage or same-sex attraction then you should go with your convictions as long as your not out right saying "gays are not welcomed".
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 21, 2019 15:43:05 GMT 10
I believe any business should be legally able to refuse anyone for any reason.
At the same time, it will be up to them to reap what they sew, it will be their own dumbass fault if their business fails and customers begin shopping elsewhere over a controversial policy made that they would've known would've caused backlash.
For example, let's say, hypothetically, Burger King invokes a racist policy that only whites could be served. Okay, fine, because non-whites, as well as whites whom are outraged over this racist policy, will take their business elsewhere, companies such as McDonalds and Wendy's would take advantage and lure those customers in with a message of equality and tolerance, and Burger King would be hit hard financially, possibly even going bankrupt, and it would be their own dumbass fault for enacting such a racist policy that they know would hurt them. Burger King also wouldn't be able to function at all in big cities where all the big money is, such as New York, LA, Chicago, or even Nashville, the best they could do are in rural areas in the south or midwest where these racist individuals live, and there's not a lot of money to be made there...
Case in point, these businesses would not be punished by the law, but by the customers money.
That's my stance on this.
rainbow, unicornic, and 1 more like this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 2:41:29 GMT 10
I believe any business should be legally able to refuse anyone for any reason. At the same time, it will be up to them to reap what they sew, it will be their own dumbass fault if their business fails and customers begin shopping elsewhere over a controversial policy made that they would've known would've caused backlash. For example, let's say, hypothetically, Burger King invokes a racist policy that only whites could be served. Okay, fine, because non-whites, as well as whites whom are outraged over this racist policy, will take their business elsewhere, companies such as McDonalds and Wendy's would take advantage and lure those customers in with a message of equality and tolerance, and Burger King would be hit hard financially, possibly even going bankrupt, and it would be their own dumbass fault for enacting such a racist policy that they know would hurt them. Burger King also wouldn't be able to function at all in big cities where all the big money is, such as New York, LA, Chicago, or even Nashville, the best they could do are in rural areas in the south or midwest where these racist individuals live, and there's not a lot of money to be made there... Case in point, these businesses would not be punished by the law, but by the customers money. That's my stance on this. Life sounds nice in Fantasia, but back in your real country blacks were barred from service in white-owned businesses for over a century, and white people liked it that way. It was actually race-indifferent businesses that suffered. The government had to step in to put an end to it with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The logic behind the act (which also protects women) is that people shouldn't be discriminated against by biology or biological markers in areas of employment, housing, business etc. That logic obviously extends to LGBT people who biologically cannot change their sexuality.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 4:32:50 GMT 10
Religion has too much influence in society and it shouldn't.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 22, 2019 6:58:58 GMT 10
I believe any business should be legally able to refuse anyone for any reason. At the same time, it will be up to them to reap what they sew, it will be their own dumbass fault if their business fails and customers begin shopping elsewhere over a controversial policy made that they would've known would've caused backlash. For example, let's say, hypothetically, Burger King invokes a racist policy that only whites could be served. Okay, fine, because non-whites, as well as whites whom are outraged over this racist policy, will take their business elsewhere, companies such as McDonalds and Wendy's would take advantage and lure those customers in with a message of equality and tolerance, and Burger King would be hit hard financially, possibly even going bankrupt, and it would be their own dumbass fault for enacting such a racist policy that they know would hurt them. Burger King also wouldn't be able to function at all in big cities where all the big money is, such as New York, LA, Chicago, or even Nashville, the best they could do are in rural areas in the south or midwest where these racist individuals live, and there's not a lot of money to be made there... Case in point, these businesses would not be punished by the law, but by the customers money. That's my stance on this. Life sounds nice in Fantasia, but back in your real country blacks were barred from service in white-owned businesses for over a century, and white people liked it that way. It was actually race-indifferent businesses that suffered. The government had to step in to put an end to it with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The logic behind the act (which also protects women) is that people shouldn't be discriminated against by biology or biological markers in areas of employment, housing, business etc. That logic obviously extends to LGBT people who biologically cannot change their sexuality. First of all, that's actually not true at all. For example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott following the Rosa Parks incident caused bus companies to cut back on services and they also needed to raise their prices as a result as well. African Americans also boycotted white-owned downtown businesses in Montgomery, which caused these businesses to lose money, and led to these white individuals resorting to intimidation tactics against the ones participating in the boycotts. teacher.scholastic.com/rosa/boycottworks.htmNot only that, but the Civil Rights Act itself was also an opportunistic move as well, Lyndon B. Johnson did not push this bill over morality, but rather over getting the black vote. Lyndon B. Johnson was very much a southern man of his time with a known history of racism, and even reportedly stated "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years", and that's not even denied by pro-government propaganda sources such as HuffPost or Snopes. Hell, even Richard Nixon, whom is blanketed as a race-bater today, supported Civil Rights during his 1960 presidential campaign; Secondly, for the record, denying service based on sexual orientation is not the same as denying service based on race, it actually irks me when people compare homophobia to racism. Unlike someone's race, someone's sexual orientation is a trivial aspect of a person. Even if a service has a policy against serving gay people, such as baking them a cake for a gay wedding, a gay man could easily and effortlessly lie about his sexual orientation, and pretend to the clerk that he's buying the cake for his female wife, and get the service he needs doing so, it's that easy. A black man, on the other hand, could no where near as easily pretend to be a white person that way. I'm not even going to get into the fact that sex is a choice and that a gay man could still choose to have a sex with a woman, as I'd be beating a dead horse with that one. I'm also not going to imply that homophobia is in any way right, as for many people, they're sexual orientation and their fear of reception over them has caused them serious clinical issues. However, I do believe that society should stop drawing false equivalencies between homophobia and racism, since as I said before someone's sexual orientation is trivial while someone's race is not, and these issues at hand should be approached with separate methods. Also, finally, if anyone here is living in Fantasia, chances are it's you, since you're unwilling to fathom the idea that the US government (and subsequently the western governments that are US puppets) may be immoral, possibly out of wanting to believe that everything's gonna be alright. It is proven that the US government, under both parties, has committed an abundance of atrocities in countries throughout the world, including the bombing of schools and killing of civilians, as well as openly supporting the Saudi government, which has committed countless amounts of atrocities against its own people. I don't want that type of government to have more control over the American public, that is a very reckless and very dangerous decision to allow them to have.
