Does /lgbt/ support state and/or federal anti-discrimination laws?

>>8679273

Why force Billy Bob and Mary Sue to serve you when they hate you? I wouldn't want service from people who disagree with who I love. Never understood this one.

>>8679273
Those dykes should be bludgeoned to death. What insufferable fucking trash.

If properly formulated yes.

Truth is nobody wants more laws on the books, it just means more cost to the state. The state should keep out of people's private lives.

But it is true that there are parts of the country where gays are effectively outcasts or second class citizens and where discrimination must be redressed.

The Leviathan must keep religious savagries and other bigotries out of public and economic spheres.

>>8679288
Because if they refuse you can sue them and receive money.

A good strategy would be to call up every wedding service or store in your county, specifically mention you are gay, record the conversation and if they refuse call up your lawyer.

>>8679301
>But it is true that there are parts of the country where gays are effectively outcasts or second class citizens
Gotta love when spoiled Burgers always peddle this myth.
>waaah waah I grew up in the Bible Belt!
Which is pretty much a Gaytopia compared to Eastern Europe or Southern Italy.

It's hard to say

In a city, for instance, it wouldn't matter too much. There are a half dozen of pretty much any store you'd want

But let's say you live in a small, rural town. There might be only one place to buy groceries or whatever- discrimination in that case is a lot more important. Your only option would be to leave, and that's rarely easy or practical.

I would say yes, there should be anti-discrimination laws. If you're opening up a store, you're making an agreement to serve the public. That'll include people you don't like.

>>8679273
>Regarding sexual orientation, do you think store owners should be able to turn away gay people if they are Christian?

No. If you open a store "to the public" requiring, in most places, a permit to operate, then you need to be open to ALL of the public. If you don't like serving gays, blacks, whites, disabled, etc... you shouldn't be a public place. Simple as that.

>>8679313
Doesn't apply to PA because they don't have a state anti-discrimination law regarding sexual orientation.

Federally, people have tried to claim the Civil Rights Act covers gays but that argument has only worked in the 7th Circuit so far (Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin).

>>8679314
>Burgers
Gotta love people in other countries pretending they know how thinks are in yours better than you do.

Have you paid for your TV license yet? I hear if you don't pay they drag you out of your house and let the pakis gang rape you.

>>8679347
>everyone outside of Europe is British
Talk about being a retarded Burger.

test

>>8679324
This. It's not, at all, a difficult concept to grasp.

"BUTMUHFREEEDOMZ!!!"

Civic/govt education is severely lacking in this country... by design...

>>8679273
Unless it would be extend to political expression then no.

>>8679300
This, desu.

>>8679350
>everyone outside of Europe is British
>outside of Europe

The USA is not in Europe, genius.

>>8679369
Thank God it isn't.

>>8679374
>God
I think you mean Allah, friend.
You need to be careful. Slip-ups like that in public could lead to a stoning.

>>8679381
My country literally has less muslims than America.

>>8679394

But more refugees

>>8679402
Much less. Plus America is crammed to the brim with non-whites such as Jews, Niggers, Anglos and Mexicans.

>>8679407
Poland?

>>8679394
>My country literally has less muslims than America.
Gotta love when spoiled Eurotards always peddle this myth.
Your country is pretty much Mecca compared to Iceland or New Zealand or some other random place that has absolutely nothing to do with you and proves nothing in my retarded argument by it's comparison to you.

>>8679412
Hungary.

>>8679430
How many times have you visited america?

>>8679435
More than a dozen times. Family owns a house in Raleigh NC.

>>8679426
New Zealand unironically has more muslims than Hungary.

>>8679273
Yes and also if they are not christian and just don't want gays for their own reasons.

>>8679445
>hungary
>the third world shithole of europe known for

- getting stomped by turks
- getting cucked by austrians
- getting your entire 1000year homeland ripped to pieces because you cucked yourself with the austrian
- raging online about romanians all day long
- being a slightly less tepid communist shithole then all the other communist shitholes of the eastern bloc
- now known for being the EU's only dictatorship

>>8679582
>Hungarian murder rate 1.48
>American murder rate 4.48
Your cities are literally less safe than fucking Baghdad, you have no business calling anyone a shithole.

