Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

[Tackhisis]

It is nice to see there is some sanity in this world. The rights of normal clients overweight the rights of gays.

[Endus]

No not like that at all. Right of Refusal practiced by all in good faith doesn't have any kind of malice in it, just a No.

I get that people like you are concerned about the history of things and look at anything like what I'm saying as a rollback but serious people engaging in voluntary transactions with both the moral and legal ability to refuse sale aren't looking to bring back those days. They just want to be able to say No and have someone accept that as final and leave to conduct business elsewhere. Can you find people that fit your concerns? Fuck yeah you can but that stopped being the general way of things quite some time ago.

It would do you some good to realize that.

If you've got a valid reason to refuse business, you can. Your issue is that "I hate those goddamned gays" isn't a reason to refuse service to gay patrons, specifically.

- - - Updated - - -

It is nice to see there is some sanity in this world. The rights of normal clients overweight the rights of gays.

The only way this makes sense as an argument is if you're saying that being gay makes one a second-class citizen, with lesser rights. Which is dehumanizing and homophobic. It also has no basis in anything but irrational and baseless hatred.

[Sargerasraider]

Is there some sort of loop-hole that wouldn't allow an atheist to discriminate against baking a cake for a gay couple? 'Cause, being non-religious, they surely aren't doing it for a religious reason.

That'd be fucking hilarious.

Why shouldn't an atheist have that right?

[Sky High]

It is nice to see there is some sanity in this world. The rights of white clients overweight the rights of blacks.

See what I did there? thats exactly how you sound here.

[Damajin]

Look, willful ignorance of basic English is not an argument, no matter how much you want it to be.

You're just straight-up wrong about what the word means. "Homophobia" has never referred to a "fear". Words with the root of "-phobia", in English, do not exclusively refer to fear reactions. You're pretending that they do, and that's just straight up incorrect.



Nobody's forcing homophobes to NOT be homophobes. Just to stop acting on that homophobia, and infringing on gay people's rights. You've never had a right to do that.

Now, if gay people were trying to ban literally all Christians from getting married, just for being Christian, then you might have an argument. But they aren't, and you don't.

Rofl ok Mr. Superior, you got me. Willfully ignorant, right. You want to surmise the particular contexts of any more of my posts for me and everyone else? You seem to have a pretty good crystal ball there you should have no problems determining exactly what I meant or intended at any time, in any context or any post.

No, I'm not pretending they're exclusively fear based, I was applying the word as it is generally used in discussions both here and in IRL. As I said people ask "why are you afraid of the gays? What are they doing you need to be afraid of?" This is a rather common thing that I'd think Mr. Superior with his crystal ball would be able to have experienced or possibly even engaged in yourself, see I don't know these things because I don't have a crystal ball.

But go ahead, tell me and everyone else what we think. You tend to be pretty good at that.

[Anastacy]

Why shouldn't an atheist have that right?

In accordance with this newly passed law? Because they are non religious, as I clearly bolded for you (and per the definition of atheist, I suppose).

As a general rule? I suppose it'd be fine if atheists could be denied just the same.

[Damajin]

If you've got a valid reason to refuse business, you can. Your issue is that "I hate those goddamned gays" isn't a reason to refuse service to gay patrons, specifically.

- - - Updated - - -



The only way this makes sense as an argument is if you're saying that being gay makes one a second-class citizen, with lesser rights. Which is dehumanizing and homophobic. It also has no basis in anything but irrational and baseless hatred.

It isn't hate, and when you wake up to that fact and realize there's no malice involved perhaps you will be a bit smarter. Lack of interest in contributing to, supporting or aiding people regardless of whatever little designation they have is not hate, nor is it malicious. Can it be? Sure. That's up to the individual and their own temperance.

[Sargerasraider]

In accordance with this newly passed law? Because they are non religious, as I clearly bolded for you (and per the definition of atheist, I suppose).

As a general rule? I suppose it'd be fine if atheists could be denied just the same.

That's kind of my point. I don't see why a store owner shouldn't have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. If they do, they're making a bad decision because (1) it gives them less business and (2) they are risking holy hell (no pun intended) when the blogosphere etc. descends on them, but it is their choice as an owner. This is not a gay/straight, religious/atheist issue; it is a freedom of association issue.