rainbow likes this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 8:11:18 GMT 10
First of all, that's actually not true at all. For example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott following the Rosa Parks incident caused bus companies to cut back on services and they also needed to raise their prices as a result as well. African Americans also boycotted white-owned downtown businesses in Montgomery, which caused these businesses to lose money, and led to these white individuals resorting to intimidation tactics against the ones participating in the boycotts. teacher.scholastic.com/rosa/boycottworks.htmWould you like to tell us what actually ended the Montgomery Bus Boycott? That's right, a court ruling. Not moral support from the white majority, which by your own admission inflicted gruesome violence on black protestors while membership of the KKK skyrocketed. Tell us from this incident how you came to the conclusion that LGBT people can rely on support from the straight majority? For a person who goes on about logical fallacies it's quite disappointing to see you fall for the one every 10th Grader knows about (ad hominem). How is the Civil Rights Act in itself bad just because there were opportunists who supported it? You're attacking the person instead of the policy. If we followed your logic, Abraham Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves because he was also racist. No offence, but as a white straight person I don't see how you have any authority to speak on any of these topics. As a non-white gay dude I will say there are multiple dimensions to it. There's no use in arguing which is worse. Yes it's harder to hide your race, but racial minorities can return to their communities and their families where they're free from discrimination. Gay people on the other hand are born to straight parents, straight families and live in straight communities. You brushed it off when you said "there are only few rural areas [where this would be a problem]" ignoring completely gay people are born into these rural areas everyday. They live with the traumas of having homophobic parents, families, schools, communities etc. Considering the rates of depression and suicide are far far higher among gay people than non-whites (and are especially high among non-white gay people who live in the most homophobic communities) I would say LGBT are very much deserving of protection, especially considering they often have no where else to turn. I'm not sure what you want me to say. Ignoring that I don't support any of those things, what you wrote is wildly off topic and also fallacious. Just because the government supports Saudi Arabia doesn't mean I should be against the government when it tries to ban cannibalism. They're simply not related.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Dec 22, 2019 8:43:23 GMT 10
Why should people be discriminated against based on their sexuality, something they can't change? The fact that some of you are suggesting that it's okay for businesses and churches to deny same-sex couples (despite also calling for greater equality in society) is nothing short of double standards. One of my biggest issues with church groups and religion in general is their unwillingness to adapt to current social attitudes. I know that's a generalisation; there are church groups who accept people of different ethnic backgrounds and sexuality, but it can't be disputed that this remains a huge sticking point within religion as a practice. God is supposedly all about promoting love, fair treatment and forgiveness. Would he want same-sex couples to be denied if he is supposedly this wonderful being who sees the good in all of us? Again, talk about double standards. I honestly don't have much time for religion.
AussieTV, CupidTheStupid, and 1 more like this
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 22, 2019 8:52:32 GMT 10
@slowpoke1993
The court ruling had nothing to do with the ramifications that happened beforehand that I brought up.
The bus companies cutting services and raising their prices, white downtown businesses losing money, white business owners resorting to intimidating those participating in the boycotts, none of that which I brought up had anything to do with the court ruling. The court ruling played an important role, yes, but the consequences of the Montgomery Bus Boycott were already happening before that, as a result of the loss of money and loss of business.
Also, I never mentioned anything about my personal opinions on the Civil Rights Act itself. The reason I brought it up was to tie in into the narrative that support from non-whites is heavily vital to a company or institutions success. Those that passed this bill understood how important the number of non-whites were to their elections, so they used this bill as an opportunity to get their support.