>>8679288
Have you taken US History before?

File: how to disembowel a nation in three easy steps.jpg (126KB, 588x436px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 588x436px

>>8679595
>g-g-guns!

between niggers and this, I'd take the niggers :^)

How does it feel knowing half your country is owned by gyppos btw?

>>8679273
Depends on the institution we are talking about. For hospitals I'd say yes, anything else, no.

>>8680158
Grocery stores? Pharmacies?

>>8680213
No and no, pharmacies and grocery stores won't cause you death in case they refuse service. I'm more concerned with small establishments being forced by the big bad government to serve someone they disagree with.

>>8679273
you know that if they weren't throwing their sexuality in the face of everyone we would not have this problem? I'm in favor of letting people turn away bitching faggots, trannies and dykes if they want to, I am truly tired of being thrown into the mud because of idiots like these just fucking act like a normal person

>>8679273
Why is there a required form to purchase a dress that will only be worn once?
Why even ask people to disclose the name of the person they're marrying?
What the fuck is the wedding cake and dress industry smoking?

>>8682727
>like just act normal lel
So it's not throwing it in your face when a straight couple gets married, but realizing that two people are gay makes it throwing it in someone's face. Great double standard my dude.

>>8679324
What if you open a store "to the straight couples"?

>>8679273

No, that's dumb. If you claim that you religiously believe certain types of people shouldn't exist, you shouldn't be protected by any freedom of speech or religion law. That's every bit as dumb as refusing to serve women because your religion sees them as inferior, or refusing to serve non-white people because the book of mormon said that all non-whites are sinners with stained skin.

lmao just go to another bridal shop

>>8683128
that's not what they're saying dipshit. they don't want to provide their services for an event they disagree with. would you force a black hotel owner to rent his ballroom out to a white supremacist rally?

>>8679273
>do you think store owners should be able to turn away gay people if they are Christian?
If they are fine with being refused service themselves (which we all know they wont), then I don't see why they should be forced.

>>8682842
no it is not, if it's a christian bride shop I see no reason why they should service some dykes, it's up to the owner to give or not give certain services and I see no reason for that to change even if it's discriminatory, the same way some gay bars don't admit women I don't see why some christian or conservative shop should give service to some dykes or flaming faggots if they do not want to

>>8683257
I agree about freedom of association, and you didn't respond to my point about how it's suddenly shoving it in someone's face just because you understand they exist. It's relevant in a bridal store to disclose your relationship in the same way that it's not shoving your fitness status in everyone's face to work out in a gym. Shitty double standard, probably because you don't like gays.

>>8683315
I think you misunderstood my complaint, that is not shoving it in peoples face but it is starting to rant like children even making the owner having to close the business just because they hurt their feelings because they are a huge faggot or dyke, it's their right to give or not service just as it is yours to choose one or another business, my point was not about a gay man or woman requesting a pie it was about how they have to make a whole spectacle just to ruin someone business because of their sexuality, this is shoving their sexuality in someone face, their privilege to complain endlessly and to even destroy business because someone rejected them and yes I like gays, I am a gay man and this was an ad hominem which has nothing to do with the actual debate, it's not about gays, it's about how some gays use their status to even bring business down and yes I'm going to stand with the business owner even if it's discriminatory against myself because the owners of the business are right

>>8683355
>it's their right to give or not service
No it isn't. They are open to the public. All of the public. They probably have a permit from the town/city/state to operate and that permit is based on serving anyone who comes into their store.

Otherwise where does it stop? Does a bar refuse to serve me because I'm an older white guy and they want a younger, hipper clientele?

