Oh, that’s far from the truth. The gay marriage case didn’t make homosexuality a protected class. And it is narrowly tailored to the situation of state-provided marriage licenses. No other right re: gays was created. It’s very messy for all those reasons and more - despite SCOTUS’s judgment on the marriage license, whether you can fire an employee for being gay remains an open question. Till Congress passes a law, it remains up in the air (and Congress ain’t passing one any time soon).
And those practices were designed to and helped perpetuate white supremacy at the expense of blacks. We decided that we needed to tear down that edifice and the practices in public accommodation.
By contrast, there is no “hetero” supremacy.
Ok, so? You asked if he was a winner in my scenario, and he undoubtedly was, which is a good thing.
Funnily enough, you probably would. My generation would show up in droves if it meant sticking it to the generation that spent our entire lives telling us we are the problem in this country.
I didn’t even notice that when I posted it. Now that I zoom in it looks like a guy in a wheelchair. The normal version of that meme doesn’t have the wheelchair.
Is it ALL the boomers’ fault? When SS was passed in 1936 they started making payments to seniors immediately, even though they never payed in (it was a cynical way to get support from seniors at the time). So it has never been a savings program. They’ve used the money for the general fund. Is it the boomers’ fault so many of them were born? Or that they ignored this demographic shift?
What’s the simplest fix do you think? We are living longer geriatric lives. SS payments were supposed to supplement your retirement and/or keep you from starving to death… I think people are counting on it to provide something it won’t.
Short of smothering people in nursing homes, I think the simplest and most obvious answer is to move the retirement age back. Starting benefits at age 62-65 made sense when life expectancy was about 70. We’ve added 7-10 years to life expectancy since then. Admittedly, as you noted, some of that time is beyond the time most of us could keep working, but there’s no reason we all have to retire at 62 these days. Although I’m hoping to be retired by then, lol.
Sure they could, they just couldn’t marry each other.
The point is that Blacks had specific and seperate laws governing them, than whites or non-blacks. No such seperate laws for gays ever existed.
And if I were a black who went through the Civil Rights movement, I would be pissed at the comparison. Pretending like a problem is bigger than it is doesn’t solve the problem. It just pishe’s people off who are not stupid enough to believe that gay rights and the civil rights issues of yore are even in the same ball park. They are not even the same game.
Nobody can tell you are gay unless you tell them or show them.
Try to tell people you are not black, when you are…
I can’t decide if this thread is about social security, sex ed, or gay wedding cakes. LOL!
Social security is certainly not a savings account. It’s just a tax. Raise the retirement age, and make it means tested. Also make medicare means tested. Mostly, these entitlements should be smaller so they serve the poor and truly needy. Why should we all magically get a check when we get old, whether we need the money or not? Why should our children, and grandchildren be burdened with payments to affluent grandparents who are sticking them with a huge debt?
"EEOC interprets and enforces Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. These protections apply regardless of any contrary state or local laws.
Through investigation, conciliation, and litigation of charges by individuals against private sector employers, as well as hearings and appeals for federal sector workers, the Commission has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) applicants and employees against employment bias."
Sure there is, and it is manifest most clearly when heteronormative businesses refuse to engage with homosexuals.
The problem with simply moving the retirement age back is that jobs differ drastically in terms of their physical demands. No big deal for a cognitive worker such as you (or me) to work until 70, but it is a big deal for a ditch-digger to do so.
I don’t have a lot of time today, but I’ll leave this here for your consideration.
I tend to think that race is the only qualifier where I’d be intolerant of intolerance. Examples.
If a personal trainer, only wants to train other women, specialize in post-maternity health. Should she have to accept male clients? Should she have to accept all women?
If a Muslim MFCC (marriage counselor) feels that talking about sex with a gay couple would violate her religious feelings, why not let her refer that couple to her partner who is comfortable with talking about gay sexual relationships?
Why not make room for those people. Be tolerant whenever we can.
Remember, the baker was happy to make cakes for that couple other occasions, like a birthday. He just didn’t want to participate in a wedding.
This is fairly thoughtful. I like that it framed it as a First Amendment Issue.
This person provides a highly specific service, the boundaries of which are intrinsically related to the service itself. For her to decline to train men and/or non-postpartum women is no more discriminatory than for an ophthalmologist like me to decline to manage someone’s diabetes.
Well, she probably lacks the skills/training needed to counsel gay couples, so it would be reasonable for her to decline to counsel them on this basis. But even if she is qualified, there is a vast difference between the inescapable intimacy of a therapeutic relationship (which necessarily impacts on the mental state of the therapist) and baking a cake for a wedding service you will not see, much less participate in in an intimate fashion. In short, such a therapist would have a far stronger ‘religious liberty’ claim than would a baker, assuming 1) gay-couple counseling was not a known job requirement, and 2) she does not work for a government agency.
Consider: Unlike the hypothetical trainer and counselor, the baker would not have known he was dealing with an ‘unwanted’ client but for the fact that he was told who they were. This fact alone differentiates between the participation levels of the hypothetical trainer and counselor, and the (non)participation level of the baker.
Agree. If I’m the counselor at a public school, I need to be able to counsel all the kids. If you’re working for a public agency, you need to be able to serve everyone, within the scope of that job.
We should have statutes to protect against discrimination in housing and in the workplace. Many of the states have passed these laws, but not all.
In our big, diverse society we’ll always need to make exceptions for some of the other things, particularly to protect free expression, like in art or to protect religious minorities. For someone to say they’re happy to make a gay guy a birthday cake, or a retirement cake, but the wedding cake violates some sense of religion? I can’t personally relate to that, but I have no issue with them.
If @Jewbacca is a stained glass artist who does art for synagogues, I wouldn’t expect that he be forced to make a window of Jesus for the Catholic church down the road.
I wouldn’t expect a Black cabinet maker be forced to make an alter for one of those churches that preaches white supremacy either.
