Trumpcare barely passed in the house, hopefully it's DOA in the usually more reasonable Senate.
Did you ever get the idea that Republicans hate their own supporters more than anyone? I mean, if this bill were to actually become law, none of the "blue" states are going to waive existing condition protections or minimum coverage requirements. But the "red" state are going to jump right on that. The bulk of the 24 million who are going to lose their coverage are the poor and lower middle class whites who consistently vote Republican.
Trump, REPEATEDLY, during the campaign, promised to not touch Medicaid. This bill would gut it to the tune of almost 1 TRILLION (with a T) dollars (880 billion). And then there is this:
But inside the White House, senior administration officials say no one "really loves the legislation," in the words of one official. Trump has expressed misgivings—particularly over fears that people will lose health care and blame him. He has spoken more about blasting Obamacare than selling his own legislation, barely bringing up the new plan at a rally last Saturday night, and only at the very end of his speech.
If you voted for this man, you were conned, in as big a way as it is possible to be conned. And yes, @BillyYank, the do hate their own supporters. They have far more contempt for them than you, I or @smeagolheart do. Because they were well aware the whole time they were selling them a bill of goods and that they'd swallow it hook, line and sinker. IF this bill becomes law in anything close to it's current form, it will utterly devastate hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It will, effectively, be the state-sanctioned murder of people with pre-existing conditions who can't afford health care. And it should be sold as such in every House campaign in the country in 2018. Saying the Republicans who voted for this are evil, blood-sucking sociopaths isn't an exaggeration or taking a harsh "tone". It's simply the truth. This bill kills people.
Maybe I walk into a vegan restaurant and demand a hamburger. Can those stores deny me service?
In that example, you'd be demanding a service they didn't provide anyway.
hrm...yes, I agree--that example doesn't work very well. I could make the case that the vegan restaurant is discriminating against me based on my food choices, though.
What if I decide to be a real jacka** and walk into a black-owned bakery, demanding a cake with the slogan "white power" on it? According to the logic in play here they cannot deny me my cake with the slogan of my choice.
If they said no, it's not like they'd be discriminating against you. You'd be demanding that they express a view they disagree with--they don't have to do that. They can just bake the cake and let you write that slogan on it.
Is that like refusing to bake a cake or make a flower arrangement for a homosexual couple who are getting married? It's just expressing a view with which they disagree, after all.
Disclosure: we discussed this topic at length over at the board where I am the mod for the politics/current events forum. Our consensus was that the market will kill off businesses who turn away customers because of social, religious, or political disagreements--the power of the Internet spreads negative reviews of a business rather quickly.
In any event, let us not forget that this topic arose because of a suspected executive order which may be signed soon. I doubt that one will make it but the one regarding churches and politicizing the pulpit will be signed. I still don't like executive orders.
Maybe I walk into a vegan restaurant and demand a hamburger. Can those stores deny me service?
In that example, you'd be demanding a service they didn't provide anyway.
hrm...yes, I agree--that example doesn't work very well. I could make the case that the vegan restaurant is discriminating against me based on my food choices, though.
What if I decide to be a real jacka** and walk into a black-owned bakery, demanding a cake with the slogan "white power" on it? According to the logic in play here they cannot deny me my cake with the slogan of my choice.
If they said no, it's not like they'd be discriminating against you. You'd be demanding that they express a view they disagree with--they don't have to do that. They can just bake the cake and let you write that slogan on it.
Is that like refusing to bake a cake or make a flower arrangement for a homosexual couple who are getting married? It's just expressing a view with which they disagree, after all.
Disclosure: we discussed this topic at length over at the board where I am the mod for the politics/current events forum. Our consensus was that the market will kill off businesses who turn away customers because of social, religious, or political disagreements--the power of the Internet spreads negative reviews of a business rather quickly.
In any event, let us not forget that this topic arose because of a suspected executive order which may be signed soon. I doubt that one will make it but the one regarding churches and politicizing the pulpit will be signed. I still don't like executive orders.