>>8683520
well some gay bars only allow men and the same with some lesbian bars and nobody does the same that gays/lesbians/whatever of the long alphabet of the acronym that is now the LGBTQI and yes it is, it's their right as owners to choose who they want to serve and whom they want not to even if it is discriminatory if not why you can choose one or another shop? You are discriminating too why can you discriminate and them not? They offer a service to SOME people and if you fall into that group you will be welcome, the same for you, you choose certain business that support your group or that are neutral, and the same when a bunch of faggots star to boycott certain business or companies, why you can boycott them? that’s discriminatory too
tl;dr the owners of business are right and you are not, get over it and go to another shop

>>8683239
You cannot refuse Christians service due to the Civil Rights Act (religion is a protected class) but they can refuse you service if you are gay and there is no local or state anti-discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation. The odds are stacked in their favor.

>>8683574
>well some gay bars only allow men and the same with some lesbian bars
Got a citation or example for that? Based on your language, you seem to be straight so I doubt you've ever been near a gay bar.

You're just plain wrong.

>>8683776
I do not know why people keep on saying I'm straight, I am not just not the type of gay that goes to bars and such but well I am pretty sure that there are some bars that only allow some people in just as some apply a dress code, that would be discriminatory too other than this you have not made any counter-argument against the points I made

>>8683805
Dress codes are fine but discrimination by sex in a place open to the public is prohibited federally.

File: WhatIsThisShite.jpg (26KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 620x388px

>this thread again

The thing people don't understand about these cases is that it isn't about whether or not a bakery or a bridle shop has to serve LGBT customers, it's about the broader precedent of allowing a business, any business, to discriminate against people based on their sexuality or gender status. Not getting a cake made might not matter in the long run, but having a loan turned down because the bank manager doesn't like "queers" would have far more serious consequences, all because of the same legal standing. And before the last three people who still think Ron Paul "has a shot" explain to me that "the free market will", it won't if you have no other option, or the entire status quo has told you to sod off.

>>8683812
yeah (((federally))), we all know that, the matter is that business owners should have the right to discriminate just the same way you or me have the same right as clients

>>8683901
You let me know when you can run a restaurant that refuses to seat Christians or Blacks.

>>8679273
>do you think store owners should be able to turn away gay people if they are Christian?
Yes, as long as store owners are able to turn away christians.

>>8679314
Bible belt is a gaytopia
You need to shut the fuck up and quick.

>>8683926
Which is not possible under current federal law.

>>8683933
Just say your religion includes not serving christians.

>>8683901
>>8683926
>>8683942
This is why we need to stress history and critical thinking in primary schooling in the US.

>>8683833
This guy has a brain.

>>8683964
Not everyone here is an ameritard, you know.

>>8683973
Alright, fair. It still shows a lack of critical thinking skills if you can't figure out why it's a terrible idea to set a legal precedent that says "it's okay to discriminate against people I don't agree with in my public service business."

If I had a shop I would turn away lesbians too, can't blame them

>>8683917
with the actual legislation none, I am against that
>>8683964
I am not american so I did not go through the US shitty education, I'm european and I can assure you that the same way you can discriminate against business they should have that right too, before these ‘’protections’’ there were also gay, the bought in shops and nothing happened if they were declined service in one they went to another, nowadays truly we are hitting new lows people ruining business of another people because they choose not to give service to them, it their right as it’s your right to choose no to go to certain business

>>8683984
it's the same when you choose to not go to certain business or you should be forced to go to certain business because it’s discriminatory against them? let me expose you the following situation, if some crazy evangelicals against gay marriage said that they would donate thill the last penny to conversion therapy and you choose to not use their business but the government forced you to actually go there or either give reparations to them how would you feel?

>>8684005
What a ridiculous scenario. Businesses are not people and the government exists for the people, not for the businesses, contrary to what people believe. You'd have to completely change how our government works for this scenario to be possible. And of course, I'd feel terrible, because I live in a supposed democracy Of The People, For The People that's supposed to establish no creed nor religion.

