Sickenwired #fundie

Sickenwired #fundie disqus.com

To be honest....gsy rights activists really shit the bed.

For decades, the argument I used was simple. Gay people should have the right to get married....no one was going to FORCE you to cater their wedding or marry them, moron. Theyd get married by either a justice of the peace or a consenting ordained minister. Youd be free not to, theyd be free not too. Everyone is freeer now

Then within months of the legalization, you hsve memories pizza, Baronelle Stutzmann and the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.

People prosecuted either directly or indirectly (memories pizza was people saying "why would you have pizza at a wedding" for Christs sake.) for not catering gay weddings and people being forced to marry gay couples.

So frankly? Im out. The first thing people did with their new found freedom was make me 20 years a liar.

I dont think a lot of pro gay rights folks really realize how much anger those insanely unnecessary moves caused. Baronelle Stutzmann was sued for SEVEN DOLLARS.

Sorry but...I aint gonna fight against your rights....but Im through fighting for them. You dont get to gleefully screw over a little old lady selling FLOWERS over seven dollars and expect people to support you. black people in Selma didnt immediately start vengence lawsuits on former shopkeepers,what the hell makes this ok?

Quit with the trying to force people to love you. Im a freakin millennial and Im sick of being told that some shopkeeper is a hateking if he doesnt want to let some guy in a dress into the ladies room.

Have some common sense.

45 comments

old comment by

This was a turning point for me as well.

I have long stopped supporting or wanting to have anything to do with LGBT activism. I support negative liberty, I'm not your leftie "ally" though, if you wanna view me as the enemy so be it.

I'm even thinking that government getting out of the marriage business completely might actually make sense. Ben Shapiro makes a good case for that approach.

You don't see the government getting involved in friendships do you? It doesn't issue "friendship licenses", if you want to be friends with someone and they wanna be friends with you, you just are. That's it. These is no "friendship registration" (even sounds borderline Orwellian, why would I even WANT that information to be freely available to the government?), no special rights that come with it.

But apparently if those two friends happen to also fuck, they deserve special rights like housing benefits, tax benefits etc. Makes no sense to me. Why would the taxpayer support two people fucking? That's their business, just leave each other alone.

old comment by Happy Atheist

I get this. I do. The idea that the best thing to do with people who don't want to give you service is to not give them your money, it's a tempting one that makes a lot of sense on the surface. Likewise, the reverse seems very bad, taking people to court because they won't sell you flowers for your wedding seems like a marked overreaction.

But then you also to have to see it like this. People are being refused service because of how they were born. It's the 'No Colored' signs in shop windows again. Yes, it's not to the same extent, but its precisely the same thing. Refusal of service because of an immutable trait that bigots find unappealing.

That being said, I do think suing is the wrong way to go. It's perfectly justifiable from a legal standpoint, but the best way to fight bigotry like this is not to create martyrs. Rather, name and shame. These people aren't comfortable selling to gay people? Let people know. They clearly believe they have nothing to be ashamed of, so let people know. Let people judge whether or not they want to hire the services of a caterer who discriminates against gay people. Let people judge whether they want to buy flowers from someone who denies service to an LGBT couple planning what should be their happiest day.

So yes. These people deserve to be sued. But more good can be done by playing this politically.

old comment by Kanna

"Have some common sense".

I have common sense. Common sense says if you serve the public, you serve the public. Does any florist or baker demand to know if other wedding customers are faithful? Are liars? Are adulterers? Are blasphemers? Are "coveters"? But no, they decide that one thing only is a "sin", one thing that didn't even make god's little Top Ten List. And they decide that is important enough to dig in their heels and make fools of themselves, and then they lose their court cases and then.....

If it's important enough for them to unlawfully deny service, I'm going to assume that it's important enough to them that they become martyrs. It's their call.

old comment by

@Happy Atheist

There's a fine distinction between not selling stuff to gays because they're gay and not wanting to participate in a gay wedding (such as providing the wedding ceremony with flowers or whatever).

Not necessarily something I would do, I'm mainly interested in money (I have limits, but you have to push it REALLY far out of my comfort zone), but where exactly do you draw the line then?

Let's say you rent rooms short term (maybe per hour, maybe 3 hours whatever, less than a night basically). Technically anyone could rent, but we all know what the business model is: lovers and johns with hoes.

It is bigotry to deny service to two people, if those two people happen to be a grown man and a very young looking girl? I mean, I can't say for certain what's going to happen in that room, maybe nothing illegal will and they just need a place to do homework or whatever. But what if I just don't wanna take that chance and just tell the guy to go away, I don't want his service (and I'll probably remember that face if not call the cops before he leaves)?

