Gay discrimination

[Maverick]

One cannot have a free country, without a moral base. For people who know this....it's a clear violation of that freedom base. It's not so much that we care what any individual does, just keep it to yourself? Those who believe you should be able do as you want, regardless of any moral base, defines freedom...for them.

And please spare the "who sets the morality code mantra" We all know what it once was, and how we've slid the slope of those who think freedom means....doing anything you want, and forcing others to accept it. You will not do as thou wilt....and remain free. Time for choosing is long past, and when one hears all the complaints about those who lead you? Look who's following, and right on cue.

Humorous to hear the same people complaining about the guvment, and then acting as though homosexuality is just fine, while your a bigot for not thinking the same. It all comes down to truth, justice, and morality. If one doesn't think so.....then stop complaining about the liars above you; they hold the same moral code and are just "doing as thou wilt".

Who's to say Obama care is not fair? Who's to say your taxes are extreme? Why do you care, if people sit in prison for 15 years for a marijuana joint? Why get upset when someone cuts you off, and your defensive driving skills are at stake. These people are just going about their business....no moral code or ethics needed. Right?

If not, answer your own question. Who's to say, or judge?

 

[cheri1122]

I don't know if she was a 'walk in' client, but "Walk-ins Welcome" means that, appointment or not, you're open to the public.

I dunno, but we'll never get one without asking.


An exclusive client list isn't the litmus test for open to the public, unless contracts are signed making them exclusive clients, forbidding them from going elsewhere. Not being open to the general public is the litmus test. Wedding photography is contract work, where contracts are signed to do the wedding.

I do know that since the incident with the governor, Antonio no longer accepts walk-ins, and is by-appointment only. But more than that, you must fill out an application to become a client now (not so 2 years ago), and if he deems you worthy he'll take you on. His shop is now run out of a small building behind his residence. Somebody obviously pointed out to him the problems of discriminating against someone because of their beliefs when you're open to the public, so he's not open to the public anymore.

Ok, you are probably correct that Antonio didn't separate the 'open to the public' part of his business from the private client list, as savvy service providers of an upscale nature [hairdressers, personal concierges, interior decorators, fitness coaches, event planners etc] do, if they run both kinds of business. That [and the comments he made publicly about the Governor's hair color] mark him as an amateur. Most people who provide services to upscale clients are not, nor are they egalitarian. In fact, they're usually insufferable snobs. Just like my nephew, who wouldn't dream of coloring my hair, even if I were willing to pay whatever ridiculous amount he charges and throw in a generous tip, because I am a truck driver. The horror! If word got out, he'd be cast out of the brother [sister?] hood of exclusive hairdressers, banished to Best Cuts, or some such dungeon for the peasants of the world.
But I digress: the point was hypocrisy. Antonio's statement is no more hypocritical than people who boycott a business because they don't like the politics/ideology/investment strategy practiced therein, except that it is illegal, as you say, for a business that caters to the general public to do so.
A business that can afford to be choosy about its' clients can discriminate whenever and however it wishes. I was under the impression that Antonio ran such a business, and that was wrong. If he did, though, the Governor would just have to suck it up and find a hetero haircolorist, lol.

 

[cheri1122]

Wow. Five tangents. That's a new record.

OK, what did I say? I said gays will never be accepted and embraced by society as normal. You say neither are blacks, but say they are accepted as normal, maybe, but not accepted and embraced? What the heck are you talking about? Blacks are indeed accepted and embraced as normal. Nobody thinks of blacks as an abnormal aberration of nature. Sheesh.

I think gays will be accepted and embraced by society as normal, eventually, because they aren't trying to hide it anymore. They're no longer pretending to be hetero, and if their family & friends can't accept them, that's too bad. But the funny thing is that nearly all their families and friends do accept them, because why not?
When even a Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter - can Archie Bunker be far behind?

PS There are still people who consider blacks an aberration, and even among those who accept them as 'normal', embracing is never gonna happen, because they'll never be faced with the discovery that someone they love and/or respect is black. That makes all the difference.

 

[cheri1122]

Government out of marriage would be my vote. Then everyone is happy. Well...except gays that want marriage and can only achieve it in selected approving churches. That might be a problem for the ones that want marriage without a religious vehicle. Majority of gays aren't religious.
What is interesting and they never answer it is why they want that marriage which as mentioned is a religious sacrament. Most aren't religious so it is another agenda beyond just equal rights.
For someone who could care less either way, it does appear it is basically just a "I want it because you religious folks don't like it".
When they turn away equal rights for all and they aren't religious to begin with, well, that is what you are left with. Then they wonder why they aren't welcomed with open arms?

You say that 'most' gays aren't religious - fine, but that means some are, and why shouldn't they want to be married in a religious ceremony?
And for those who aren't, well, hetero people who aren't can still get married in church, I've seen them do it - so why not gays?
I agree that the government ought to offer civil unions for those who prefer nonreligious affairs, and the church ought to offer marriage for those who want the religion involved. And neither should condemn the two people who want to make a commitment to love, honor, and cherish, till death do they part.
What we should condemn is the Las Vegas quickie wedding chapels, amiright?