No one walks into a vegan restaurant expecting a hamburger, and, more importantly, it's not a product they provide. No one is saying someone has to provide certain products. What we are talking about is people refusing to sell the products or services they do have to certain people. Forget the cake nonsense (which has become perhaps the most overused hypothetical scenario in political discussion) and focus on this for the moment:
This funeral home backed out of an agreement to provide services to a man and his family at their time of greatest need. Conceivably, you need a government license to run a mortuary or crematorium. They are subject to regulations. In Mississippi, I'm guessing those regulations don't include the fact that if you are a funeral home, which is a very generic and broad (and essential) public service, that you damn well should not be discriminating against who you are going to take in. Though I have no doubt in this deep-red shithole, that's probably the case.
So yeah, this funeral home is probably going to win this case against this man who was simply trying to give a final farewell to his longtime partner. I doubt they'll go out of business. In some places the market will punish these bastards, and in some places, people line up to buy Chick-fil-A BECAUSE they came out against gay people. And I guess that's the world we live in. I'm sure some in this forum will call this next part "virtue signalling", but whatever, screw that. The operators of this funeral home are horrible people. They're awful, the dregs of society. There are logical arguments, which are hard to argue the merits of. And then there is the humanity argument, which is equally as hard to argue with. Because god knows the first thing Christ would have done is turn away a man trying to say goodbye to his loved one and make it 10x as hard as it already is. Human beings are a despicable species in so very many ways.
Religious liberty bills are bills to allow discrimination. They are designed to allow people to make the argument that I don't like you because of my religion so I'm not going to serve you or provide a service for you.
I do think the religious favored Trump. Evangelicals did support the twice divorced man who cheated on his wives and who has bragged about walking in on underaged girls at his talent shows and said grab em by the hooha. This guy who clearly doesn't know anything about religion who quoted “Two Corinthians, 3:17,” is their guy. He won 81 per- cent of the white evangelical vote—a higher share than George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.
But anyway, I don't support religion in government. I don't want my kids or my life unduly influenced by any particular faith. We've got enough propaganda from corporations we don't need more salesmanship from religion.
- Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -
The government should not endorse (respect an establishment of) any religion.
The thing that gets me about this "Religious Freedom" order is the very idea that the Christian faith (and make no mistake, this signing is about Christians) is somehow under attack or being persecuted against. It's absurd. 70% of the country self-professes to be of the faith. You can't go 5 or 10 blocks in ANY major city in the country without running into multiple churches. I can see two if I simply look out my apartment window. No one's right to worship is being infringed upon anywhere. Christianity dictates all aspects of our culture, and is the sole reason for many of our major holidays. I mean, there are still stores closed til noon on Sunday in the state I live in, BY LAW, because of Sunday church services. The entire school system of the United States does not have any high school sports take place on Wednesday nights specifically because of church activities.
So what is this really about?? Certainly not any actual rights being taken away from a group that is MASSIVELY in the majority. It's about certain segments of the faith who feel they are no longer able to impose their beliefs on others. They think other people gaining rights (women's reproductive, LGBT, etc) means that they are somehow "losing" something. And the simple truth is this: when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
This funeral home backed out of an agreement to provide services to a man and his family at their time of greatest need. Conceivably, you need a government license to run a mortuary or crematorium. They are subject to regulations. In Mississippi, I'm guessing those regulations don't include the fact that if you are a funeral home, which is a very generic and broad (and essential) public service, that you damn well should not be discriminating against who you are going to take in. Though I have no doubt in this deep-red shithole, that's probably the case.
There is one thing listed in this story that is definitely in Picayune Funeral Home's favor: the phrase "verbal agreement". Although I am not a lawyer, I could easily see an attorney making a successful argument that a verbal agreement amounts to "we said they said", which equates to anecdote and is not enforceable as far as I know--with nothing in writing how can you *prove* what your agreement might have been? Always get your agreements in writing.
That being said, what the funeral home did was downright s****y and they should know better. They don't deal with "their kind"? What the h*** kind of statement is that? I thought this was 2017, not 1917. As I noted earlier, this is a case where the market can and should deal with this provider appropriately, but being sued for emotional damage is also a legitimate and viable course of action.
re: Christians feeling as if they are under attack.... I recently watched a Louis C. K. special on Netflix--you should watch it, too, because that man is hilarious--and he claims that there is no war on Christianity because Christianity already won. His proof is a simple question--what year is it?
