T Nation

Left's Hierarchy of 'Rights'

Lol, free society? When? When was it free?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
All of this was easily predictable at the first mention of interracial marriage in the debate. That should have told one everything one needed to know about how this would go down. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

“No, no, I’m not racist. Honestly, I wish racial minority-x happy lives. I just don’t think the races should intermarry.” Think of how a holder of such a viewpoint would be driven out of classrooms, jobs, government…Any and all public (tax exemptions taken away) and private (put on “don’t do business with” lists) pressure and action taken today against such a person as above is, and will increasingly be, turned against anyone that doesn’t agree with SSM. Or, that views homosexuality as in any way different from heterosexuality. [/quote]

And rightly so.

At least you see it. It’s no different than saying blacks and whites shouldn’t marry.

But what’s funny is the idea that we have a free society… Since when? People have always had to fight for their identity and rights in this country, and as a 1st world nation and supposed bastion of freedom we are usually pretty late to the game compared to our peers/ other western 1st world nations…

You don’t have the right to refuse a person service based on their skin color, and believe me, it IS racist to do so.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
All of this was easily predictable at the first mention of interracial marriage in the debate. That should have told one everything one needed to know about how this would go down. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

“No, no, I’m not racist. Honestly, I wish racial minority-x happy lives. I just don’t think the races should intermarry.” Think of how a holder of such a viewpoint would be driven out of classrooms, jobs, government…Any and all public (tax exemptions taken away) and private (put on “don’t do business with” lists) pressure and action taken today against such a person as above is, and will increasingly be, turned against anyone that doesn’t agree with SSM. Or, that views homosexuality as in any way different from heterosexuality.

Severiano wrote:
And rightly so. [/quote]

I told them and I told them. And all I ever got back was “slippery slope!” Few are as open as you just were, so thank you.

Edit: There are a few pro-SSM writers expressing distress at this development. They naively imagined a voluntary, live and let live, freedom of association paradigm post-SSM. It could never have been any other way than how it is developing! Did you not hear the arguments your side was making? In 10-20 years, even they will be pressured enough to largely go silent in their opposition to the “purging,” or they will risk being swept up by it themselves along with the anti state recognized SSM opponents.

[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t have the right to refuse a person service based on their skin color, and believe me, it IS racist to do so.
[/quote]

But do you have the right to refuse service based on some action they are requesting?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A right means something that people can’t do to you or prevent you from doing. It is negative by definition. You cannot have the right to have someone else bake you a cake. You do, however, have the right not to bake a cake and not have someone force you to bake a cake.

If your “right” involves coercion and threats of violence against someone else to make them do something you are completely full of shit and lack even a basic understanding of what liberty and natural rights are.[/quote]

…but that definition makes me uncomfortable, because now I feel like I am violating others’ rights when I force them to X…

Do those signs stating, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” hold any basis? It’s like a trespassing sign; without being posted, isn’t it still trespassing?

Either way, I’m all for SSM. But they should just go somewhere else and get their cakes made by someone less bigoted. Why would you want a hate cake anyway?

“But they make the BEST cupcakes! I need it from them!” Buncha groomzillas.

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Either way, I’m all for SSM. But they should just go somewhere else and get their cakes made by someone less bigoted. Why would you want a hate cake anyway?
[/quote]

Ahhhh, why indeed. No other way to get a cake? Really? A wedding cake is so necessary, legal/legislative is required? Why? Gays will starve if a wedding photographer is no longer able to turn down a wedding job? Or, a wedding cake maker is allowed to continue to do the same? Hmm, well, where was this epidemic of starving homosexuals 10 years ago?

The desire and pleasure is in making the opposition serve you against their own desires/conscience. The more sacred the position, the sweeter the reward in forcing them to go against it. The desire is in actively using the government to corner and strangle out the anti-SSM, orthodox religious moral understanding. It is a conquest.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Do not take away my rights to having bikini clad baristas serve me cappuccinos, can I get an amen ?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I go back and forth on this one to be quite honest.

The idea that refusing to serve a gay person/couple is the same as refusal to serve a black person because of skin color (i.e. “racist”–only in quotes because well, being “gay” isn’t a race) is a difficult one. I don’t think I agree whatsoever with this assessment however you have to look at the shock value of being assessed as truly racist–and that is one that most people I know who really actually aren’t racist find absolutely repugnant to consider themselves as being in that same boat (being that they consider racism repugnant and evil). Having that thrown at you causes a sort of visceral reaction back.

