Which is more important; The right to get the service you deserve, no matter who you are, or to get the option to discriminate people for who they are and deny them of service, products and possibly even health-aid?
Who is to say what who deserves? When you go to buy a cake, do you get that cake because you deserve it, or because you make an agreement and a transaction with the owner of the cake based upon a certain amount of money?
the basic rights of somebody else is also to not be discriminated against (see article 7 of The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights
Thank you for providing this to me. I appreciate it.
However, this does not protect against discrimination on a private level, but rather, against discrimination from the law itself. Article 7 states "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law". This affirms the right to not be discriminated against by the law (which, the US has violated in other ways, but not in this case, as any and all discrimination in this case is being committed by the businesses themselves, a part of the private sector).
Also, what about equal pay? Do you think this kind of law will encourage that? Because equal pay is also a right in this declaration.
What about equal pay? That is another issue entirely. Also, could you please point out which article it is in the declaration? I skimmed through a few times and couldn't find it. Thanks.
Read what I said about people using religion as a trump card to discriminate others.
I also couldn't find where you said this. Could you please provide that as well? Thank you.
Even if that's a right, I don't think that the grounds for who you chose to serve were based on religious opinions, this rule let it happen, and it's simply wrong.
Truth be told, I don't care how people try to justify not serving people. It is ridiculous that they refuse services for frivolous reasons, but it is their choice, and it will be duly met with the withdrawal of public support.
It doesn't so directly, but as I posted above it is a human right to not be discriminated against, which this is what this law happens to encourage, directly or indirectly.
Lol, I've been alright. Thanks for asking.
If the government is to force a business owner to provide a product or service to somebody … morethey do not wish to, that is a violation of their liberty, completely going against the entire purpose of the law.
And if the government is to let businesses prohibit certain people from getting service, it is also a violation of their rights, isn't it? Which is more important; The right to get the service you deserve, no matter who you are, or to get the option to discriminate people for who they are and deny them of service, products and possibly even health-aid?
Now, see, by looking at it that way, you could say that by forcing people not to steal or not to murder we are also violating their liberty, but when it comes at the cost of someone else's health, property or liberty, it is ok to deny them of that right. The right to be treated equal whether you're gay or not is also one of those rig… [view original content]
I don't think that what I said meant "who deseves what", I'm just saying that if someone deserves something, then others shouldn't be prohibited from getting it if the only reason they don't is their race or sexual preference.
If I'm allowed to make that transaction, gay people should be too, and everyone else who offers what I do.
The fact that they're gay shouldn't be the deciding factor...
What about equal pay? That is another issue entirely. Also, could you please point out which article it is in the declaration? I skimmed through a few times and couldn't find it. Thanks.
I'm saying that problems with the pay gaps are smoothened out and looked upon with the aid of laws like this, and just let them slide.
Yeah, look at article 23, (2) - "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."
In the picture Flog posted, the law seems to contradict the above if you take into consideration that they did originally allow it in that law, while it was only addressed in cities which have LGBT non-discrimination protections:
Again, it also seems like they also don't deserve HIV medication, that's wonderful.
I also couldn't find where you said this. Could you please provide that as well? Thank you.
Which is more important; The right to get the service you deserve, no matter who you are, or to get the option to discriminate people for wh… moreo they are and deny them of service, products and possibly even health-aid?
Who is to say what who deserves? When you go to buy a cake, do you get that cake because you deserve it, or because you make an agreement and a transaction with the owner of the cake based upon a certain amount of money?
the basic rights of somebody else is also to not be discriminated against (see article 7 of The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights
Thank you for providing this to me. I appreciate it.
However, this does not protect against discrimination on a private level, but rather, against discrimination from the law itself. Article 7 states "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law". This affirms the right to not be discriminated agai… [view original content]
people are dying over there right now for being Gay.
Yeah they are, but that doesn't excuse the actions where we live. We shouldnt just use the excuse "Oh well, gay people dont have it that bad here because they're being killed in the Middle East". Instead actually try to change homophobia here as well.