@semiticgod Over here. Truthfully, some very bad personal disagreements and attacks happened before I became the mod so the politics forum isn't nearly as populated as it used to be and we really need more people there. More voices equals better discussions. I go by a different username over there, though, one based on a character in a series of novels by the author to whom that board is dedicated.
@Mathsorcerer Can't an argument be made here that a funeral home is the type of service that should not be able to discriminate in this way?? I mean, everyone is going to NEED one, multiple times in their lives. You can't dispose of bodies yourself, that in and of itself would be illegal. Regular people can't embalm their loved ones or cremate their body in the backyard. And this is something that HAS to be done, simply from a public health standpoint. Point being, the services that funeral homes and crematoriums provide has the same kind of broad public need and is in it's own way as essential as something like a telephone or access to water. People need this service, society needs this service. And there are certain businesses where this simply cannot stand. I mean, hospitals are ostensibly OWNED by someone, and I'm pretty damn sure they can't turn away patients for being in a gay relationship based on their religious beliefs. I think funeral homes fall into this category. If you are going to run one, you need to be expected to cater to the entire public, in much the same way a Pharmacist needs to. If not, you should get another job.
And is this really the hill to die on in defense of "freedom" for conservatives?? Is their definition of the term so bankrupt that it boils down to the right to not have to provide a basic service for people they hate for no reason?? Is this what defines whether you are "free" or not?? Technically, I suppose it can be, but that is a such a morally bankrupt thought process. And it's being encouraged in the name of what is essentially semantics.
I guess what I'm saying is this: if you want to not bake a cake for the gay wedding, fine. That person is an asshole, but fine. I hope the market runs your business into the ground. But a funeral home is a more essential service than that. Some towns (my hometown included) only have one. It's not feasible that such an essential business, that has been granted the privilege of being allowed to provide this kind of service to the public, should be able to turn people away for these reasons. Bakeries are different than funeral homes. And a reasonable society should be able to tell the difference.
Ideally, *no* business will discriminate against customers even though I argue that they have the right to do so. Just because I *can* do something (take my paycheck to the casino, for example) doesn't mean that I *have* to do it. Turning away customers who are willing to put money into your pocket is not only stupid but arguably anti-capitalist.
In this particular instance, the funeral home is clearly at fault even though the agreement they had with the family was verbal only. You do not pour salt and lemon juice onto someone's open wound just because they live a life with which you disagree. I am, in fact, going to go one step farther and claim that this funeral home's "logic" of "we don't serve gays because we are Christian" (my paraphrasing, not the funeral home's actual argument) is the opposite of actual Christianity, the main two tenets of which are "love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That being said, let us not degenerate into theological discussions and keep this on the sociopolitical level.
I am not familiar with the licensing laws for funeral homes in the State of Mississippi so I am uncertain what, if any, repercussions this funeral home will face. In sports parlance I would definitely give them a red flag, though--one more red flag would result in revoking their license to operate.
edit: you make an excellent argument--funeral homes are *essential* and thus need to be held to a higher standard than an average small business.
Unfortunately, the free market can't and won't end discrimination by itself. While it's true that there are people who would boycott any business that chooses to discriminate, there are also a great deal of people who would instead continue to shop at said business because:
A ) They're uninformed about the discrimination. B ) They know about the discrimination, but don't care enough to boycott. C ) They actually choose to shop there because of their discriminatory practices, because they're just as awful as the business owner.
As a result, very few businesses have actually collapsed because of their actions. That's why we need some level of law and regulation to end discrimination--real-world consequences to deterr that kind of behavior. Your ideal free market only works if the consumers are informed enough and financially-healthy enough to shop around and make responsible spending choices. The American populace is neither.
There is no law you can pass which will end discrimination, even if the law went so far as to allow for immediate public execution of anyone engaging in the practice of discrimination. That sort of change would require either a change in human nature (this hasn't happened in the last few millennia so I wouldn't wait for it to happen now) or the ability to rewire our brains (this may actually be possible in 50 years). There are two forces at work which keep many people shackled to discrimination, whether overt (as is the case with this funeral home) or subtle: 1) most people subconsciously congregate with other people who look like them on the outside and 2) human beings are much like cats--we may get along individually from time to time but for the most part we really do not like each other very much.