I believe that a large chunk of this concept rests on the premise that being gay is genetically determined. Play a thought experiment: if being gay is 100% genetic then it really does become very analogous to racism, or at least the argument against becomes much more problematic to make (I am still not 100% convinced it is equivalent but it certainly makes a strong argument in this case). If on the other hand being gay is a choice/illness/whatever, then the case for gay “racism” is weakened tremendously as we allow business to tell people what they find acceptable choices to make if they would like service–shoes, shirt, behave, etc. Essentially choices and behavior are not constitutionally protected whatsoever so the argument for forcing someone to make a gay couple a wedding cake or whatnot becomes almost untenable no matter how much somebody protests (it still may be poor business decision making obviously).

However you draw it it is still absolutely bullshit to sentence somebody to prison over refusal to serve though.

It is illegal to refuse to hire someone because of sexual orientation, but does that mean it is the same if someone does not serve them? For instance–local owned bakery hires a gay person as a baker, knowing he is gay, but does not allow him to sell wedding cakes to same sex couples.

Apologies in advance. I’m basically just thinking out loud and I’ve been up for more than 24 hours at this point so I am veeeeeeery spacey. And not at all able to really think clearly.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t have the right to refuse a person service based on their skin color, and believe me, it IS racist to do so.
[/quote]

But do you have the right to refuse service based on some action they are requesting?[/quote]

Now this is a very interesting question to ask.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t have the right to refuse a person service based on their skin color, and believe me, it IS racist to do so.
[/quote]

But do you have the right to refuse service based on some action they are requesting?[/quote]

Now this is a very interesting question to ask.[/quote]

Generally speaking, this IS the question religious folk have been asking. I know not one mainstream orthodox/traditionalist voice asking for permission to deny selling chicken breasts from their grocery store. The uproar is over very specific services.

Where was the starving homosexual epidemic? Was somebody not selling them cars, either? Was there an epidemic of gays not being able to purchase clothes? How does allowing wedding cake makers the ability TO CONTINUE to excuse themselves from a particular form of wedding (based on long documented and widely understood religious thought), suddenly cause gays to starve? How does a christian photographer being forced to attend gay weddings prevent a nationwide firing spree of homosexuals?

It’s not a hypothetical. It used to be (even 10 years ago) that the wedding cake maker, and the photographer, could refrain from servicing gay weddings, because there weren’t any SSMs. Yet, gays weren’t starving. So why all of sudden would gays go starving if the law allowed an orthodox Christian, Muslim, whatever, from refraining from a specific ceremony, that is historically defined in their religion? What the heck changes?!

For crap’s sake, we do charitable work with AIDS/HIV patients. Who, as one might guess, are often enough homosexuals…And we’re what, not going to sell them a grocery cart full of food because we requested a continuation (it’s not new) of being able to skip out on a SSM? Or, WE aren’t worthy of making our own living, in our chosen vocation?

This has crap all to do with gays going hungry, or a sudden homosexual firing epidemic. It’s about domination and conquest.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I go back and forth on this one to be quite honest.

The idea that refusing to serve a gay person/couple is the same as refusal to serve a black person because of skin color (i.e. “racist”–only in quotes because well, being “gay” isn’t a race) is a difficult one. I don’t think I agree whatsoever with this assessment however you have to look at the shock value of being assessed as truly racist–and that is one that most people I know who really actually aren’t racist find absolutely repugnant to consider themselves as being in that same boat (being that they consider racism repugnant and evil). Having that thrown at you causes a sort of visceral reaction back.

I believe that a large chunk of this concept rests on the premise that being gay is genetically determined. Play a thought experiment: if being gay is 100% genetic then it really does become very analogous to racism, or at least the argument against becomes much more problematic to make (I am still not 100% convinced it is equivalent but it certainly makes a strong argument in this case). If on the other hand being gay is a choice/illness/whatever, then the case for gay “racism” is weakened tremendously as we allow business to tell people what they find acceptable choices to make if they would like service–shoes, shirt, behave, etc. Essentially choices and behavior are not constitutionally protected whatsoever so the argument for forcing someone to make a gay couple a wedding cake or whatnot becomes almost untenable no matter how much somebody protests (it still may be poor business decision making obviously).