What if I'm a photographer, and I don't want to participate with my services at a NAMBLA meeting? And yes, it's ideological discrimination, their ideology is stupid, I don't like it, they have their free speech (the government can't censor them, only prevent action on their part) but I wanna stay as far away from them as possible.

What if I'm called to a communist gathering and I don't want to participate in it because I think communism is immoral and I don't wanna support those groups even if they are non-violent (so they say anyway)?

Can I discriminate based on clothes? I mean there are clubs where you're expected to dress in a certain way because they want to cater to a special category of people. You can't prevent people from having exclusive groups, freedom of association demands it.

Where do you draw the line? Why do we have to expand non-discrimination policies to things that are not innate (race is, behavior however isn't, neither it the cause you choose to support) nor completely irrelevant (a dating service for example might have a reason to prevent a gender imbalance, you don't want to have vastly more men than women, so in that case gender discrimination can be okay)

old comment by

@1928358

The motel example.

You fail.

@Exatron

"Yes, the can choose which products they sell, but not who they sell them to."

There's a word for forcing someone to serve someone else.

Now I am trying to be flexible, a lot of issues would arise for example from vendors refusing to serve to serve blacks because they're black or something like that, but you have to draw a clear line in the sand.

If you expand anti-discrimination to things that are not innate (such as race) but behavior, clothing (total choice), ideologies (can even be socially acceptable ideologies) you completely take away people's freedom to stand by their principles or legitimately select their clientele.

I wonder how the LGBT community would like it if a hundred straight couples suddenly decided to target a gay bar and pretty much make it their new meeting spot and therefore dilute the character of that bar as a place where gays meet up?

@1928347

"Child sex abuse is already illegal and you already have a legal right (and a moral responsibility) to file a complaint if you suspect abuse. It's not a matter of 'I don't approve'; the child abuse stuff is crime."

A grown man merely renting a room for an hour while accompanied by a young girl isn't illegal. You can't even tell for certain whether or not the girl was abducted. It's just suspicious as hell.

Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's actually a prank to see how you would react, but nobody can in good conscience service them.

NAMBLA meetings aren't illegal or even suspicious. Chances are they're just going to sit around and talk a bunch of crap. Should photographers, security firms etc be able to say no to such events?

For that matter should prostitutes be able to select their clientele based on whatever criteria they want? Who told you they serve the public? They serve whoever they want to serve and it's none of your business.

old comment by

@1928365

"Anonymous coward uses an example rather than call out homophobes who are also pedophiles. No wonder he's doing this anonymously. He knows he's a fucking moron who failed before he even started. He could easily have said the Duggar clan or Quiverfull with that situation or priests who molested children. Mark Foley too. But he used an example to hide his obvious bigotry. "

That's an interesting statement considering I just said in most cases I care more about the money. So I would participate in servicing causes and events I don't particularly agree with, unless they were the kind I REALLY REALLY didn't agree with, would have to be something over-the-top like NAMBLA related for me to say fuck the money, I'm not doing it.

Other people however have stronger principles than I do. The government shouldn't interfere.

old comment by

I really hate how the left has expanded anti-discrimination laws to include things that aren't even innate characteristics of a person like race is.

You don't choose your race, you don't really choose your sexual orientation, but you do choose the causes you support, events you participate in and you do choose your behavior.

What people don't seem to get is:

1. You're forcing people by law to engage in a financial transaction even if it violates their beliefs or religion. Such would be the case with providing goods or services used in a gay wedding ceremony. Which isn't exactly the same thing as refusing to serve gays for being gay, most of the time they have no way to know anyway.

2. Anti-discrimination laws are inherently coercive, they force people into a transaction they otherwise wouldn't be in, maybe in extreme cases there is a good reason to have them, they shouldn't be used lightly. There are many legitimate reasons for a vendor to select his clientele. Some clubs don't accept people dressed wrong. Some health insurance plans like that Medishare thing demand that you don't engage in any kind of premarital sex, it's stupid, but it keeps the costs down and I don't see why it should be illegal to have such services. Go somewhere else. Pff.

old comment by

By Echo (who is kicking himself for not reading before clicking 'submit'...)

@1928371:

"1. You're forcing people by law to engage in a financial transaction even if it violates their beliefs or religion. Such would be the case with providing goods or services used in a gay wedding ceremony. Which isn't exactly the same thing as refusing to serve gays for being gay, most of the time they have no way to know anyway."