>>8683355
In that case we don't really have anything we disagree on honestly. I share your opinion there.

>>8683747
Ergo they shouldn't whine about shit.

>>8683917
>>8683991
Yet banning men and running women-only things is never stopped.

>>8684854
business are owned by PEOPLE and operated by PEOPLE, sorry if you learn that now, and that scenario is what you are exactly proposing in basis of your right to not being discriminate, it would be theirs too
>>8684894
I'm glad we agree

>>8685121
Wrong.

Here's an old article that mentions a few cases.

https://fitnessmarketing.com/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-discrimination/

>>8685483
Another article:

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/this-movie-theater-wants-to-celebrate-women-by-violating-state-and-federal-law.html

>>8685510
Doesn't count unless the law was enforced.

>>8679273
I support anti-discrimination laws, but I realize it's not always practical to enforce unless someone actually admits that the reason for denying service is because of someone's orientation/race/etc. But what really bothers me is how attempts to repeal anti-discrimination laws are done in the name of "religious freedom". Calling it that is basically saying that one has the right to discriminate BECAUSE of their religious belief, i.e. basically implying that non-religious people would not have a right to discriminate in the same scenario. A right to discriminate either exists or it doesn't, but it shouldn't be conditional on the would-be discriminator's religious belief. And anti-discrimination laws are NOT a violation of one's religious freedom, any more than your boss not paying you enough to buy a gun is a violation of your Second Amendment rights. Religious freedom means you're permitted to practice your religion, and are not denied equal rights on the basis of your religion. When one enters business, they agree to follow the laws by which business is conducted in their country, which may include anti-discrimination laws. If they don't like those anti-discrimination laws, they're free to protest them, and vote against them in upcoming elections, but they're not allowed to ignore them just because their religion says they're immoral, that would be a violation of rule of law. If one is so devoutly religious that they cannot abide by the laws regarding a certain form of business, then they should find another line of work.

>>8682727
The image posted in the OP says otherwise. They were required to fill out a form with the names of the bride and groom. Even if one of the lesbians decided to be the "groom", it's not like them being a lesbian couple wouldn't be found out.

>>8679273
why do lesbians dress like men?

>>8682854
I believe that would depend on the terms you agree to when obtaining a business permit. If they don't offer that as an option, well, it's not really an option legally speaking.

>>8683188
I don't really see how that's comparable. White supremacist beliefs are literally "non-whites should be denied equal rights and/or forcibly removed from the country". Whereas gay marriage doesn't imply "Christians should be denied equal rights and/or forcibly removed from the country". And any hotel owner, black or not, would have a right to deny a ballroom to unwanted groups, because the ballroom is basically a platform to spread speech. A wedding dress really isn't equivalent, it would be like saying a black hotel owner has a right to deny even just an ordinary room for the night to someone who is a white supremacist.

>>8685124
>business are owned by PEOPLE and operated by PEOPLE, sorry if you learn that now, and that scenario is what you are exactly proposing in basis of your right to not being discriminate, it would be theirs too
Businesses are owned by people. But they're not sentient beings. Which means giving special rights to businesses would be giving business owners MORE rights than non-business owners. Which is obviously unfair.

>>8687174
because they have magically male brains.

>>8687192
it business owner's rights, not rights of the business but of the owner and no, it would not be giving them more rights, it would be equating rights, actually you can discriminate as a customer choosing one or another shop, business can't discriminate to whom they give service, as I said in >>8684005 it's the same

>>8679273
Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone, get over it commie fags.

It's called the first amendment, these dykes are violating the business owners religious freedom, and of course they target Christians even though Muslims would do the same.

Of course not. Christians shouldn't be allowed to be evil just because they scream if they can't.

>>8688011
It's against their religious beliefs, respect that and leave them alone, you don't go and harrass Muhammad, because he'll throw you off a building.

>>8688022
Having religious beliefs isn't acceptable, that's something only dog shit does.

>>8679273
They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.
I believe in freedom for the people, not freedom for the bourgeoisie.

