Michelle Bachmann says "Gays have bullied the American people"

[Deleted]

Any business should be allowed to deny service to whoever they want, if you don't like gays then you shouldn't be forced to serve them. There was a case here in Denmark where some pizza man denied service to muslims and he got away with it, his business actually got more popular and he earned money off it.

[belfpala]

So if I own a cake store and a gay couple comes in to buy a cake but I refuse service because of my religious beliefs is that fine with you?

No. How does a making a cake for a paying customer have any relation to your religious beliefs? I've read multiple religious documents, and I'm pretty sure denying food to others was never part of any scripture.

- - - Updated - - -

Any business should be allowed to deny service to whoever they want, if you don't like gays then you shouldn't be forced to serve them. There was a case here in Denmark where some pizza man denied service to muslims and he got away with it, his business actually got more popular and he earned money off it.

"hur hur hur, I'mma order pizza from that bigot store now." Basically what you're saying.

[Wells]

So if I own a cake store and a gay couple comes in to buy a cake but I refuse service because of my religious beliefs is that fine with you?

Where in your religious beliefs does it say don't do business with gays?

[GennGreymane]

Any business should be allowed to deny service to whoever they want, if you don't like gays then you shouldn't be forced to serve them. There was a case here in Denmark where some pizza man denied service to muslims and he got away with it, his business actually got more popular and he earned money off it.

Been there, done that, it was terrible. Don't use anti immigrant fervor in Europe as an excuse for it being OK.

[Endus]

There is NO POINT in claiming that you are tolerant when you just define 'everything you agree with' as toleration worthy and 'everything you disagree with' as not worthy of tolerance. The point of tolerance is that you tolerate things you don't agree with, not that you are just accepting of whatever is viewed as being 'politically correct' at the time.

All you're doing is demonstrating that you have no idea what the call for tolerance was.

Tolerance itself was never stated to be always-good. There was never a statement that everything and anything must be tolerated, and that this statement is now being contradicted. The point was always that one should be specifically tolerant of superficial differences that have no effect on your personal life. That, specifically. Not tolerance itself.

The whole "you can't be intolerant of my intolerance or you're a hypocrite" is the "evolution is just a theory" argument all over again; all it does is demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the terminology in question.

Nobody ever suggested anyone should be tolerant of bigotry. Or murder. Or theft. And so on. Those aren't superificial characteristics that have no effect on anyone else's life; they all explicitly and directly have a negative impact, and they are all expressed action, not superficial characteritistics. Comparing the two is deliberately misleading.

It's dishonest. It really is that simple.

Gays have equal rights. Also, why would it matter?

But then, you'll also state outright lies like this, too.

[leggomydairy]

Fun fact: beliefs are not always ok. If your beliefs involve shitting on a group of people your beliefs are wrong.

[darkwarrior42]

You don't get to just label anyone you want as a 'bully' (based on your own biased opinion) and then say that its ok to bully those 'bullies'. That's not how it works. Well... maybe that's how it works in upside down crazy town.

The problem is, everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. We are obliged to respect their right to have an opinion. That doesn't mean we are obliged to respect the opinion, nor are we obliged to respect a person who has an opinion that we feel is wrong... particularly if that person is in a position of authority from which she can force her intolerance on others.

Calling someone a bully does not, on its own, make them a bully. This is true. So let's look at the law:

The law in question was designed to allow business owners to deny service to anyone they wanted if they felt that serving that person would violate their religious beliefs. This was presented as an attempt to protect the religious freedoms of business owners, and Michelle Bachman is defending it on those grounds. But just as she isn't a bully simply because we say she is, the bill in question doesn't protect religious freedoms just because she says it does. The bill was explicitly designed to allow business owners to discriminate against people that they felt uncomfortable with because of their religious beliefs; while this technically could apply to any group, it is naive to believe that the LGBT group would not be the most directly affected, being a group that is both already subjected to a great deal of discrimination and being a group that is already frowned upon by Christianity in the US.

So what is the ethical difference between this and the civil rights acts that forbid business owners from using sexual orientation or other factors when deciding who to hire/fire? If a business owner feels uncomfortable serving a gay man, it seems reasonable to assume that he would also feel uncomfortable employing that same man.... but that latter position is clearly prohibited by federal laws.