Yup. The law says that if you're willing to serve/sell to anyone who walks through the door, you must serve/sell to everyone who walks through the door. Selling your services (as a photographer or florist) is no different from selling food or other objects. If selling to a potential customer might violate your beliefs or religion, then you need to get out of business or change your marketing. Even if you market exclusively to people who share your bigotry, though, that doesn't guarantee that people you don't want to do business with won't walk through your front door. At the end of the day, the owners of a Christian bookstore can't stop me, a bisexual, transgender man, from walking in the front door and purchasing a Christian book (because that's the only kind they sell) any more than the owners of the Jewish deli down the road can stop me from buying a kosher sandwich (because that's the only kind they sell) and reading my Christian book while I eat it. Now, both of them can make me feel unwelcome and like I might not want to give them my business again (ala bad customer service), but they can't refuse me service outright if I haven't done anything wrong.

"2. Anti-discrimination laws are inherently coercive, they force people into a transaction they otherwise wouldn't be in, maybe in extreme cases there is a good reason to have them, they shouldn't be used lightly. There are many legitimate reasons for a vendor to select his clientele. Some clubs don't accept people dressed wrong. Some health insurance plans like that Medishare thing demand that you don't engage in any kind of premarital sex, it's stupid, but it keeps the costs down and I don't see why it should be illegal to have such services. Go somewhere else. Pff."

The thing is that laws as such are inherently coercive to one degree or another. It's just as coercive to force white supremacists to sell their goods and services to black people as it is to force homophobes to sell their goods and services to LGBT people, and it's just as illegal. The examples you cite aren't in violation of any laws, though. Some night clubs won't allow people on the property who are/aren't dressed in a certain way, yes. Why? Businesses are allowed to establish dress codes. This isn't discriminatory. It would be if the club in question insisted on a dress code and asked what political party (if any) you were affiliated with before you walked in the door (assuming, of course, that the club wasn't directly affiliated with one/hosting an event for one). The medishare thing, as I understand it (though someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) isn't actually insurance, from a legal standpoint, and they are, therefore, free to set down all kinds of (stupid) rules that actual insurance companies aren't.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that none of this is actually about money. It's not about businesses carrying on as usual, serving customers and selling their goods or services. This is about human dignity. As in, all people are equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which is the right to receive goods and services that are offered by businesses to the general public. This isn't about money; it's about human rights which are not permitted to be violated by others. If you, whoever you are, don't want to sell your goods or services to me, a bisexual, transgender man, then you'd better pray to whatever god(s) you believe in that I don't walk into your shoppe. It's that simple.

old comment by

@1928373

"You heard it here ladies and gentlemen and everything in between. Anonymous coward supports discrimination and bigotry. Finally he gives his honest answer."

The simpleton has spoken and apparently he can't tell the difference between supporting X and not wanting to get the government involved to ban X and letting people make their own choices (do they want to stick with their principles and rules or do they want more money?).

See here's the thing, there are certain types of discrimination that I'm not even personally in favor of, but I'm also not willing to fight them at ALL costs. Liberty is important so anti-discrimination laws should not be written lightly. I'm also particularly worried seeing as how they've been expanded from something simple, something most sensible people can agree on (like innate traits such as race) to behavior or ideology, things that are clearly not innate, can be easily changed and don't even need to be revealed to begin with in many cases.

If you want to force Christians by law to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony or whatever, in violation of their religious views, then I take it you would also force someone like me for example (not religious at all, not opposed to gay marriage to the extent that I wouldn't serve them even if they paid, but opposed to other things) to serve NAMBLA, help them set up their meetings or whatever? Technically it is ideological discrimination, but it's well deserved considering what they stand for. They should find someone else to service them. I wouldn't do it because I don't want to be directly involved in helping them spread their insane agenda.

"The thing you don't seem to understand is that none of this is actually about money. It's not about businesses carrying on as usual, serving customers and selling their goods or services. This is about human dignity. As in, all people are equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which is the right to receive goods and services that are offered by businesses to the general public"

What you're describing is a positive right which really isn't a right at all, it's more of a privilege.

As for being offered to the general public, no, it's being offered to whoever the business wants to deal with. Should a business also serve people who yell a lot and smell like piss? They're part of the "general public" too.

I'm just following your standards, you're basically saying business should have absolutely no freedom to select their clientele. And that's a violation of property rights. (See what I said above about anti-discrimination laws being constantly expanded and allow businesses less and less freedom in this regard.)