How is it not fair? Have you heard what is going on in Syria/Iraq? You think we should be worried about this? Some stupid ass law that does… moren't mean shit anyways, that will be fought over for the end of time, people are dying over there right now for being Gay.
two hams
no bread.
I can smell a hate crime from a mile away. I'm all down for those wanting to express and uphold their thoughts, views and beliefs in this wo… morerld. I'm a Catholic man and since the moment I was conceived, I was taught homosexuality was a sin and God would punish those that slept with the same sex. I believed that; I'm ashamed to say for years, these were my thoughts but because it was all I ever knew.
Seeing things like this angers me now because my brother and one of my dearest friends is gay and both are in wonderful relationships. It pains me to see them being discriminated against because of who they are. Religion is what makes people go so blind with hate and forget the REAL reason behind it. Being a 'Christian' is supposed to love your fellow man; lessons about God loving ALL his children and in the end, only he will judge you and make that final decision. Everyone wants to wave scriptures and quotes in my face. That's fine but is that … [view original content]
Enough is enough already...
Enough of what? Did homosexuals shit in your cereal or something? Why would anyone want to pass a law to allow people to commit genocide?
If you didn't want to talk about it then why did you say you'd vote on it?
Wait. Are you trying to tell us that we shouldn't talk about the law at all? If you don't wanna talk about ti then don't post on the thread.
It's not fair because you experiencing things because you chose to is not the sdame thing as something happening to someone for who they are.
It's a very weird comment to say 'people are dying over there for being gay'. Do you think all equality movements are invalid if they aren't at their most extreme?
The american government cant easily stop Saudi Arabie from killing gay people. They CAN make it illegal in the US to fire someone for being gay. And i don't see why they shuldn't do so just because gay people are dying somewhere else.
It's like a woman fighting for the right to drive a car in one country, and being told 'hey, if you were in a south african tribe right now you could be killed for speaking out of turn, get some perspective'.
How is it not fair? Have you heard what is going on in Syria/Iraq? You think we should be worried about this? Some stupid ass law that does… moren't mean shit anyways, that will be fought over for the end of time, people are dying over there right now for being Gay.
two hams
no bread.
Now I'm not allowed to agree with certain topics . And come on! It is just some nut trying to get a law passed to commit genocide . Something like that should never be taken seriously.
Now I'm not allowed to agree with certain topics . And come on! It is just some nut trying to get a law passed to commit genocide . Something like that should never be taken seriously.
That's part of the reason I support Indiana's decision.
Because the LGBT movement so often times acts like they should not be told no about anything, and if anyone dares to say no to them, that they can go to hell.
That type of behavior is quite frankly childish, and it is really no wonder why people get disgusted by it!
As you pointed out that no-one likes to be turned away, which is quite natural.
But that doesn't give them license to pout like a three year old.
There's all the difference in the world of physical distress and emotional distress. Physical distress, caused by actions such as murder, as… moresault, and rape, have physical and health-oriented ramifications regarding that person's continued existence. Emotional distress does not directly cause physical, health-related harm to an individual. People may not like being turned away (and with good reason), but acting like a child and trying to get daddy (the government) to force them to give you your cake/sandwich/whatever it is you are want is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, it sucks that people will be turned away, but if they have a problem with it, get people to boycott the business with them.
Economic punishment from the public > corporal punishment from the goverment
Comments
Who is to say what who deserves? When you go to buy a cake, do you get that cake because you deserve it, or because you make an agreement and a transaction with the owner of the cake based upon a certain amount of money?
Thank you for providing this to me. I appreciate it.
However, this does not protect against discrimination on a private level, but rather, against discrimination from the law itself. Article 7 states "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law". This affirms the right to not be discriminated against by the law (which, the US has violated in other ways, but not in this case, as any and all discrimination in this case is being committed by the businesses themselves, a part of the private sector).
What about equal pay? That is another issue entirely. Also, could you please point out which article it is in the declaration? I skimmed through a few times and couldn't find it. Thanks.
I also couldn't find where you said this. Could you please provide that as well? Thank you.