You may or may not recall last year when Dr. Strange came out that there was another round of movie fans talking about "whitewashing". If Nick Fury, a character who was drawn as a white male for decades, can suddenly be cast as a black man for the movie version of The Avengers, then why can't The Ancient One, originally an elderly Tibetan male, be recast as a younger-middle-aged white woman? I am certain there were many actors who would have fit the role both age-wise and gender-wise but I am not in charge of casting decisions for Marvel Studios.
Don't misunderstand me--discriminating against other people for things like appearance, life choices, or differing level of physical ability is both stupid and illogical; however, you cannot force someone make good choices. For proof of this ask any parent of a teenager (presuming you aren't one, yourself) or someone with a family member struggling with an addiction. Legislating "good choices" is equivalent to legislating morality, and we have ample evidence as to how dangerous that can be--there have been many times and places where things like homosexuality have been classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment (this is actually still the case in countries like Iran).
The final thing to consider about "discrimination" is this: do we want to look for any instance of discrimination or only certain kinds? Let's say you are at a public concert and someone near you says something clearly racist towards someone else. Are you going to ignore that person completely or are you going to move away from them? Either way, you have concluded that this is a person whom you do not wish to know or with whom you choose not to associate. In other words, you are choosing to discriminate against that person. The fact that most people would view this as a positive form of discrimination--the act of being choosy or making value judgements--is irrelevant because it is still discrimination. This is why people need to be careful with blanket statements such as "we need to end discrimination" because if you pick any random person you can find instances in their life where they discriminate against others.
Unfortunately, the free market can't and won't end discrimination by itself. While it's true that there are people who would boycott any business that chooses to discriminate, there are also a great deal of people who would instead continue to shop at said business because:
A ) They're uninformed about the discrimination. B ) They know about the discrimination, but don't care enough to boycott. C ) They actually choose to shop there because of their discriminatory practices, because they're just as awful as the business owner.
As a result, very few businesses have actually collapsed because of their actions. That's why we need some level of law and regulation to end discrimination--real-world consequences to deterr that kind of behavior. Your ideal free market only works if the consumers are informed enough and financially-healthy enough to shop around and make responsible spending choices. The American populace is neither.
There's often not more than one choice, despite the "free market" monopolies exist and shut out competition. Technically anyone could write their own operating system but everyone is going to use a Mac or a PC.
There is no law you can pass which will end discrimination, even if the law went so far as to allow for immediate public execution of anyone engaging in the practice of discrimination. That sort of change would require either a change in human nature (this hasn't happened in the last few millennia so I wouldn't wait for it to happen now) or the ability to rewire our brains (this may actually be possible in 50 years). There are two forces at work which keep many people shackled to discrimination, whether overt (as is the case with this funeral home) or subtle: 1) most people subconsciously congregate with other people who look like them on the outside and 2) human beings are much like cats--we may get along individually from time to time but for the most part we really do not like each other very much.
I suppose "end" was a bad choice of words. Let's say "combat" instead.
I want basic laws to combat racial and sexual discrimination. I want laws that will deter businesses from treating certain people of certain identities like second-class citizens. When a business makes a choice to ignore that law, I don't want them to hold "religion" like a literal get out of jail free card. I want there to be consequences.
No it won't stop everyone and no it won't prevent isolated incidents from taking place. But that does not mean we should just let businesses refuse whoever the fluck they want on whatever grounds they want, because as I said, the free market is not the end-all be-all solution some make it out to be. It is but one gear in a much more complicated clockwork puzzle.
You may or may not recall last year when Dr. Strange came out that there was another round of movie fans talking about "whitewashing". If Nick Fury, a character who was drawn as a white male for decades, can suddenly be cast as a black man for the movie version of The Avengers, then why can't The Ancient One, originally an elderly Tibetan male, be recast as a younger-middle-aged white woman? I am certain there were many actors who would have fit the role both age-wise and gender-wise but I am not in charge of casting decisions for Marvel Studios.
While worth talking about, I really don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion of whether a business has the right to refuse an LGBTQ customer on religious grounds.
Don't misunderstand me--discriminating against other people for things like appearance, life choices, or differing level of physical ability is both stupid and illogical; however, you cannot force someone make good choices. For proof of this ask any parent of a teenager (presuming you aren't one, yourself) or someone with a family member struggling with an addiction. Legislating "good choices" is equivalent to legislating morality, and we have ample evidence as to how dangerous that can be--there have been many times and places where things like homosexuality have been classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment (this is actually still the case in countries like Iran).