Your argument only makes sense if you're talking about government entities. Yes, the government shouldn't discriminate (even scumbags pay taxes and it's not like they have a choice of several different fire departments or police stations or courts). Private entities are a different matter.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@#1928373

Nameless Coward being honest for a change.

http://anonhq.com/white-elephant-donald-trump-kkk/

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/ths-many-ways-in-which-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/

...if only his boyfriend could be the same?

Oh, and two more to add to the list*: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117724&Page=2#1927771. LOL!

Don't forget, o Nameless Coward: by abandoning those debates in all those linked threads, you concede on all your points, and therefore your arguments: your right-wing way of thinking.

You lose, Nameless Coward. Otherwise (and here's a simple question for you:) why isn't the world exactly as you would wish it? Because it would be - and according to your subjective 'opinions' - if right-wing thinking is supposedly soooooo 'superior'; Obama being elected twice would never have happened, if it was. But if the world doesn't conform to your subjective 'opinions', therefore right-wing thinking is inferior. Prove me wrong. Now.

Don't forget: charges not refuted/ignored are charges proved.

*- Will NC - via this abandoned discussion - again concede on all points, and thus he & his right-wing thinking loses as he is proved wrong again? Thus another one to add to the list? We shall see.

old comment by Kuno

But wouldn’t all those discrimination cases be equally against the law if SSM weren’t legal?

@Happy Atheist:

That would work in a perfectly transparent market where every customer as equal access to every provider. Unfortunately, such a perfect marketplace doesn’t exist everywhere. So there is a need for laws against discriminations and for fines to force some people to keep those laws.

old comment by Oxymoron's Razor

As far as I can recall, weren't most of the cases where an LGBT couple sued a business situations where the business was perfectly willing to serve them *until* they found out it was for a gay wedding?
The most notable example I can remember was the lesbian couple who were ordering a cake. One woman went with her mother and the business was perfectly happy to work with them until the fact it was a gay wedding was revealed. The business then refused to work with them and published personal information about the couple (including their address) online and they were promptly harrassed by homophobes. That lawsuit wasn't even about the cake. It was that release of private infomation and the harrassment that resulted.

I agree though with the general sentiment that a lawsuit isn't the best way to go. Just go somewhere else and spread the word about the treatment you received.

old comment by Exatron

@Coward

"There's a word for forcing someone to serve someone else."

If you think the two are at all the same, you're even dumber than I thought.

"Now I am trying to be flexible, a lot of issues would arise for example from vendors refusing to serve to serve blacks because they're black or something like that, but you have to draw a clear line in the sand."

And the line in the sand you want excludes LGBT people for no other reason than their innate characteristics.

"If you expand anti-discrimination to things that are not innate (such as race) but behavior, clothing (total choice), ideologies (can even be socially acceptable ideologies) you completely take away people's freedom to stand by their principles or legitimately select their clientele."

Protecting LGBT people from discrimination does none of those things. Loving someone of the same gender isn't a behavior. Being transgendered isn't just a choice of clothing. And neither are ideologies. And nobody's freedom is being taken away here.

old comment by

@Exatron

"And the line in the sand you want excludes LGBT people for no other reason than their innate characteristics."

The flaw in that line of thinking is assuming that being LGBT is inherently linked to gay marriage. It isn't. In fact most LGBT have no interest in marriage. Look at the low interest for example in the UK for civil partnerships. The first year they were legal - only 18k couples got married and the next year only a few thousand. Yet the UK population is 63 million with 1-2% gay.

Refusing to bake a cake that will be used for a gay wedding is not the same as refusing to serve gays for being gay.

Furthermore, blacks can be recognized as black a mile away. Gays cannot. Why do you need to talk about it in the first place? I don't go around town stores and introduce myself as "Hi, I'm Bob and I'm straight."

Also, you may encounter a motel where the owner does not rent out rooms to two people of opposite sex if they're not married. (Because he's against fornication.) Would that be "heterophobic"? I'm heterosexual, it's not a choice, having sex is. You know what the free market response is? Tell the owner he's a bitch, leave a negative online review and move on. Stop trying to get rich off frivolous lawsuits, nobody owes you shit.

old comment by

@1928623

They can also go somewhere else, these days there's no shortage of businesses who'll deal with anyone with the money to buy their goods or services.

"LGBT people and their allies can boycott the businesses that treat us like shit. We are still outnumbered."

You do know how online reviews work right? There's an average score that people see, if you leave negative reviews it goes down and most people are too lazy to read the reason. If they see a low score they tend to avoid.

Also doesn't the left constantly discriminate against conservatives and always use the same excuse "sorry, private entity, only the government cannot discriminate". But if the right does it "ZOMG BIGOTRY!!!!! LAWSUIT!"