[Witchblade77]

If you've got a valid reason to refuse business, you can. Your issue is that "I hate those goddamned gays" isn't a reason to refuse service to gay patrons, specifically.

what constitutes a valid reason though? (mind you to my knowledge I haven't refused service to gay people, but I'm not always aware of sexual orientation of potential customers)

like.. I have refused commissions on a bases of "I'm really not in a mood to make this particular type of product, right now" I've also backed out of commission with customer whose requests started to annoy me (I just generally don't tell them in those exact words - but there was this one woman who made me redo the same piece I think.. 4 times? at which point I pretty much gave her deposit back and wished her luck with someone else, but I digress)

what would you consider a "valid" reason for any given person? and bear in mind - we are not talking about essential services here like medical care, transportation, etc. we are talking about private business selling what one would consider "extras"

out of pure curiosity (and again, to reiterate, I personally haven't and wouldn't refuse someone service on a basis of their sexual orientation or religious affiliation, but that's me)

[Anastacy]

That's kind of my point. I don't see why a store owner shouldn't have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. If they do, they're making a bad decision because (1) it gives them less business and (2) they are risking holy hell (no pun intended) when the blogosphere etc. descends on them, but it is their choice as an owner. This is not a gay/straight, religious/atheist issue; it is a freedom of association issue.

Well, sure, it shouldn't be. But it is.

Is arguing within context difficult or something?

[Endus]

Rofl ok Mr. Superior, you got me. Willfully ignorant, right. You want to surmise the particular contexts of any more of my posts for me and everyone else? You seem to have a pretty good crystal ball there you should have no problems determining exactly what I meant or intended at any time, in any context or any post.

You're pretending that an English word doesn't mean what it means because you don't like what it actually means.

That's willful ignorance.

Don't like gay people? That's homophobia. Fear doesn't enter the equation at any point. It's a deliberate straw man, used to try and attack the word, because rather than STOP being homophobic, people would rather attack the label itself.

Which is just silly, because what's "bad" is the attitude that homophobia describes, and changing the label doesn't make it any "better" or defensible.

It isn't hate, and when you wake up to that fact and realize there's no malice involved perhaps you will be a bit smarter. Lack of interest in contributing to, supporting or aiding people regardless of whatever little designation they have is not hate, nor is it malicious. Can it be? Sure. That's up to the individual and their own temperance.

We're talking about cases where they are denied service for being gay, or equal rights under the law, and so forth. That's not "lack of interest", that's a deliberate effort to marginalize and exclude. I don't care if someone's Bhuddist. I just have no interest (beyond respecting their beliefs). So I'm not going to bother trying to figure that out, and if it comes up, it's not going to matter to me in any real way whatsoever, because I don't have any issue with Bhuddists.

That's not what we're talking about, here.

[Damajin]

People ask that because what else is there to think? There is no legit reason for these laws so people have to wonder why you would refuse them in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



Refusing to serve people out of love, new trend hitting stores near you!

"GET OUT OF MY STORE YOU SHARPLY DRESSED HOMOSEXUAL, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY!"

There's lots more to think, or literally just this: "That guy just didn't want to take my business, oh well not worth thinking about. Onto the next one." Extrapolating peoples' motivations is ultimately irrelevant, when you're looking to get something it's about getting it and getting out not figuring out the person behind the work.

Again the automatic assumption by a huge percentage of people that it is a fear based objection to their sexuality is a woeful disservice. I personally know quite a few gay people, some of them here at my job and I don't feel anything towards them personally even though I disagree with their lifestyle and support it not at all. It's the same notion behind anything else you disagree with but don't feel strongly enough against to agitate against it: keep it out of my house, my life and my shop(theoretically if things were correct) and I don't care what you do, who you buy from and where you go.

Haha, refusing to serve them for whatever reason. It doesn't have to be malicious at all. I've met 3 guys named Clyde in my life, all of them have been douchebags. Someone comes in my shop and their workshirt says Clyde on it I'm gonna say nope. I've never met a Victor or a Victoria, if I did I'd still want the ability to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all.

[Endus]

what constitutes a valid reason though? (mind you to my knowledge I haven't refused service to gay people, but I'm not always aware of sexual orientation of potential customers)

There isn't a positive list of what does constitute a valid reason. Instead, we have a list of things that are NOT valid reasons. Like their membership in a protected class. You can't refuse service because someone's gay for the same reason that you can't refuse service because they're black, or disabled.

[Pangean]

Well I was only talking about Mississippi. Your point does not hold any validity against my statement that this law is legal and constitutional because it does not violate any federal law above it.

I never said it did. Tell you what. Find a mirror and continue this conversation since you are doing both sides anyway.

[MasterOfNone]

Look, willful ignorance of basic English is not an argument, no matter how much you want it to be.