A business is not a teenager or a drug addict.
It is a service offered to the public in exchange for profit, typically run by a single or group of adults that I personally hold to a higher standard than either of your examples. As such, I expect them to follow the very basic practice of treating each of their customers with an equal amount of time and care and to not refuse service based on race, gender, age, orientation, religion, etc. If they don't, they can face the real-world consequences of their actions, whether it be a loss in profits or a couple years in jail.
The final thing to consider about "discrimination" is this: do we want to look for any instance of discrimination or only certain kinds? Let's say you are at a public concert and someone near you says something clearly racist towards someone else. Are you going to ignore that person completely or are you going to move away from them? Either way, you have concluded that this is a person whom you do not wish to know or with whom you choose not to associate. In other words, you are choosing to discriminate against that person. The fact that most people would view this as a positive form of discrimination--the act of being choosy or making value judgements--is irrelevant because it is still discrimination. This is why people need to be careful with blanket statements such as "we need to end discrimination" because if you pick any random person you can find instances in their life where they discriminate against others.
We are talking about illegal discrimination. As in based on race, gender, age, religion, and in this case specifically, sexual orientation. By a business. The kind of discrimination that denies another person equal opportunity and treatment that is protected under the constitution. Since the example you provided is not based on any of those things, it's not the same. This person is not being forced to leave because of his comments. My moving away from him is not impeding on his ability to enjoy the concert. You're trying to take two very different situations and raise them on the same level when, in reality, they're nowhere close to each other.
Hackers have just leaked a trove of documents from the Macron campaign. No news yet on whether anything inside is newsworthy or scandalous; it's only just come out. It's also not yet clear who was behind the hack.
France has a media blackout on election reporting. It began today, and it only ends when the election is over. Mainstream news sources are not allowed to comment on the matter--but online media is not restricted.
The hackers dumped the documents at the exact moment the Macron campaign was least able to respond. I do not think this is a coincidence.
The Len Pen campaign has not suffered this kind of leak. I don't think this is a coincidence, either.
Hackers have just leaked a trove of documents from the Macron campaign. No news yet on whether anything inside is newsworthy or scandalous; it's only just come out. It's also not yet clear who was behind the hack.
France has a media blackout on election reporting. It began today, and it only ends when the election is over. Mainstream news sources are not allowed to comment on the matter--but online media is not restricted.
The hackers dumped the documents at the exact moment the Macron campaign was least able to respond. I do not think this is a coincidence.
The Len Pen campaign has not suffered this kind of leak. I don't think this is a coincidence, either.
I think we can say with 99.99% certainty who was behind the hacks.
What's amazing is that they aren't even trying to be remotely clandestine about it. This isn't "The Americans" (fantastic show by the way). The people around Trump like Manafort, Page, and Flynn were pretty much brazenly out in the open in regards to their connections to Moscow. LePen welcomes Putin's support. Trump encouraged Russia to hack Hillary even more than they already had during a press conference in the campaign. And Russia, aside from some BS official statements, hasn't strongly denied any of this. It's like they are laughing at the rest of the world. And why not?? No one seems to be doing anything to stop them, and there are vast portions of the voting populace in this country who don't care at all.
Other than spreading a bit of chaos I don't see how this helps Russia in the long run.
Putin is trying to weaken the European Union and NATO. Basically, the post-war alliances. That is what Brexit does, it's what Trump has expressed a belief in, and LePen absolutely believes in. The only thing stopping him from achieving this goal is Merkel in Germany if LePen wins. That said, all indications are that she is going to get systematically crushed, but given recent events in the UK and the US, you simply can't take that to the bank.
If LePen wins, it's a sure sign of a rising, potentially dangerous white nationalism in the historical powers of the West. If she loses by the margin anywhere near where the polls say, it can be viewed as a response to the what people have seen of Theresa May and Trump in action after the utterly broken promises of Brexit and the 2016 election.
I'm not doubting that this might be his aim but I'm just thinking it might be a little bit too much short-term thinking on his part. Unless he's prepared to capitalize on this somehow it's very dangerous territory. Russians are pretty awesome at chess though...