However you draw it it is still absolutely bullshit to sentence somebody to prison over refusal to serve though.

It is illegal to refuse to hire someone because of sexual orientation, but does that mean it is the same if someone does not serve them? For instance–local owned bakery hires a gay person as a baker, knowing he is gay, but does not allow him to sell wedding cakes to same sex couples.

Apologies in advance. I’m basically just thinking out loud and I’ve been up for more than 24 hours at this point so I am veeeeeeery spacey. And not at all able to really think clearly.[/quote]

My main problem when comparing this to race is the purpose of why the laws originated. You can’t compare gays being denied service to a wedding cake to services blacks were denied in certain regions in certain times of our country. The problem is the solution offered for gays is to simply find another store to shop at which is easy. Is telling blacks to shop at a different store at a certain time/region in our country a valid solution? I don’t think it is.

I think any private business should have the right to refuse service to people based on skin color. (And sexual orientation, and whatever else.)

It is a matter of principle that underlies this belief of mine, but I will enumerate one pragmatic consequence of such a policy: Racists–real ones–would be forced either to act in accordance with their conscience, in which case they would be shamed in the national media and, 999 times in 1000, driven out of business. Or, they would have to live with the knowledge of their own cowardice–with the knowledge that they are free to ban blacks, for example, from entering their doors, but are too chickenshit to do so.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so disconnected.

This is a rights issue… It would be wrong for a business to deny you service because you were of a certain denomination, or because you were a certain race.

Why is it different for sexuality? If a cakemaker or flower arranger would do business with a Christian couple looking to be married, but you wouldn’t provide the same service for a gay married couple, that’s pretty clearly discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. It’s a business right? They have the right to refuse business to people for lots of reasons, just not reasons that are in violation of people’s human rights.

You see the difference right?

It would be no different than say Mormons refusing to serve dark skinned people just a few years ago because their scripture said that dark skin was a mark of evil. It would still be a violation if they refused to serve people of dark skin… Even if the reasons were religious. Still a violation of a persons civil rights.
[/quote]
Does a Muslim restaurant have to serve pork?

No, but obviously they can’t just throw out Christians because they don’t like Christians

How about a Christian couple comes in and orders food? Then they take payment and give food, obviously

How about a Christian couple comes in trying to set up catering for an upcoming wedding? The wedding is going to be at a church and they want him to come and serve food for some length of time. Are you telling me that him declining to take part in a Christian religious ceremony would constitute a violation of a persons civil rights?? (the supposed right to get married)

More examples:

A personal trainer refusing to train somebody. He says he takes pride in his work helping people learning how to squat, deadlift, heavy compound movements, etc. That’s training. Not like this former client who he has now refused. All he wanted to do was cables, machines and cardio equipment. So he fired him. Didn’t really matter that he was both gay and black, he worked with him for a while knowing that, but real training is this guys passion blah blah - you get the point

Dude comes into a barbershop wanting a customized fucked up haircut. Barber refuses cuz that’s not a real haircut, he believes in karma and wouldn’t feel right doing that to another mans hair. Plus if people find out that haircut came from his shop, it would bring shame to him and his family, not to mention bad publicity. I’m a professional, I don’t deal with crap like this - out of my shop!!

Now a gay couple at a bakery, florist, or photographer. Baker, florist, photographer believes that marriage is between a man and woman. They want no part in this. Let’s send them to prison

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so disconnected.

This is a rights issue… It would be wrong for a business to deny you service because you were of a certain denomination, or because you were a certain race.

Why is it different for sexuality? If a cakemaker or flower arranger would do business with a Christian couple looking to be married, but you wouldn’t provide the same service for a gay married couple, that’s pretty clearly discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. It’s a business right? [/quote]
I have the ability to see it as other than just simply discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. This does not mean that there is no such thing as discrimination based on sexual orientation, but its hard to accurately detect. If the OP is true then this sounds more like a witch hunt than a civil rights movement to me

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Why the fuck does anyone want to have a wedding in the first place? Selfish, trite ritual to invite the government into your sex life while simultaneously boring the absolute tits off every sad fuck you know that couldn’t come up with a half decent excuse or muster the gumption to say “No thank you, I’d rather be jerking off than watch you waste a fortune and your future in one fell swoop.”

Craziness incarnate.