4 ms·

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as a photographer, baker, etc. There's a very real tension between the rights of LGBT people to not be discriminated against and the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience. It's a snaggly issue, but hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election.

bradleyjg 10y ago
hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election. Do you have any evidence for that?
- gregw134 10y ago
  I grew up in the Midwest and still visit sometimes. Many people I know think Democrats have lost their minds with this issue (and the bathroom debate).
  - judahmeek 10y ago
    That's not evidence of a political swing though.
    - wernercd 10y ago
      Multiple states going Red would beg to differ... As would a 1030+ seat swing from Blue to Red...
  - pshposh 10y ago
    You made sweeping statements that went well beyond just 'people I know'.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    The bathroom debate that, like so many issues of the last several years, was borne from GOP legislative and executive action, but blamed on the Democrats for standing against it? Who exactly has lost their minds here?
danielsju6 10y ago
On the other hand... it's illegal. They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.
  - danielsju6 10y ago
    In many places they are limited in number. Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger. I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit. Libertarians...
- dnautics 10y ago
  You could make the exact same statement about Eric Garner: Eric Garner shouldn't be in the business of selling loose cigarettes, because our social contract prohibits that sort of activity. Commerce is a regulated activity, and Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    As much as I disagree with the GP commenter, this doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to think that Garner was breaking the law and that police use of excessive force (including a banned technique) was _unjustifiable_. How on earth do you jump from "he was doing something illegal so the police had the right to enforce the law" to "the amount of force used was appropriate and unfortunately led to his death". You may have lost the thread of the conversation, but no one was talking about bakers being killed by inappropriate use of police force in the course of compelling them to serve gay weddings.
efdee 10y ago
> the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience Honest question: which right would that be? I've never heard about that before.
crazypyro 10y ago
>the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience There is no such thing.

bradleyjg 10y ago

hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election. Do you have any evidence for that?

gregw134 10y ago
I grew up in the Midwest and still visit sometimes. Many people I know think Democrats have lost their minds with this issue (and the bathroom debate).
- judahmeek 10y ago
  That's not evidence of a political swing though.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    Multiple states going Red would beg to differ... As would a 1030+ seat swing from Blue to Red...
- pshposh 10y ago
  You made sweeping statements that went well beyond just 'people I know'.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  The bathroom debate that, like so many issues of the last several years, was borne from GOP legislative and executive action, but blamed on the Democrats for standing against it? Who exactly has lost their minds here?

danielsju6 10y ago

On the other hand... it's illegal. They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

Shivetya 10y ago
I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.
- danielsju6 10y ago
  In many places they are limited in number. Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger. I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit. Libertarians...
dnautics 10y ago
You could make the exact same statement about Eric Garner: Eric Garner shouldn't be in the business of selling loose cigarettes, because our social contract prohibits that sort of activity. Commerce is a regulated activity, and Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  As much as I disagree with the GP commenter, this doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to think that Garner was breaking the law and that police use of excessive force (including a banned technique) was _unjustifiable_. How on earth do you jump from "he was doing something illegal so the police had the right to enforce the law" to "the amount of force used was appropriate and unfortunately led to his death". You may have lost the thread of the conversation, but no one was talking about bakers being killed by inappropriate use of police force in the course of compelling them to serve gay weddings.

efdee 10y ago

> the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience Honest question: which right would that be? I've never heard about that before.

crazypyro 10y ago

>the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience There is no such thing.