@Nonnahswriter Unlike most people, I enjoy it when someone holds my feet to the fire and points out if--when--I make a weak argument. It keeps me on my toes and lets me know what mistakes to avoid in the future.
@Balrog99 Every time an election is clouded by uncertainty as to whether or not Russia had influence over its outcome the result is instability and mistrust of that government. The weakened position that government has is in Russia's favor and makes any subsequent election, whether in that nation or elsewhere, more vulnerable because people are going to start suspecting Russian hacker involvement even if it doesn't happen. In the long run Putin wants to become the person to whom other world leaders defer for international leadership.
if the US or France gets knocked down a peg or two by electing people that are anti-democratic that ruin people's lives, then Russia gets knocked up a couple pegs in comparison.
An interesting question: Does a democracy have the right to vote in a non-democratic government? This is a philosophical question for the moment. By voting in said government are you not possibly denying subsequent generations freedom? I'm only asking as a devil's advocate. True democracy should allow for voting in a totalitarian government even with all of the negative consequences. True democracy is really a double-edged sword if looked at in this way...
Sounds like Russia is becoming the new U.S. then. We've been doing this very thing for decades.
Karma's a bitch.
In other news, Billboards like this one will be put up for all the Republicans that sold out your online privacy. Thanks to a crowdfunding campaign these guys will get a little sunlight on their corrupt ways.
Sounds like Russia is becoming the new U.S. then. We've been doing this very thing for decades.
Karma's a bitch.
In other news, Billboards like this one will be put up for all the Republicans that sold out your online privacy. Thanks to a crowdfunding campaign these guys will get a little sunlight on their corrupt ways.
The odd thing about this is that from what I've deduced, the Republicans think of this as 'evening the field' by allowing minor players to spy on us rather than just the 'major players'. I think they missed a great opportunity here to make sure that none of the players have this access. Yet another reason why I'm an independent...
Comments
But inside the White House, senior administration officials say no one "really loves the legislation," in the words of one official. Trump has expressed misgivings—particularly over fears that people will lose health care and blame him. He has spoken more about blasting Obamacare than selling his own legislation, barely bringing up the new plan at a rally last Saturday night, and only at the very end of his speech.
If you voted for this man, you were conned, in as big a way as it is possible to be conned. And yes, @BillyYank, the do hate their own supporters. They have far more contempt for them than you, I or @smeagolheart do. Because they were well aware the whole time they were selling them a bill of goods and that they'd swallow it hook, line and sinker. IF this bill becomes law in anything close to it's current form, it will utterly devastate hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It will, effectively, be the state-sanctioned murder of people with pre-existing conditions who can't afford health care. And it should be sold as such in every House campaign in the country in 2018. Saying the Republicans who voted for this are evil, blood-sucking sociopaths isn't an exaggeration or taking a harsh "tone". It's simply the truth. This bill kills people.
Disclosure: we discussed this topic at length over at the board where I am the mod for the politics/current events forum. Our consensus was that the market will kill off businesses who turn away customers because of social, religious, or political disagreements--the power of the Internet spreads negative reviews of a business rather quickly.
In any event, let us not forget that this topic arose because of a suspected executive order which may be signed soon. I doubt that one will make it but the one regarding churches and politicizing the pulpit will be signed. I still don't like executive orders.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/health/mississippi-funeral-home-gay-couple-lawsuit/
This funeral home backed out of an agreement to provide services to a man and his family at their time of greatest need. Conceivably, you need a government license to run a mortuary or crematorium. They are subject to regulations. In Mississippi, I'm guessing those regulations don't include the fact that if you are a funeral home, which is a very generic and broad (and essential) public service, that you damn well should not be discriminating against who you are going to take in. Though I have no doubt in this deep-red shithole, that's probably the case.
So yeah, this funeral home is probably going to win this case against this man who was simply trying to give a final farewell to his longtime partner. I doubt they'll go out of business. In some places the market will punish these bastards, and in some places, people line up to buy Chick-fil-A BECAUSE they came out against gay people. And I guess that's the world we live in. I'm sure some in this forum will call this next part "virtue signalling", but whatever, screw that. The operators of this funeral home are horrible people. They're awful, the dregs of society. There are logical arguments, which are hard to argue the merits of. And then there is the humanity argument, which is equally as hard to argue with. Because god knows the first thing Christ would have done is turn away a man trying to say goodbye to his loved one and make it 10x as hard as it already is. Human beings are a despicable species in so very many ways.