Truth be told, I don't care how people try to justify not serving people. It is ridiculous that they refuse services for frivolous reasons, but it is their choice, and it will be duly met with the withdrawal of public support.
See my point about the declaration above.
I don't think that what I said meant "who deseves what", I'm just saying that if someone deserves something, then others shouldn't be prohibited from getting it if the only reason they don't is their race or sexual preference.
If I'm allowed to make that transaction, gay people should be too, and everyone else who offers what I do.
The fact that they're gay shouldn't be the deciding factor...
I'm saying that problems with the pay gaps are smoothened out and looked upon with the aid of laws like this, and just let them slide.
Yeah, look at article 23, (2) - "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."
In the picture Flog posted, the law seems to contradict the above if you take into consideration that they did originally allow it in that law, while it was only addressed in cities which have LGBT non-discrimination protections:
Again, it also seems like they also don't deserve HIV medication, that's wonderful.
First page of this thread.
Yeah they are, but that doesn't excuse the actions where we live. We shouldnt just use the excuse "Oh well, gay people dont have it that bad here because they're being killed in the Middle East". Instead actually try to change homophobia here as well.
[removed]
They are well within their rights to do so. And I fully support this law.
Hope it passes.
Enough of what? Did homosexuals shit in your cereal or something? Why would anyone want to pass a law to allow people to commit genocide?
[removed]
EDIT: She edited her post so I'm editing mine so people don't take it out of context.
...It's just time to allow genocide?
You DO know what genocide is, right? It's a very fucked up thing.
I really dont think it should be there right. I disagree with a law that permits discrimination and homophobia/seixsm/racism.
Eat something and you'll be fine.
Yes I do .And it won't be passed so why even stress over it.
Why exactly would you vote for such a thing?
It won't pass. So lets no speak of this anymore.
I've been wondering this too. Maybe he's from Westboro.
She and no. And just drop it.
If you didn't want to talk about it then why did you say you'd vote on it?
Wait. Are you trying to tell us that we shouldn't talk about the law at all? If you don't wanna talk about ti then don't post on the thread.
I'll post where I please ...
I just don't feel the need to drag this on.
Drag what on? You're gonna have to be a bit more specific. If you don't want to say it publicly, then you can PM me.
That's pretty...Pretty fucked up.
Are you trolling?
Emma's*
It's not fair because you experiencing things because you chose to is not the sdame thing as something happening to someone for who they are.
It's a very weird comment to say 'people are dying over there for being gay'. Do you think all equality movements are invalid if they aren't at their most extreme?
The american government cant easily stop Saudi Arabie from killing gay people. They CAN make it illegal in the US to fire someone for being gay. And i don't see why they shuldn't do so just because gay people are dying somewhere else.
It's like a woman fighting for the right to drive a car in one country, and being told 'hey, if you were in a south african tribe right now you could be killed for speaking out of turn, get some perspective'.
No.
But I am done talking to all of you. Bye
[removed]
Now it's hate speech? Girl bye .
You're basically agreeing with the idea of making homosexual genocide legal. That's hate speech, lmao.
It is hate speech also Flog's a man and also gay...Which means you are kind of supporting the idea to kill him.
Now I'm not allowed to agree with certain topics . And come on! It is just some nut trying to get a law passed to commit genocide . Something like that should never be taken seriously.
I'm not saying you're not allowed to agree with certain topics but don't expect not to be called out and have repercussions based on what you say.
Be sure to make that more clear next time.
Noted
I am so done with this whole issue . Goodnight.
You think it's okay to make jokes about mass genocide?
Right.
Goodnight...
Thanks, been awhile since I saw the episode.
[removed]
That's part of the reason I support Indiana's decision.
Because the LGBT movement so often times acts like they should not be told no about anything, and if anyone dares to say no to them, that they can go to hell.
That type of behavior is quite frankly childish, and it is really no wonder why people get disgusted by it!
As you pointed out that no-one likes to be turned away, which is quite natural.
But that doesn't give them license to pout like a three year old.
Reported.
And it's my opinion ...
Please dont target or insult other users, its not cool.