ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gay rights issues , religious rights issues , supreme court cases

Reply
Old 7th June 2018, 09:41 AM   #401
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
Unfortunately, not how that is working. His supporters come from near and far to give him their business.

And we have a winner in Tennessee:

http://www.newnownext.com/no-gays-al...eshop/06/2018/
I don't think Tennessee has extended civil rights protection to LGBT citizens, and since there is no federal protection, that should be legal discrimination.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2018, 11:07 AM   #402
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,454
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
I don't think Tennessee has extended civil rights protection to LGBT citizens, and since there is no federal protection, that should be legal discrimination.
I know that in employment the justice department argued and won in some court cases that existing sex based discrimination laws cover sexual orientation. So maybe maybe not.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2018, 11:09 AM   #403
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,481
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
Yeah, that didn't take long.

And despite his attempts to walk it back afterwards, this is a clear indication of what the "religious freedom" movement has been working toward the entire time. The freedom to discriminate against anyone and everyone they don't like.

We're heading right back to "separate but equal" as a best-case scenario if the "religious freedom" types get their way; and the more unpleasant factions of Christianity as the dominant social force if they managed to force things even farther down that road.

ETA: Looks like the fallout is already ramping up. Supreme Court Christian Cake Baker Ruling Leads Homophobic Store Owner to Put Up a ‘No Gays Allowed’ Sign – Again
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 7th June 2018 at 11:53 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2018, 11:45 AM   #404
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,766
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
We're heading right back to "separate but equal" as a best-case scenario if the "religious freedom" types get their way; and the more unpleasant factions of Christianity as the dominant social force if they managed to force things even farther down that road.
That's just ridiculous. Separate but equal would be a pipe dream in small towns dominated by straight white Christians. It'll be "nothing for anyone who doesn't love, look, and worship like we do."

If I was a believer, I'd be praying every day for the health and well-being of our current Supreme Court justices. We can't afford to lose another inch to the bigots.

Last edited by Babbylonian; 7th June 2018 at 11:48 AM.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2018, 11:51 AM   #405
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,021
I believe SCOTUS wanted to avoid a media outcry and therefore used a technically to get around having to actually judge the case on its merits.
But that will probably backfire as a number of shop owners will feel empowered to refuse service to protected groups, triggering a new avalanche of court cases.
__________________
"When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2018, 12:17 PM   #406
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,858
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I believe SCOTUS wanted to avoid a media outcry and therefore used a technically to get around having to actually judge the case on its merits.
But that will probably backfire as a number of shop owners will feel empowered to refuse service to protected groups, triggering a new avalanche of court cases.
That isn't supported by the opinion itself. In the opinion, they reference the coming avalanche of court cases, so it isn't actually a "backfire". They did punt the case, but I don't think it was to avoid a media outcry.

I think the biggest problem with this case was a different aspect of it, that was also referenced in the opinion. The actual contact between Phillips and the would-be customers was literally only a few sentences long. They said they wanted a cake for their wedding. He said no, but that they could have other things. They walked out. That's it.

Based on such a brief conversation, it's hard to say exactly what Mr. Phillips refused to do, or exactly what the customers were asking for. With such a scant record of exactly what the transaction was, it was difficult to say exactly what was done that may or may not have violated the law, or may or may not have constituted protected exercise of religion. Without a clear cut case, they would be ruling on a hypothetical, and the Supremes aren't supposed to do that.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2018, 01:13 PM   #407
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And despite his attempts to walk it back afterwards, this is a clear indication of what the "religious freedom" movement has been working toward the entire time. The freedom to discriminate against anyone and everyone they don't like.

We're heading right back to "separate but equal" as a best-case scenario if the "religious freedom" types get their way; and the more unpleasant factions of Christianity as the dominant social force if they managed to force things even farther down that road.
Anyone else remember when Michele Bachmann and her ilk used to caterwaul, before Obergefell, that teh gayz were demanding "special treatment," some special right or privilege, in asking to be treated exactly the same as straight people when it came to marriage laws? It's not a little ironic that now it's the uber-Christians who are actually demanding a special right when they think they're entitled to the privilege of discrimination, on their religious grounds, against people who would otherwise have an equal protection of law against that discrimination.

And make no mistake, no pussyfooting about it, discrimination is exactly the right word, when it's aimed squarely at a specified class of people. If an equally-religious person demanded the right to refuse service to black people based on an equally sincere religious objections (with no other allowable test for the sincerity but the making of the objection), it would certainly not be allowed on that religious ground, and would be called what it was. How is the case any different when it's the same discriminatory action, on the same ground, taken against gay people?

Quote:
From that article-
Quote:
"This is 'happy days' for Christians all over America, but dark days will come," Amyx warned this week. "Christianity is under attack. This is a great win, don't get me wrong, but this is not the end, this is just the beginning," he claims, of the supposed war on Christians.