>>8688550
the bourgeoisie are people, even more they are the people they maintain another people

>>8679273
If they have the right to discriminate because of their "sincerely held beliefs", then I have the right to turn away Christians, because those are my "sincerely held beliefs". And even if they aren't, have fun proving it.

You can't have the right to discriminate exist for just religious people, and that's not what freedom of religion means. Either it does or it doesn't.

>>8688817
I never said they aren't people. They have a right to exist as much as any other.
But we shouldn't chip at other's rights to exist for their benefit.

>>8689530

What about there right to religious freedom and refusing service on their private property?

Really makes you think

>>8689559
>muh private property
People's right to exist is more important than excluding them from services (that in theory could be vital).
It's one thing to say certain views and to rule with an ironfist in your home, but when it comes ot businesses you're actively impacting people's lives. It's better to strip the business owner's rights than the average person's rights.

>>8687979
That's not really equivalent, a business permit is a contract to serve the public, there is no such thing as a "customer license" where you're signing a contract to buy from certain businesses.

>>8688009
It's not a violation of religious freedom, they're still allowed to go to church and aren't subject to any additional legal restrictions for being Christian. They're just required to follow the same laws as everyone else.

>>8688022
>It's against their religious beliefs, respect that and leave them alone
Religious beliefs don't make you above the law.

>you don't go and harrass Muhammad, because he'll throw you off a building.
And neither do threats of violence.

>>8689559
Private property is anti-freedom. It serves no purpose other than granting certain people control over others' lives.

>>8689530
>>8689577
>other's rights to exist
is a cake or a wedding dress vital to exist? as I said it’s their right to refuse you service as it yours to choose one or another shop

>>8689593
>Private property is anti-freedom. It serves no purpose other than granting certain people control over others' lives.
Let me guess, you make an exception for your own belongings.

>>8679273
The butch is super thicc.

I wish I had curves like that to the point I can't wear male clothing without looking weird.

As for your question, I'm not american I really don't think it's my place to tell which laws you guys should have though I also believe two consenting adults should be able to marry or whatever if they so desire.

Let's be honest here, they aren't really doing anything wrong if they want to fug each other and live together, no matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual.

>>8679314
>southern italy hates gays
Wut
I'm from southern Italy. I'm openly gay. No one has ever given me shit for being gay. At all. You've no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>8689606
If the cake is the only food available, then sure. In general it's not vital, but most of the "religious freedom" laws are setting a dangerous precedent. LGBT people are already suffering from discrimination in housing and employment, I see no reason to move in a direction that would make that problem worse.

>>8689615
Personal property is not the same thing as private property.

>>8689606
So should certain businesses not have the 'right' to discriminate for whatever is considered vital? The point is that if you enact a law that allows discrimination, it could easily happen in other, more vital services such as housing for example.
>>8689615
Learn the difference between private and personal property.

>>8689695
>>8689712
depends on what you consider vital and how accessible it is, come on why would you want to use your money in a shop owned by a bunch an evangelical psychos? You don’t like them and they don’t like you, they should have the right to deny you service if they feel like it, a cake or a wedding dress are not vital and if cakes were the only food left there would be plenty of other stores that would sell it as I said before, should the government be able to force you to go to certain stores? Even if they would give thill the last penny to conversion therapy?

>>8690061
Again, it's not "about cakes", but I am going to be opposed to any legal policy that makes it easier to justify discriminating against LGBT people - cakes may not be a big deal, but the same policies could be applied to housing, medical care, and so on.

>>8690061
>should the government be able to force you to go to certain stores
No, because that would be equivalent to saying I am legally obligated to spend money. Nobody is legally obligated to spend money, OR to run a business. But if you spend money or run a business, you must do so in compliance with respective laws. Arresting business owners for illegal discrimination is no less ethical than arresting private citizens for buying illegal goods.

>>8679273
I can't believe in anti-discrimination laws and kicking women out of gay clubs.