In my initial post, I only brought up the financial side that deals with dollars and what not, but my initial argument also applies to votes for political institutions as much as it does for money for business institutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbow on Dec 22, 2019 9:03:41 GMT 10
@slowpoke1993 The court ruling had nothing to do with the ramifications that happened beforehand that I brought up. The bus companies cutting services and raising their prices, white downtown businesses losing money, white business owners resorting to intimidating those participating in the boycotts, none of that which I brought up had anything to do with the court ruling. The court ruling played an important role, yes, but the consequences of the Montgomery Bus Boycott were already happening before that, as a result of the loss of money and loss of business. So basically what you're saying is the reason why they lost money wasn't because of the court ruling, but because of the boycott, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 22, 2019 9:06:00 GMT 10
@slowpoke1993 The court ruling had nothing to do with the ramifications that happened beforehand that I brought up. The bus companies cutting services and raising their prices, white downtown businesses losing money, white business owners resorting to intimidating those participating in the boycotts, none of that which I brought up had anything to do with the court ruling. The court ruling played an important role, yes, but the consequences of the Montgomery Bus Boycott were already happening before that, as a result of the loss of money and loss of business. So basically what you're saying is the reason why they lost money wasn't because of the court ruling, but because of the boycott, right? Yes.
rainbow likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by CupidTheStupid on Dec 22, 2019 9:20:48 GMT 10
Why should people be discriminated against based on their sexuality, something they can't change? The fact that some of you are suggesting that it's okay for businesses and churches to deny same-sex couples (despite also calling for greater equality in society) is nothing short of double standards. One of my biggest issues with church groups and religion in general is their unwillingness to adapt to current social attitudes. I know that's a generalisation; there are church groups who accept people of different ethnic backgrounds and sexuality, but it can't be disputed that this remains a huge sticking point within religion as a practice. God is supposedly all about promoting love, fair treatment and forgiveness. Would he want same-sex couples to be denied if he is supposedly this wonderful being who sees the good in all of us? Again, talk about double standards. I honestly don't have much time for religion. I'm a fellow Christian & I treat everyone with equal kindness & respect. It's sad how people use religion to treat LGBT folks as second class citizens. I hope this attitude changes.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 11:09:26 GMT 10
@slowpoke1993 The court ruling had nothing to do with the ramifications that happened beforehand that I brought up. The bus companies cutting services and raising their prices, white downtown businesses losing money, white business owners resorting to intimidating those participating in the boycotts, none of that which I brought up had anything to do with the court ruling. The court ruling played an important role, yes, but the consequences of the Montgomery Bus Boycott were already happening before that, as a result of the loss of money and loss of business. You're framing the Montgomery Bus Boycott as causing a lot of financial distress to white people, when there's really nothing to support that. The buses are government run, it's not some company that can go bankrupt. They raised fares and carried on with segregation. In fact, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a lot worse financially for black people. Many were fired from their jobs and lost income due to not showing up for work. Many black taxi owners lost significant income giving free rides to people. That's not to speak of the black people who were killed and assaulted. The boycott was just about to end as black people were losing morale, but then King's house was bombed, which re-energized the boycott and brought the boycott to the national and international attention (and resulted in a flood of donations). Their suffering wasn't to end until the court ruling. The boycott would have failed had the government not intervened in time, that's a statement of fact. I don't really see how that proves you're argument. Even if we accept that Johnson was being purely opportunist, his party would go on to lose the 1968 election exactly because of the Civil Rights Act. If black people relied on white people voting leaders that cared about them they would have been waiting a long time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 11:50:59 GMT 10
This is awful. It's truly sad when people use religion to their advantage to harm others. I'm all for freedom of religion, however, there is a limit & discriminating LGBT folks is never acceptable. I hope your little brother can look up to you as a fellow role model. Thank you for your kind words. My little brother is at an age where he doesn't know too much about the world yet and so he follows my parents religion and beliefs. I don't care if he grows to be religious but I just don't want him being a bigot to people who are different from him. As a 23 year old who managed to convince my 11 year old sister to (eventually) become atheist, I suggest you treat him to books and documentaries about evolution, and other human species like Neanderthals. Of course many Muslims and Christians have retconed their religions to be more accommodating to science, but the theory of evolution still gets people questioning the central tenant of Abrahamic religions, which is that humans are a special animal that deserve special attention from God. In reality we are animals just like everything else. The ridiculous Adam and Eve story is first to crumble 
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 22, 2019 12:18:16 GMT 10
Why should people be discriminated against based on their sexuality, something they can't change? The fact that some of you are suggesting that it's okay for businesses and churches to deny same-sex couples (despite also calling for greater equality in society) is nothing short of double standards. One of my biggest issues with church groups and religion in general is their unwillingness to adapt to current social attitudes. I know that's a generalisation; there are church groups who accept people of different ethnic backgrounds and sexuality, but it can't be disputed that this remains a huge sticking point within religion as a practice. God is supposedly all about promoting love, fair treatment and forgiveness. Would he want same-sex couples to be denied if he is supposedly this wonderful being who sees the good in all of us? Again, talk about double standards. I honestly don't have much time for religion. This is the part I fully agree with. One of the core principles of Christianity (in particular) is to love one another. I don't understand why some religious people treat others in an inferior manner because of a choice that they have made. It's so hypocritical.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Dec 22, 2019 12:32:21 GMT 10
{omg u guys this is the gayest cake I’ve ever seen wat a bunch of pussy faggits spoiler } 
Captain Nemo likes this
|
|
