0
Lefty

Businesses banning AZ legislators for their anti-homosexual stance

Recommended Posts

quade

You've made no "move." You've just made a silly hypothetical.



Why is it silly? The bakery owners' actions are no more or less "satirical" than the actions of the bar owner. Are you going to defend the bakery's actions and bans the same way you have done for the gay bar? If not, why not?
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lefty

***Are you saying your original post was itself satire?

If so I think I can probably help you write better stuff.



Aaaaand I have no idea what you're talking about now. Did the second clicky not work for you?

In any case, a better example of satire or irony would involve the pizzeria or the bar offering all legislators who support the bill free jumbo sausages in fresh, hot buns or something along those lines. That would at least avoid giving the appearance of lowering themselves to the level of bigotry they're opposing.

Would those be Jonah Falcon sized sausages???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A lot of people loved to bash Tebow on the football field for his Christian beliefs. But those same people now say its wrong to bash Sam for being a gay football player.

Both sides are equally wrong.

If you participate in one form of hate, you have no business criticizing other people for other forms of hate. That's hypocrisy.



If you think thats the way the two cases are treated, that christian players have a harder time than gay players, then frankly you're insane.

If Michael Sam plays every game with Boy George lyrics painted on his face, dances the YMCA every time he goes on the field, talks incessently in every interview he ever gives about just how damn much he likes having sex with men and no-one takes the piss out of him for it... then you might have a point.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lefty

***It's satire. It's not as obvious as your example, but it's is in fact satire by the owner.



Since you won't just come out and say it, I'll assume you're referring to the fact that the establishment is a "gay" bar. So the legislators are unlikely to visit in the first place. Is that correct?

You do realize, that if you removed all the gay congressional GOP staffers from DC, the GOP would be decimated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

You do realize, that if you removed all the gay congressional GOP staffers from DC, the GOP would be decimated.



Yeah, that's another thing that surprised me about quade's irony argument. How many times a day on these forums are GOP politicians called (correctly, in some cases) closet homosexuals? That gay bar probably had to tear up their rewards cards. Shrug.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're complaining about the name-calling, well, that happens to both liberals and republicans; if you're liberal, the name-calling of liberals is more offensive, vice-versa if you're republican.

All those people calling Obama a liar and/or stupid are no more correct than the ones calling all conservatives evil or gay.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

If you're complaining about the name-calling, well, that happens to both liberals and republicans; if you're liberal, the name-calling of liberals is more offensive, vice-versa if you're republican.

All those people calling Obama a liar and/or stupid are no more correct than the ones calling all conservatives evil or gay.

Wendy P.



I'm a bit too jaded to complain about trifles like that. You're correct, though.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Flip that around. The owners of a Christian bakery want to attract others like them to a place they can feel comfortable and do business based on shared values. They post a sign saying "No homosexual couples allowed" because that demographic does not comport with the beliefs of the owners and their clientele.

Would you still laugh it off as satire? Would society? Will it be considered just a joke to be shared by anyone who reads the sign?



Where's the context? Neither the gay bar nor the hypothetical bakery exist in insulated bubbles cut off from the rest of society. The gay bar is satirising an attempt to legalise discrimination against gays. What is the bakery satirising? What is the joke?

Even your own metaphor suggests they are simply pandering to the bigotry of their patrons rather than attempting to make any kind of political statement.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Flip that around. The owners of a Christian bakery want to attract others like them to a place they can feel comfortable and do business based on shared values. They post a sign saying "No homosexual couples allowed" because that demographic does not comport with the beliefs of the owners and their clientele.

Would you still laugh it off as satire? Would society? Will it be considered just a joke to be shared by anyone who reads the sign?

I'm guessing not. How is one better than the other?




I would laugh at it just the same if the tables were truly all the way turned and it was the homosexuals who first made the ban against christian patrons. In that case it's apples to apples and I would laugh just like I laughed at the case in the OP.

At the end of the day, one is not better than the other, so how about everybody stop trying to make laws that limit any other groups to the same rights/services/etc as other groups and we'll all be fine, MmmmK?
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boogers

Yep, two wrongs don't make a right.

Different people have different hates. They think their hates are okay, and other people's hates are wrong.

A lot of people loved to bash Tebow on the football field for his Christian beliefs. But those same people now say its wrong to bash Sam for being a gay football player.