I do think the religious favored Trump. Evangelicals did support the twice divorced man who cheated on his wives and who has bragged about walking in on underaged girls at his talent shows and said grab em by the hooha. This guy who clearly doesn't know anything about religion who quoted “Two Corinthians, 3:17,” is their guy. He won 81 per- cent of the white evangelical vote—a higher share than George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.
But anyway, I don't support religion in government. I don't want my kids or my life unduly influenced by any particular faith. We've got enough propaganda from corporations we don't need more salesmanship from religion.
-
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-
The government should not endorse (respect an establishment of) any religion.
So what is this really about?? Certainly not any actual rights being taken away from a group that is MASSIVELY in the majority. It's about certain segments of the faith who feel they are no longer able to impose their beliefs on others. They think other people gaining rights (women's reproductive, LGBT, etc) means that they are somehow "losing" something. And the simple truth is this: when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
That being said, what the funeral home did was downright s****y and they should know better. They don't deal with "their kind"? What the h*** kind of statement is that? I thought this was 2017, not 1917. As I noted earlier, this is a case where the market can and should deal with this provider appropriately, but being sued for emotional damage is also a legitimate and viable course of action.
re: Christians feeling as if they are under attack.... I recently watched a Louis C. K. special on Netflix--you should watch it, too, because that man is hilarious--and he claims that there is no war on Christianity because Christianity already won. His proof is a simple question--what year is it?
@semiticgod Over here. Truthfully, some very bad personal disagreements and attacks happened before I became the mod so the politics forum isn't nearly as populated as it used to be and we really need more people there. More voices equals better discussions. I go by a different username over there, though, one based on a character in a series of novels by the author to whom that board is dedicated.
And is this really the hill to die on in defense of "freedom" for conservatives?? Is their definition of the term so bankrupt that it boils down to the right to not have to provide a basic service for people they hate for no reason?? Is this what defines whether you are "free" or not?? Technically, I suppose it can be, but that is a such a morally bankrupt thought process. And it's being encouraged in the name of what is essentially semantics.
I guess what I'm saying is this: if you want to not bake a cake for the gay wedding, fine. That person is an asshole, but fine. I hope the market runs your business into the ground. But a funeral home is a more essential service than that. Some towns (my hometown included) only have one. It's not feasible that such an essential business, that has been granted the privilege of being allowed to provide this kind of service to the public, should be able to turn people away for these reasons. Bakeries are different than funeral homes. And a reasonable society should be able to tell the difference.
In this particular instance, the funeral home is clearly at fault even though the agreement they had with the family was verbal only. You do not pour salt and lemon juice onto someone's open wound just because they live a life with which you disagree. I am, in fact, going to go one step farther and claim that this funeral home's "logic" of "we don't serve gays because we are Christian" (my paraphrasing, not the funeral home's actual argument) is the opposite of actual Christianity, the main two tenets of which are "love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That being said, let us not degenerate into theological discussions and keep this on the sociopolitical level.
I am not familiar with the licensing laws for funeral homes in the State of Mississippi so I am uncertain what, if any, repercussions this funeral home will face. In sports parlance I would definitely give them a red flag, though--one more red flag would result in revoking their license to operate.
edit: you make an excellent argument--funeral homes are *essential* and thus need to be held to a higher standard than an average small business.
A ) They're uninformed about the discrimination.
B ) They know about the discrimination, but don't care enough to boycott.
C ) They actually choose to shop there because of their discriminatory practices, because they're just as awful as the business owner.
As a result, very few businesses have actually collapsed because of their actions. That's why we need some level of law and regulation to end discrimination--real-world consequences to deterr that kind of behavior. Your ideal free market only works if the consumers are informed enough and financially-healthy enough to shop around and make responsible spending choices. The American populace is neither.
You may or may not recall last year when Dr. Strange came out that there was another round of movie fans talking about "whitewashing". If Nick Fury, a character who was drawn as a white male for decades, can suddenly be cast as a black man for the movie version of The Avengers, then why can't The Ancient One, originally an elderly Tibetan male, be recast as a younger-middle-aged white woman? I am certain there were many actors who would have fit the role both age-wise and gender-wise but I am not in charge of casting decisions for Marvel Studios.