Dear lord (for the irony)- these people are so wrapped in their own sense of privilege that they really believe this kind of tripe- that they are the ones being singled out for persecution for not being allowed a dispensation to discriminate, when, in fact, they're not being treated any differently than anyone else who isn't accorded that same "right."
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 09:01 AM   #408
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,996
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Dear lord (for the irony)- these people are so wrapped in their own sense of privilege that they really believe this kind of tripe- that they are the ones being singled out for persecution for not being allowed a dispensation to discriminate, when, in fact, they're not being treated any differently than anyone else who isn't accorded that same "right."

Cognitive dissonance I kind of get, and few of us could claim to have never been hypocritical, but it's the absolute pleasure people like that seem to get out of making someone else's life a bit worse for absolutely no reason that I just don't get. If the sign works they won't even meet the people, it will just be some random strangers who pass by, see the sign and have their day made a little bit less pleasant by someone's indiscriminate hatred.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 10:29 AM   #409
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,624
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Cognitive dissonance I kind of get, and few of us could claim to have never been hypocritical, but it's the absolute pleasure people like that seem to get out of making someone else's life a bit worse for absolutely no reason that I just don't get. If the sign works they won't even meet the people, it will just be some random strangers who pass by, see the sign and have their day made a little bit less pleasant by someone's indiscriminate hatred.
The whole point of citing The Book is that you get to pat yourself on the back for doing something self-righteous. It's a big book, you can justify pretty much anything against anyone.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 12:47 PM   #410
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Cognitive dissonance I kind of get, and few of us could claim to have never been hypocritical, but it's the absolute pleasure people like that seem to get out of making someone else's life a bit worse for absolutely no reason that I just don't get. If the sign works they won't even meet the people, it will just be some random strangers who pass by, see the sign and have their day made a little bit less pleasant by someone's indiscriminate hatred.
Folks like these remind me of a thing we used to do as kids, strutting around with our arms wind-milling and kicking out with our legs as far as we could get them, screeching "I'm just walking here, if you get kicked or punched, it's your own fault for getting in my way!" I have to say, though, that even as a kid, it never occurred to me to seriously think that anyone who protested (or, god forbid, punched back) was persecuting me in the practice of some right.


As far as this guy's sign goes- he's a hardware store owner, for pete's sake. How would he ever know if he sold a hammer to a gay person? Does he ask everyone who comes in the store about their sexual preferences? I think it's like sylvan says, pure virtue signaling for afterlife brownie points. Even at that, if he actually tried to enforce his bigotry, he might find out that refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds is one thing, but there's no "artistic expression" involved in selling a box of nails to anyone.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 03:27 PM   #411
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,858
And in the first ruling by a lower court to cite this ruling as precedent, an Arizona appeals court ruled against a calligraphy business who refused to provide custom invitations for a same sex couple's wedding.

In doing so, they used the language associated with the strict scrutiny analysis, saying that the state had a compelling interest in providing a non-discriminatory environment for citizens engaging in commerce, which made it acceptable to compel a business to provide a service even if the proprietors felt that the service was incompatible with their religion.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 04:32 PM   #412
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
I don't think Tennessee has extended civil rights *** protection to LGBT citizens, and since there is no federal protection, that should be legal discrimination.
To clarify I should have been more specific, where the *** is, I should have included "public accommodation".

LGBT citizens do get the right to marry via federal law and very likely get coverage in some of Tennessee's other civil rights protections.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 04:46 PM   #413
Lambchops
Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
I totally agree.

Just like when I got mugged I wanted a bunch of random white guys to go beat up people in the neighborhoodit happened.

No, wait I didn't because I don't have the social understanding of a child.
Ah yes, because a sign is the same thing as physical violence. You sure got me there.
__________________
Fighting fascism is a social duty, not an antisocial crime.

Last edited by Lambchops; 8th June 2018 at 04:47 PM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 05:15 PM   #414
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,719
I am not sure this is as cut and dried as some here would have it.
IMHO that 2 of the "Liberal" justices voted with the majority indicates the issues might not be so black and white (no joke intended) as many here think.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 05:17 PM   #415
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,719
And I think anybody turning away a paying customer for such a stupid reason probably won't survive that long in business anyway.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 05:45 PM   #416
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am not sure this is as cut and dried as some here would have it.
IMHO that 2 of the "Liberal" justices voted with the majority indicates the issues might not be so black and white (no joke intended) as many here think.
The opinion seems pretty clearly written to me. The majority ruled that some on the commission were expressing anti-religious statements and out right hostility to the baker's beliefs that had no bearing on the case before them to such an extent that they were considered to be actively violating the free exercise clause of the first.

Excerpt from page 3 of the opinion (PDF page 6) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-111_j4el.pdf:
Quote:
When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.
Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 06:05 PM   #417
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,858
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post

And make no mistake, no pussyfooting about it, discrimination is exactly the right word, when it's aimed squarely at a specified class of people.
Indeed. Let's follow that reasoning.

