Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...

[CicerosCat]

It might be easy for you to say its not a huge problem, but for some people in many places it is. In some places, people genuinely believe gays don't even exist because they are so intimidated into hiding themselves, and they are never 'seen'. So would that be a place free of discrimination because no gays can be identified to discriminate against or a place where prejudice is so deep that gay people effectively lack the basic freedom to merely live as who they are? Is it a victory over discrimination or a total infusion of it? Then people like you and I can look past these people and say 'its not a huge problem' because it remains invisible.

Sure, what I have just described may be a slightly different problem, but my point is the will and ability to discriminate is certainly there. Sexuality is obviously something of a different beast from race or gender, and it is more easily concealed (in most cases).

I guess I don't see a change in the principle of something that worked due to a half-century of time passing; it was necessary then, why not now? What would now even be like if not for the 'extreme solution' and how quickly would some places revert if said solution were dissolved?

So again, the line exists. But we stop at gays because its not a huge problem... to you?

[Medius]

[CicerosCat]

I actually largely agree with that, but I think you are underestimating the prejudice homosexuals still face in many places. I don't even think of the Midwest as particularly homophobic although its certainly there. There are some towns you aren't fearing denial of services, you are fearing for your life. Its those places where 'no gays exist'.

Its definitely on a different plane of existence from other civil rights issues, but that doesn't mean its necessarily easier. In some ways in can be harder because you don't have the support of a family or you are entirely alone in your struggle. The psychological effect of being a social outcast, ESPECIALLY within your own family, is devastating.

And yes the choice to remain closeted is for personal reasons, personal reasons born of social prejudice. And if you make the choice not to conform or live in denial/silence, then people just deny you service.

Does everyone need to agree with homosexuality? Absolutely not. But it sounds like you still accept the protection of some classes as necessary and stop at gay because you don't think its as bad essentially. Gay people need more than a changing of hearts and minds sometimes too, sometimes they just need to be able to live their lives normally.

Does this religious person refuse service to those of another denomination which may go against their belief? How is that any less valid a religious freedom than denying gays?

[Medius]

[CicerosCat]

Its more than viewpoints though, it involves denying service. I take your point about the participatory nature of florists at a wedding I suppose, but what if it was something more essential and basic? Is the religious objection still valid? And if so, why can't your religion tell you to deny service to other races, religions, etc. Why should a good Christian serve an infidel? Its still a 'clash of liberties' in which case the law must come down on one side or another.

[Medius]

[PoS]

Business owners should have the right to refuse service for whatever reason- its part of individual liberty. All this political correctness crap of having to reserve parking slots for disabled people, for instance, is a waste of resources and reverse discrimination. I remember going to club in L.A. many years ago with my friends and half the dance floor couldnt be used because this loser with a wheelchair was just sitting there, I wanted to kick his ass but that meant Id have to lift him up to do it.

[The Tooth]

What a fascinating and delightful anecdote.

[dontworrybehappy]

I don't understand how liberals can think that a business owner can be forced to serve a queer. That's on the business owner themselves. I've been to many places where there was a sign out front "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". So....why can't this mean gays? Why can't it mean short people? I mean it's not a job, its not employment, if someone doesn't want to sell a fag a loaf of bread that's his right. Do I think it makes business sense? No, not at all. Do I think it means the business owner is a bit of a prick? Yea, I would say so. I know some gay dudes and they're pretty cool dudes. But I don't think they should be able to get married. Live together? Sure, whatever they want short of a legal marriage. I think this "my classmate has two daddies" crap is what is tearing the moral foundation of this country apart. It's kinda funny, that people shove "gay acceptance" down my throat and tell me that I'm not open minded if I don't accept their ideas for gay marriage, yet they can't see the forest for the trees that they are not being accepting themselves of MY ideas against gay marriage.

But its still his or her right as the business owner to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. It's called freedom.

[The Tooth]