Both sides are equally wrong.

If you participate in one form of hate, you have no business criticizing other people for other forms of hate. That's hypocrisy.



Tebow did more than simply "out" himself publicly as a devout Christian - which is all that Sam did: he outed himself; nothing less, but nothing more. Tebow went out of his way to make photogenic displays of it while on the game field ; and anyone who buys that he wasn't trying to make a public display of it is naive indeed. People weren't bashing his devout faith; they were bashing his making a BFD about it while the cameras were rolling. He sought public view, and thus invited public reaction. By contrast, I rather doubt that Sam is going to do "gay stuff" on the field. :| Everyone knows that's the figure skaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take flak for this, but here it is:

I have no issue with businesses choosing who they will and will not serve. It can be based on politics, religion, roll of the dice...I don't care. I think it is self-correcting in the long run.

I think it will all work out if the government doesn't get involved and screw it up.

I am not gay. I support the right of a business to choose not to serve someone who is gay. I will not support their business. I'll go to the business next door. (I need the gay sales associate to tell me what shirt goes with what pants :D)

Just because I support the business owner's right to do it does not mean I support their view on the matter. I don't. I will vote with my pocketbook. They will not get my business. I think, if more people did that, we would have less animosity and those people with the anger / hate / prejudice / whatever issues, will come around in time.

Trying to change people by law or butting heads just makes them dig in and feel smug about their moral superiority. Worse, the more militant lot on the 'do the right thing' side may force fence sitters over into the bigot camp.

I think businesses that will not take someone's money for personal reasons will fall by the wayside. The businesses that recognize all (US) money is green will survive.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think businesses that will not take someone's money for personal reasons will fall by the wayside.

Depends on the society in which they exist. All those businesses that wouldn't serve African Americans in the 1960's had no problems. And businesses that made them uncomfortable (definitely happened into the 1980's in Houston at least) didn't seem to have any trouble, either.

Eventually, yes, but is 20 years a reasonable amount of time to wait? And that was with the pressure of law.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

I'll take flak for this, but here it is:

I have no issue with businesses choosing who they will and will not serve. It can be based on politics, religion, roll of the dice...I don't care. I think it is self-correcting in the long run.

I think it will all work out if the government doesn't get involved and screw it up.

I am not gay. I support the right of a business to choose not to serve someone who is gay. I will not support their business. I'll go to the business next door. (I need the gay sales associate to tell me what shirt goes with what pants :D)

Just because I support the business owner's right to do it does not mean I support their view on the matter. I don't. I will vote with my pocketbook. They will not get my business. I think, if more people did that, we would have less animosity and those people with the anger / hate / prejudice / whatever issues, will come around in time.

Trying to change people by law or butting heads just makes them dig in and feel smug about their moral superiority. Worse, the more militant lot on the 'do the right thing' side may force fence sitters over into the bigot camp.

I think businesses that will not take someone's money for personal reasons will fall by the wayside. The businesses that recognize all (US) money is green will survive.



For what it's worth, I agree with you. The only question is if society is ready for our brand of egalitarian policy.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boogers

Yep, two wrongs don't make a right.
...



That's true, but pretending your free speech won't have consequences or thinking that having to deal with them in some what violates your rights is disingenuous, or perhaps stupid. Depends on whether or not you actually think you can say anything you you want without any consequences.

Fact of the matter is this law is an embarrassment, thinly veiled bigotry masquerading as standing up for business owners' rights. The fact that it made it as far as it did is an embarrassment not only to Arizona but to the entire United States of America. It most likely would have (and possibly still may) cost the state jobs. Businesses taking a bold position for or against it will also have to deal with the consequences of their speech. Whether those consequences include them gaining or losing customers or nothing at all remains to be seen.
I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your point. I agree with your point. I just have a problem with government forcing people to one viewpoint. What happens when that viewpoint is wrong (or just chages and we declare the old viewpoint wrong)? At one point, the view that slavery was perfectly moral was popular and enforced by law. What will the prevailing viewpoint be tomorrow? I just don't want to tell anyone how to live their lives because I don't want them telling me one day when they are the majority.

Today, we force businesses to serve people of various sexual preferences. Tomorrow, we require that sex instructors teach children various types of sex so they can make an informed decision on their sexuality. Or, maybe there is a backlash and we go back to a religiously oppressive society. Applying pressure to human beings can be like heat to a chemical reaction. It accelerates the reaction. But is it the reaction you intended?