They did it with Donglegate, Shirtgate, Hulk Holgan, Mozilla CEO etc. each time trying to get people fired for disagreeing with some trendy leftist cause and sometimes succeeding.

You don't even stand by your own principles so fuck off.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Everyone

Nameless Coward just keeps on losing.

Remember: debates abandoned (I refer you to that list) mean you concede all your points, and admit you're wrong. Also, charges not refuted/ignored are charges proved.

All you do is keep admitting that we FSTDTers - i.e. not you - are correct in everything we say, do & think.

But then being Politically Correct is by definition the superior state to be in.

Just keep proving that always being wrong = inferior. Which is what right-wing thinking always is, otherwise why isn't the world exactly as you would wish it? It would be if your way of thinking was always right.

Charges not refuted/ignored are charges proved. Don't forget that. Or keep proving the inferiority of right-wing thinking.

old comment by

@Coward

"The flaw in that line of thinking is assuming that being LGBT is inherently linked to gay marriage. It isn't. In fact most LGBT have no interest in marriage. Look at the low interest for example in the UK for civil partnerships. The first year they were legal - only 18k couples got married and the next year only a few thousand. Yet the UK population is 63 million with 1-2% gay."

Not currently taking advantage of a legal right doesn't mean they don't an have interest in doing so.

"Refusing to bake a cake that will be used for a gay wedding is not the same as refusing to serve gays for being gay."

It absolutely is the same. The cake doesn't chage or require special gay ingredient simply because a gay couple ordered it.

"Furthermore, blacks can be recognized as black a mile away. Gays cannot. Why do you need to talk about it in the first place? I don't go around town stores and introduce myself as "Hi, I'm Bob and I'm straight.""

You've never heard of passing, have you? Before the civil rights movement, one of the few ways black people could get ahead was to have a complexion light enough to pass for white.

Religion is also a protected class, and it's not always something you can identify visually.

And why should gay people hide just to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities? You talk about your spouse/girlfriend, don't you?

"Also, you may encounter a motel where the owner does not rent out rooms to two people of opposite sex if they're not married. (Because he's against fornication.) Would that be "heterophobic"? I'm heterosexual, it's not a choice, having sex is.c

It's rather telling that you think homosexuality is nothing more than sex.

"You know what the free market response is?"

It's wholly inadequate. If we had waited for the free market to fix civil rights isses, we'd still be dealing with Jim Crown laws.

"Tell the owner he's a bitch, leave a negative online review and move on. Stop trying to get rich off frivolous lawsuits, nobody owes you shit."

The LGBT community isn't trying to get rich off of frivolous lawsuits, they just want the same goods and services that are being offered to the rest of the public. The so-called martyrs trying to fundraise off of their refusal to do their jobs, however, are definitely trying to milk the situation for every dollar they can.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

Ah, how the supposedly 'superior' right-winger shows his intellectual 'maturity'; this is the level of his debating skills: reduced to ad hominems when he knows he's argumentally cornered, as he has been many times before, thus he abandons debates (thus you concede on all points, and your inability to refute charges - usually by simply ignoring them - result in your proving them). Because apparently it would kill him & all his right-wing ilk to admit they're wrong in word, action and thought. Because their way of thinking is certainly working out for them, isn't it?! [/hyper-sarcasm]

If he were before us, he'd have lashed out physically: the last resort of the intellectually immature, who thinks that violence solves everything.

'Eat a Bag of Dicks'? My, how mature of you, Nameless Coward. Oh, I'm afraid that if there's to be any eating from bags of dicks, it'll be by the likes of you.

No Nameless, you are the dicks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltpJXLiYVBU

And then the Cowards ate themselves.

But then, like them, you're just as impotently desperate because the world no longer bends to your will, you're reduced to pissing in the wind on an internet board, under the delusional belief that you can somehow change peoples' entire way of thinking by what is your butthurt at perceived 'Bias' in FSTDT.

Thus a question: Have you made just one convert to your right-wing way of thinking - with proof of your doing so - in all the time you've infected FSTDT, since being FSTDT Doesn't Lie/Aunty-FSTDT/FSTDT Doesn't Suck/Crushed Nuts/Nameless Coward?

The very fact you have this obsessional need to keep coming back here - in more guises than Donald Fart changes his mind about his 'policies'/brands of hairspray to keep that syrup of his on his bonce - reeks of your mental handicap-based desperation.

'Bias' in FSTDT, which clearly triggers you? Of course, friendo. Make your own board if you don't like it here.

Sickenwired #fundie disqus.com

45 comments

Confused?