 

[RLENT]

No more officiating by Elvis ?

 

[paullud]

They basically aren't welcome with open arms because we, as Americans, don't like anybody that is different. IMO of course.

I think it had much more to do with the fact that they are telling people that they have to accept them. People are getting sick and tired of being told how to think and if the gays keep it up they might see a backlash. They should just accept the fact that some people will never like/accept them and others will, that's life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Maverick]

I think it had much more to do with the fact that they are telling people that they have to accept them. People are getting sick and tired of being told how to think and if the gays keep it up they might see a backlash. They should just accept the fact that some people will never like/accept them and others will, that's life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

That's a great point. I personally don't care what they do. But stop asking me to accept your behavior. What this agenda demands....is for me to give up my freedom of thought and action, in exchange for they're type, or idea of it.

 

[asjssl]

I think it had much more to do with the fact that they are telling people that they have to accept them. People are getting sick and tired of being told how to think and if the gays keep it up they might see a backlash. They should just accept the fact that some people will never like/accept them and others will, that's life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Gee...sounds like religion. Forcing there ideas on us..making laws according to THERE faith & pushing it on us/me...does not feel good does it.. all they want is equality . Not to legislate your bedroom/body..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Maverick]

Gee...sounds like religion. Forcing there ideas on us..making laws according to THERE faith & pushing it on us/me...does not feel good does it.. all they want is equality . Not to legislate your bedroom/body..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

What religion forced you to do anything? Especially given the current state of this country?

And no, they are not after equality. They want to force you into accepting them....which means, you now have to go against what you feel is right. Have you paid attention to what they teach in schools? Do you know, many of faith cannot hear or say what they feel about things?

They want a replacement of Christian values, not a co-existence. Not on an individual basis; this agenda is funded, inserted in curriculum, and being pushed in all avenues of society.

 

[Turtle]

I think gays will be accepted and embraced by society as normal, eventually, because they aren't trying to hide it anymore.

I fully appreciate the optimism, but if history is any indication, and it usually is, society at large will never accept homosexuality as normal, but cause it's not normal. It's an abnormal aberration of nature. It's natural, and it's normal that it happens, but so are two-headed calves, which are not accepted as normal, either, and never will be, unless the majority of cows being born are two-headed. As soon as the majority of people are homosexual, it'll be accepted as normal, but not before then. At most, society will tolerate homosexuals, just as history shows.

PS There are still people who consider blacks an aberration,...

Using the examples of the incredibly stupid to prove or disprove the rule is a logical fallacy. Human nature and DNA dictates that people are wary and distrustful of people and things which are different, it's the hard-coded prejudice within us all. But even racism at its most stupidest knows the difference between being different and being abnormal, not normal, anomalous, peculiar, uncommon.

But homosexuality isn't even merely abnormal, it goes all the way to anormal, the superlative version of abnormal. If you go buy a hair dryer and the electrical plug on the end doesn't have any holes in the prongs, that's a little odd, a little abnormal, but it'll at least still work, even if not as efficiently as a normal plug. However, if there is only one prong, or no prongs at all, that goes beyond abnormal to anormal, because it goes against what the plug is for, it goes against the type, the rule, and it won't even work for its purpose. And you don't ever have to have heard of Jesus to know it won't work, and why.

 

[layoutshooter]

It would seem that there are a few "evolutionists" that lack a basic understanding of how it works.

 

[Maverick]

Turtle. It's an abnormal aberration of nature. It's natural, and it's normal that it happens,

How is it an abnormal aberration? And I would agree with the later statement, with a twist.....it's normal to have it present in society, but not a natural behavior IMV.

As soon as the majority of people are homosexual, it'll be accepted as normal, but not before then. At most, society will tolerate homosexuals, just as history shows.

Agree in part, again. However, those who were accepted in the past were not agenda driven and militant as now. Not that they blended in necessarily, but kept to themselves, as most fringe elements are common sense driven to do.

Human nature and DNA dictates that people are wary and distrustful of people and things which are different, it's the hard-coded prejudice within us all.

DNA? I think it a stretch to use wary and distrustful, in the same context as hard core prejudiced.

But homosexuality isn't even merely abnormal, it goes all the way to anormal.

I'm sure there are just as many who would argue the opposite. It's a chosen behavior, not an abnormality.

 

[layoutshooter]

Full Definition of ABERRATION

1: the fact or an instance of deviating or being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state

Yep, says it all

 

[cheri1122]

As I said already, the reason people will [and already are] accept gays is because the gays are not willing to pretend to be hetero any more. People are forced to deal with what is no longer an abstract subject for gossip, speculation, titillation - it's their loved ones who are gay, and that changes everything. Hell - people can continue to love & support the wickedest killer, when they already loved them, you think they'll turn against their own family when the gay person has done nothing to harm anyone? The one enduring taboo is religion, and religion has been wrong before. [Classic British understatement there, lol]
As for refusing civil unions, you have to experience the discrimination of being seen as "less than" to understand it - and that's something white hetero males have never had to face.
When "separate but equal" was proposed as a remedy for Jim Crow laws, it was rejected, and rightfully: separate means unequal, or there's no reason to be separate.
If it's all about 'getting back at religion', can't say I blame them for that, because religion does women no favors either.