So whether or not the laws are in direct conflict by virtue of how they're written, the spirits of the two laws are in direct contradiction. If we as a society still support the idea that it should be illegal to use discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender/religion/race/etc as a factor when hiring (except in cases where it's explicitly necessary, such as a female to play a female role in a play), then the idea that it should also be illegal to deny service based on those same factors should be a simple extension of that idea.

Indeed, if you go back not too far in American history, you could find numerous religious arguments against people of other races being seen as equals, and this type of law, had it been passed at such a time, would certainly have been used to justify refusing service to blacks on "religious grounds".


So, does denying business owners a law that would allow them to discriminate based on their religious beliefs violate their religious freedoms? No more so than the existing laws which deny them the ability to discriminate in such a manner when hiring new employees.... and in both cases, we're talking about something that has ceased to be simply a belief, and has become an action. Actions are not protected in the same way that beliefs are. If my faith says it's ok to murder people between the ages of 48 and 57, I don't get a free pass on murdering such people because I claim it's part of my religious beliefs. Ultimately, our nation is a nation of secular laws that respects the right of every citizen to practice their faith without interference from the government, so long as they remain within the bounds of the law.

Under the guise of religious freedom, this bill attempted to grant a portion of the business owners in this country the ability and right to legally discriminate against an entire class of people. This is virtually a textbook definition of intolerance.

Now, as to whether or not Michelle Bachmann, from what she said there is a bully, no. Stupid, arrogant, intolerant, and dangerously manipulative to the point where I think it is actively harmful for her to remain in office, but not a bully.

[Kaleredar]

Been there, done that, it was terrible. Don't use anti immigrant fervor in Europe as an excuse for it being OK.

White's only what?

[Endus]

So if I own a cake store and a gay couple comes in to buy a cake but I refuse service because of my religious beliefs is that fine with you?

This wasn't right when it was refusing service to blacks. It wasn't right when it was refusing service to women. It wasn't right when it was refusing service to interracial couples. Why would it be right if it's refusing service to gay people?

If you're refusing service to someone because you're bigoted against them, you're in the wrong. It really is that simple.

[stumpy]

So if I own a cake store and a gay couple comes in to buy a cake but I refuse service because of my religious beliefs is that fine with you?

I know you're lonely, but telling people that they have to have sex in front of you to prove that they're not gay is a bit much.

[gamz247]

"hur hur hur, I'mma order pizza from that bigot store now." Basically what you're saying.

Chik-Fil-A's business certainly hasn't suffered after all their hullabaloo.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So if I own a cake store and a gay couple comes in to buy a cake but I refuse service because of my religious beliefs is that fine with you?

This coming from a guy who says that the free market is unbiased. Lol.

[GennGreymane]

[spinner981]

Perhaps I pay more attention to her because she's one of my neighbors. Her views on gay people are entirely based on her beliefs.

Edit: If you think I'm being intolerant, try this: my beliefs on this issue don't involve trampling on anyone. Hers do. If my beliefs win, which they will, it affects her beliefs in no way at all. If her beliefs win, if affects many.

Her views are based on her beliefs... and yours aren't?

[Deleted]

This wasn't right when it was refusing service to blacks. It wasn't right when it was refusing service to women. It wasn't right when it was refusing service to interracial couples. Why would it be right if it's refusing service to gay people?

If you're refusing service to someone because you're bigoted against them, you're in the wrong. It really is that simple.

You can't compare those things at all.

[zorkuus]

You can't compare those things at all.

I can't wait for your explanation as to why...

[Cthulhu 2020]

If you think the right is harming nobody and just "expressing their views" then you'd be sadly mistaken. Also, just because YOU don't personally go out and bully gays, but throw your vote at people you do, that's just telling someone else to do the bullying for you.

If anything, the most appropriate analogy is that the bully believes that it is his God-given right (quite literally believes this) to bully, and is now screaming that he is being told to stop beating up other kids.

[GennGreymane]

How do they not compare? Religion was used against those too. Interrational marriage... they found a way, also slavery was ok. Women being subject to men, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

[Cthulhu 2020]

You can't compare those things at all.

You do realize how fast the law to allow gays to be discriminated against was shot down, don't you? Or were you mentally absent from that whole debacle?

[belfpala]

Her views are based on her beliefs... and yours aren't?

Did you read my edit? Or the more articulate version Endus posted?

Chik-Fil-A's business certainly hasn't suffered after all their hullabaloo.

I'm more amazed their business hasn't suffered due to lack of quality, but that's just my perspective on food. (I'll take a McD chicken sandwich before Chik-Fil-A... yup).