Don't misunderstand me--discriminating against other people for things like appearance, life choices, or differing level of physical ability is both stupid and illogical; however, you cannot force someone make good choices. For proof of this ask any parent of a teenager (presuming you aren't one, yourself) or someone with a family member struggling with an addiction. Legislating "good choices" is equivalent to legislating morality, and we have ample evidence as to how dangerous that can be--there have been many times and places where things like homosexuality have been classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment (this is actually still the case in countries like Iran).
The final thing to consider about "discrimination" is this: do we want to look for any instance of discrimination or only certain kinds? Let's say you are at a public concert and someone near you says something clearly racist towards someone else. Are you going to ignore that person completely or are you going to move away from them? Either way, you have concluded that this is a person whom you do not wish to know or with whom you choose not to associate. In other words, you are choosing to discriminate against that person. The fact that most people would view this as a positive form of discrimination--the act of being choosy or making value judgements--is irrelevant because it is still discrimination. This is why people need to be careful with blanket statements such as "we need to end discrimination" because if you pick any random person you can find instances in their life where they discriminate against others.
I want basic laws to combat racial and sexual discrimination. I want laws that will deter businesses from treating certain people of certain identities like second-class citizens. When a business makes a choice to ignore that law, I don't want them to hold "religion" like a literal get out of jail free card. I want there to be consequences.
No it won't stop everyone and no it won't prevent isolated incidents from taking place. But that does not mean we should just let businesses refuse whoever the fluck they want on whatever grounds they want, because as I said, the free market is not the end-all be-all solution some make it out to be. It is but one gear in a much more complicated clockwork puzzle. While worth talking about, I really don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion of whether a business has the right to refuse an LGBTQ customer on religious grounds. A business is not a teenager or a drug addict.
It is a service offered to the public in exchange for profit, typically run by a single or group of adults that I personally hold to a higher standard than either of your examples. As such, I expect them to follow the very basic practice of treating each of their customers with an equal amount of time and care and to not refuse service based on race, gender, age, orientation, religion, etc. If they don't, they can face the real-world consequences of their actions, whether it be a loss in profits or a couple years in jail. We are talking about illegal discrimination. As in based on race, gender, age, religion, and in this case specifically, sexual orientation. By a business. The kind of discrimination that denies another person equal opportunity and treatment that is protected under the constitution. Since the example you provided is not based on any of those things, it's not the same. This person is not being forced to leave because of his comments. My moving away from him is not impeding on his ability to enjoy the concert. You're trying to take two very different situations and raise them on the same level when, in reality, they're nowhere close to each other.
France has a media blackout on election reporting. It began today, and it only ends when the election is over. Mainstream news sources are not allowed to comment on the matter--but online media is not restricted.
The hackers dumped the documents at the exact moment the Macron campaign was least able to respond. I do not think this is a coincidence.
The Len Pen campaign has not suffered this kind of leak. I don't think this is a coincidence, either.
If LePen wins, it's a sure sign of a rising, potentially dangerous white nationalism in the historical powers of the West. If she loses by the margin anywhere near where the polls say, it can be viewed as a response to the what people have seen of Theresa May and Trump in action after the utterly broken promises of Brexit and the 2016 election.
@Balrog99 Every time an election is clouded by uncertainty as to whether or not Russia had influence over its outcome the result is instability and mistrust of that government. The weakened position that government has is in Russia's favor and makes any subsequent election, whether in that nation or elsewhere, more vulnerable because people are going to start suspecting Russian hacker involvement even if it doesn't happen. In the long run Putin wants to become the person to whom other world leaders defer for international leadership.
Does a democracy have the right to vote in a non-democratic government? This is a philosophical question for the moment. By voting in said government are you not possibly denying subsequent generations freedom? I'm only asking as a devil's advocate. True democracy should allow for voting in a totalitarian government even with all of the negative consequences. True democracy is really a double-edged sword if looked at in this way...
In other news, Billboards like this one will be put up for all the Republicans that sold out your online privacy.
Thanks to a crowdfunding campaign these guys will get a little sunlight on their corrupt ways.