 

[cheri1122]

And then there's this:

Pew: 61 percent of young Republicans favor legalizing same-sex marriage ? LGBTQ Nation

The future must look scary to the hetero WASPS, who have reigned supreme for soooo long...

 

[davekc]

As I said already, the reason people will [and already are] accept gays is because the gays are not willing to pretend to be hetero any more. People are forced to deal with what is no longer an abstract subject for gossip, speculation, titillation - it's their loved ones who are gay, and that changes everything. Hell - people can continue to love & support the wickedest killer, when they already loved them, you think they'll turn against their own family when the gay person has done nothing to harm anyone? The one enduring taboo is religion, and religion has been wrong before. [Classic British understatement there, lol]
As for refusing civil unions, you have to experience the discrimination of being seen as "less than" to understand it - and that's something white hetero males have never had to face.
When "separate but equal" was proposed as a remedy for Jim Crow laws, it was rejected, and rightfully: separate means unequal, or there's no reason to be separate.
If it's all about 'getting back at religion', can't say I blame them for that, because religion does women no favors either.

If all things were equal, I would agree that they stand a greater chance of being accepted. Which is different than just being tolerated. But just based on numbers, that will never be achieved.
Why? Because not everyone is touched or affected by it, they are seen as a adversarial group by the majority, and only represent two percent of the population. Even if you double that number, they would have a long way to go. As I said, big difference between being accepted and just being tolerated.

 

[Turtle]

How is it an abnormal aberration? And I would agree with the later statement, with a twist.....it's normal to have it present in society, but not a natural behavior IMV.

Granted, "abnormal aberration" is largely redundant, as they mean the same thing with most definitions, but there are many aberrations which are still nevertheless functional. An abnormal aberration goes beyond one or the other and becomes a non-functioning abnormality or aberration (take yer pick). An aberration is a departing from the norm, a wandering, a deviation, but largely still functional in most cases. A spherical or chromatic aberration in a lens distorts the image, but it's still an image. An aberration that results in no image at all is abnormal. Suddenly getting 10 MPG instead of 20 MPG is an aberration, but it's still MPG. Suddenly getting no MPG at all is abnormal. A 5th leg growing out of the rubs of a cow is an aberration, but the cow is still a functioning cow. A 5th leg in place of a head is both an aberration and abnormal. In the case of homosexuality, it's not merely just a wandering or deviation from the norm, as the exchange of chromosomes is a non-functioning impossibility. Being attracted to the same sex is the aberration, homosexual sex is anormal, or an abnormal aberration.

Agree in part, again. However, those who were accepted in the past were not agenda driven and militant as now. Not that they blended in necessarily, but kept to themselves, as most fringe elements are common sense driven to do.

There's a big difference between being accepted into society, and being accepted as normal. Being accepted into society is the act of society tolerating, but just because something is tolerated, accepted, doesn't mean it's normal.

DNA? I think it a stretch to use wary and distrustful, in the same context as hard core prejudiced.

I would agree with that statement. Good thing I didn't use it in that context. Whew!

I'm sure there are just as many who would argue the opposite. It's a chosen behavior, not an abnormality.

That's the argument of philosophy, not of biology and reality. The drive to have sex, whether it's in people or throughout the animal kingdom, is an overwhelming drive for most. It's a drive that ensures the survival of the species, and the same exact drive is there for heterosexuals and homosexuals. The fact that homosexuals manifest that drive in such a manner that ensures the extinction of the species is what makes it an abnormality, rather than a chosen behavior. The species is pretty stupid about a lot of things, but its survival is not one of them (so far).

 

[layoutshooter]

IF the species is not sustained there is no point

 

[layoutshooter]

"The species is pretty stupid about a lot of things, but its survival is not one of them (so far)."


There sure are a lot working on doing the species in these days. Nature can wipe us out in a second, too bad there are so many out there trying to help her along

 

[cheri1122]

If all things were equal, I would agree that they stand a greater chance of being accepted. Which is different than just being tolerated. But just based on numbers, that will never be achieved.
Why? Because not everyone is touched or affected by it, they are seen as a adversarial group by the majority, and only represent two percent of the population. Even if you double that number, they would have a long way to go. As I said, big difference between being accepted and just being tolerated.

You say they are seen as 'adversarial by the majority', but that's not the case - or if it is, the majority accept the reasons for being adversarial as justified, because the majority of Americans support the right of gays to marry. And the numbers are higher among the younger [18-35] people. They're lowest among the old folks [surprise!] which is why I am sure that gays will be accepted: guess which group is the future?
BTW: 62% of Republicans support the right of gays to marry - that number, like other demographics, has steadily risen over the past decade. It's a foregone conclusion that may be tough to accept, but it's going to happen.