You're just straight-up wrong about what the word means. "Homophobia" has never referred to a "fear". Words with the root of "-phobia", in English, do not exclusively refer to fear reactions. You're pretending that they do, and that's just straight up incorrect.



Nobody's forcing homophobes to NOT be homophobes. Just to stop acting on that homophobia, and infringing on gay people's rights. You've never had a right to do that.

Now, if gay people were trying to ban literally all Christians from getting married, just for being Christian, then you might have an argument. But they aren't, and you don't.

disagreeing with someones life choice is hardly acting on homophobia or infringing on their rights. in most cases the butt hurt people (pun intended) cant sleep without knowing that you HAVE to agree with their shit and put up with their shit. its flat ridiculous.

[Cthulhu 2020]

See what I did there? thats exactly how you sound here.

[Damajin]

You're pretending that an English word doesn't mean what it means because you don't like what it actually means.

That's willful ignorance.

Don't like gay people? That's homophobia. Fear doesn't enter the equation at any point. It's a deliberate straw man, used to try and attack the word, because rather than STOP being homophobic, people would rather attack the label itself.

Which is just silly, because what's "bad" is the attitude that homophobia describes, and changing the label doesn't make it any "better" or defensible.



We're talking about cases where they are denied service for being gay, or equal rights under the law, and so forth. That's not "lack of interest", that's a deliberate effort to marginalize and exclude. I don't care if someone's Bhuddist. I just have no interest (beyond respecting their beliefs). So I'm not going to bother trying to figure that out, and if it comes up, it's not going to matter to me in any real way whatsoever, because I don't have any issue with Bhuddists.

That's not what we're talking about, here.

No, I'm not pretending it doesn't mean what it means, I conceded your point and you are yammering about inanely as though it matters. I applied it that specific time(and likely quite a few others for what it's worth) in the very general every use of it. You want to get all technical on me and I'm outright telling you that not only are you right but that my designation wasn't aiming for that at all but to highlight the specifics of its' common use and totally shit on that argument which is again all too common.

Go on beating that drum man. No I don't like homosexuality but I have nothing against gay people, what they do on their own time is completely irrelevant to me but I don't think it's beyond the pale of reason to have the ability to refuse them service, or refuse anyone service for any reason whatsoever. It's my shop, my risk I'm taking by not doing it and ultimately it's up to me to value the who, what and why my labor is being directed to.

Yeah we're talking about that, and I don't see any problem with that at all. Equal rights under the law would be right of refusal. There's no effort to marginalize, they can go elsewhere and conduct business and while it's exclusionary it's not malicious and not done for anything other than purely moral reasons whether religious or otherwise.

[Tackhisis]

See what I did there? thats exactly how you sound here.

Not true. Whites and blacks are essentially the same, and there are societies where they represent majorities. There is no society where gays are in majority, and it is against the common benefit to suppress majority for the interests of minority.

Furthermore, if majority is so tolerant to gays as they make us to believe, there is no way that law can infringe them.

[Sargerasraider]

Go on beating that drum man. No I don't like homosexuality but I have nothing against gay people, what they do on their own time is completely irrelevant to me but I don't think it's beyond the pale of reason to have the ability to refuse them service, or refuse anyone service for any reason whatsoever. It's my shop, my risk I'm taking by not doing it and ultimately it's up to me to value the who, what and why my labor is being directed to.

As you've noticed, he's trying to make an argument about a point that you're not making.

You - A store owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Endus et al. - You're obviously homophobic

[Endus]

disagreeing with someones life choice is hardly acting on homophobia or infringing on their rights.

Thinking it's a "lifestyle choice" in the first place demonstrates that you don't have any understanding of what sexual orientation is.

If you have a "choice" to make, it's because you're sexually attracted to both genders. "Choosing" one or the other to have relationships with doesn't mean you're not bisexual, it just means you're only acting on certain attractions and desires. For anyone who's purely homosexual or heterosexual, there is no "choice".

The whole "lifestyle choice" thing just seems like closeted bisexuals or repressed gay people who are projecting on the rest of the population their own internalized hatred of themselves. I can't see a heterosexual dude claiming a gay man "chose" to be gay. I certainly didn't "choose" to be straight. And I couldn't "choose" to be gay if I wanted to. Which I'm not against; my divorce was pretty miserable, and if I could've swapped teams, that probably would've done it for me.

Go on beating that drum man. No I don't like homosexuality but I have nothing against gay people

You just contradicted yourself. You can't "not like homosexuality" and claim you don't have anything against gay people. Whether someone's gay matters as much to me as whether they're left-handed, or have blue eyes. It's not my personal thing for my own personal relationships, but that's where my opinion stops.