A minister walks into a baker and requests a cake for an upcoming church celebration. He wants it to say, "Jesus Loves You". The baker says, "Certainly Pastor Smith. It will be ready on Friday." A second minister walks in with a similar request, but wants a cake that says, "God Hates Fags". The baker says, "I'm sorry Pastor Phelps. I will not make that cake." That's religious discrimination. (ETA: i.e the baker is practicing religious discrimination by allowing one religious message, but not another.)

For those of you who didn't read the ruling, something very similar actually played a significant role in the Supreme Court's decision.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 8th June 2018 at 06:07 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 09:35 PM   #418
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,624
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Indeed. Let's follow that reasoning.

A minister walks into a baker and requests a cake for an upcoming church celebration. He wants it to say, "Jesus Loves You". The baker says, "Certainly Pastor Smith. It will be ready on Friday." A second minister walks in with a similar request, but wants a cake that says, "God Hates Fags". The baker says, "I'm sorry Pastor Phelps. I will not make that cake." That's religious discrimination. (ETA: i.e the baker is practicing religious discrimination by allowing one religious message, but not another.)

For those of you who didn't read the ruling, something very similar actually played a significant role in the Supreme Court's decision.
I didn't actually agree with them that the other cases were similar or related. Some shops refused to make cakes saying certain things. But they were discriminating against the words, not against the customer or the events. The Colorado baker was discriminating against an EVENT. Personally, if I made cakes, I would make cakes for anything except pornographic images. Want a swastika? Why not? I'm not judging what you want or the event you want it for. Anything in the Big Book about not judging others?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 11:52 PM   #419
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,190
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I didn't actually agree with them that the other cases were similar or related. Some shops refused to make cakes saying certain things. But they were discriminating against the words, not against the customer or the events. The Colorado baker was discriminating against an EVENT. Personally, if I made cakes, I would make cakes for anything except pornographic images. Want a swastika? Why not? I'm not judging what you want or the event you want it for. Anything in the Big Book about not judging others?
Jesus did not judge or condemn anyone, but he also didn't do anything to enable sin.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:31 AM   #420
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,858
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I didn't actually agree with them that the other cases were similar or related. Some shops refused to make cakes saying certain things. But they were discriminating against the words, not against the customer or the events.
True, they were discriminating against words. Specifically, against a particular statement of a religious nature. There are some religious expressions that would be allowed by the baker, and some that would not be allowed by the baker. That's discrimination based on religion, which is something that Colorado law forbids.

Of course, "Congratulations Jim and Robert" are words as well.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 9th June 2018 at 12:33 AM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:07 AM   #421
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,624
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Jesus did not judge or condemn anyone, but he also didn't do anything to enable sin.
How does cake enable people to sin?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:12 AM   #422
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,682
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
How does cake enable people to sin?
Gluttony
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:27 AM   #423
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,506
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
How does cake enable people to sin?
Oh I have a few ideas.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 11:35 PM   #424
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 45,161
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Jesus did not judge or condemn anyone, but he also didn't do anything to enable sin.
Depends on whether you consider drinking alcohol to be sinful or not. Many denominations of Christianity frown upon alcohol, despite Jesus himself miraculously providing an open bar at a wedding.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 04:16 AM   #425
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,454
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And I think anybody turning away a paying customer for such a stupid reason probably won't survive that long in business anyway.
Banks did it for decades with no problem with redlining. As long as you have a customer base that is fine with it, and plenty of people hate gays, it isn't a business killer.

Toyota didn't have a problem running with racist practices.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...202-story.html
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:23 AM   #426
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,567
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
That's just ridiculous. Separate but equal would be a pipe dream in small towns dominated by straight white Christians. It'll be "nothing for anyone who doesn't love, look, and worship like we do."

If I was a believer, I'd be praying every day for the health and well-being of our current Supreme Court justices. We can't afford to lose another inch to the bigots.
Yes.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 09:51 AM   #427
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,481
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Banks did it for decades with no problem with redlining. As long as you have a customer base that is fine with it, and plenty of people hate gays, it isn't a business killer.

Toyota didn't have a problem running with racist practices.[/url]

Losing business only matters if you're losing enough of it. Given that LGBTQ people are a small minority of the general population, few businesses are going to even notice the loss, let alone care. And there have been plenty of cases in history of people refusing business to particular groups on religious or similar principles, to their own detriment. Humans have an unnervingly common tendency to cut of their noses to spite their faces.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 03:00 AM   #428
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,025
Discrimination against LGBTQ people won't lose much business, but discriminating against heterosexuals is sure to bankrupt a business. This is the reason the "free market" solution for bigotry doesn't work.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 04:49 AM   #429
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,003
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And I think anybody turning away a paying customer for such a stupid reason probably won't survive that long in business anyway.
It depends on the local community.

One which is highly bigoted religious may use the godly business which aligns with their own prejudices in preference to one which does not discriminate in any way.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.