1 2 3
One would assume that this law applies equally to social functions at restaurants as it does to dining there normally. Also, if someone is asking to host a function, the assumption is that they're already asking for some sort of special privilege to display themselves.
The point is, you would be (legally) just as wrong to disallow them to host their function as, say, you would be for allowing any other group with a belief system to do so. They'd be able to take you to court, the same as anyone else, and they'd have the basis to do so.
Still, admittedly, this goes beyond the question of what a person has a right to do with their time and property and into a whole other world entirely.
"I have the right to be treated the same as others and to receive the services as others if they are offering them to the public."
That's the issue that's up for contention here. Do you have that right? Private individuals or groups thereof offering services (who don't take government grants or hand-outs) are not obligated to you in the same way, say, a government service is. Morally, certainly, they have a duty to respect you as a human being, but do they have a legal duty to do so?
You say your defense that allowing this would lead to terrible consequences isn't an appeal to consequences, which is really rather... Odd. An appeal to consequences is saying that the consequences of something are bad, therefore it must not be true. In this case, "The right of an individual to maintain their own conscience and decide what to do with their own effort would allow discrimination to run rampant, therefore they don't have it" is most definitely an appeal to consequences.
7/24/2012 9:05:48 AM
However, this is where we get to a sticky point: There's no particular basis, beyond a legal one, that an individual actually has these rights. Like all ethics, it's make-believe in our heads based on premises we find emotionally appealing. As such, unless you accept the idea that individuals have a right to do with their property and time what they like unless it interferes with the rights of others (and, as noted in our previous discussion, I'd consider a right something someone can't take away from you, rather than something someone owes you), there is a divide between us that cannot be passed over.
I consider the idea of telling people what they can and cannot do with themselves and their property in a way that doesn't actively harm someone (no more harm than charging for things does in the first place, since that, too, is a form of discrimination that we already allow) to be troublesome at best.
Hence, while I find Scott Lively to be reprehensible as a person, the question underlying his statements is one we still have to wrestle with.
7/24/2012 9:07:01 AM
You're complaining that you can't discriminate against them?
7/24/2012 10:17:07 AM
"with disastrous effects on Christian landlords and businesses"
No, the correct thing to say is
"with disastrous effects on BIGOTED landlords and businesses"
because a) not all Christians are bigoted and b) not all bigots are Christians.
7/24/2012 3:11:00 PM
refuter of fundy vermin
A Christo-Fascist in the making. Irony meter - broken!!
7/24/2012 11:39:36 PM
"The City of Springfield Missouri has announced it’s intention to "consider"an ordinance to give homosexuals extraordinary new powers..."
"....to silence and punish Christian landlords and businesses through civil rights lawsuits."
EAT A DIRTY JOCKSTRAP, Mr. LIVELY!
You & your fundie pals don't speak for all Christians, bucko! At least many Christians are nice, sane, modern people who actually try to follow Jesus' example!
7/26/2012 8:50:48 AM
The 'Kill the Gays Bill' cockroach talks of fascism...
7/28/2012 6:19:24 PM
"Gay fascism" is the best phrase I've ready today. The mental imagery makes me giggle.
7/29/2012 7:45:53 PM
Fundies Make Me Sick
Since it's Scott, I already know he's twisting, exaggerating and lying to try and prove a non-existent point and justify his own bigotry.
7/30/2012 8:50:08 AM
Silence christians? As if.
7/30/2012 12:03:26 PM
1 2 3