That's my other concern. The backlash. Government being the inefficient thing that it is, it tends to leave laws and programs in effect long after they were useful. If government forces an issue today to hurry it along, what is the backlash? Is Affirmative Action creating a backlash today because it reached its goal and kept going?

I think the prejudices against homosexuals will die a natural death...not quick enough, but inexorably. I think it is evolutionary. I think it is clearly happening. I think it is better for everyone. I just think government intervention in that evolution can go horribly wrong. History has witnessed it too many times.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not forcing to a viewpoint, they're enforcing behavior. There's a big difference.

My father said that during the early days of civil rights demonstrations and marches, he talked with the occasional student (he was a college professor), and thought that they were trying to do things too quickly, that it would eventually happen anyway.

40 years later, he said that his opinion of the time was wrong, that he didn't really consider how many people's rights were being trampled by the status quo.

There are fewer gays than blacks, so the impact of discrimination isn't as large. Dunno; I'm not that interested in teaching sexual positions to children either. But I do know that black people in America still get the hairy eyeball in stores more often than do others; that when young white guys dress like hoods, people think they're idiots, but when young black guys dress like hoods, people think they're criminals. Etc.

Maybe our talking about this is just as one-sided as men having long, drawn-out debates about abortion. We're not directly impacted.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find your father's information very interesting. I may very well be wrong here. I just so rarely see government involvement being helpful.

I think the veto of the law was a good thing. Just not for the same reasons as others. The law should have never been proposed in the first place.

I also don't want government defining marriage, family values, etc. Just leave people alone. They'll work it out.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first one is funny and satire. It's also not a specific ban.

The second is technically discriminatory but it's not like they'd have to enforce it Sort of like if a bacon restaurant decided to ban members of the Taliban.

I believe a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, Most do and will just choose to do so after the fact: customer causing a scene, threats, violence, person too drunk, etc.

As stated in the other thread, much prefer government using economic policies to modify behaviors instead of outright bans and requirements.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

There are fewer gays than blacks, so the impact of discrimination isn't as large. Dunno; I'm not that interested in teaching sexual positions to children either. But I do know that black people in America still get the hairy eyeball in stores more often than do others; that when young white guys dress like hoods, people think they're idiots, but when young black guys dress like hoods, people think they're criminals. Etc.



True there are fewer, but they are more vocal, diverse, and better funded and organised. They also don't have as far to go.

As for the eyeball, that is mostly a socioeconomic issue, not race related.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

******A lot of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are mentally incapable of understanding subtext and satire. They believe literally everything they hear. I'd estimate that upwards of 30% of the population of the US suffers from this inability to see anything other than that which is shown on the surface.

If you don't believe me, write some satire, hop up on a stage during on open mic night and do your own experiments.

This is the problem with Rush Limbaugh. Not that he's a clown, but that people do not realize he's a clown.



Does that affliction only affect conservatives?

Certainly seemed like it when Steven Colbert was booked at the National Press Club.

But in reality, no. As I said, I believe it afflicts upwards of 30% of the population; all of it. It's just Rush Limbaugh is carried on far more radio stations across the country than any equivalent, strictly left wing clown and therefore more people of the US are taken in by his nonsense.

And how many liberals are taken in by the frequent mass media press clips of Obama every day? 30%, by your number. And those are probably viewed by far more people than those who choose to tune their radio dial to Rush during their commutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to affirm my 'libertarianness' :)
Last night, I saw a bit on the net about a gay hairstylist who refused to cut the hair of a politician who supported some kind of gay suppression legislation (not sure what it was). My instant response was, "Good for him".

I support the businesses who don't want to serve people they have an issue with...no matter which side of the political spectrum.

I support your freedom of speech...even when you are speaking against my right to keep and bear arms, have an issue with someone's freedom of religion, etc.

I support anyone doing what they want so long as they aren't hurting or will not likely hurt someone else by doing it.

It was once phrased, "Live and let live". It was considered liberal in the 60s. Today, it's considered conservative? The spectrum seems to have shifted.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I support the businesses who don't want to serve people they have an issue with...no matter which side of the political spectrum.



Quote

support anyone doing what they want so long as they aren't hurting or will not likely hurt someone else by doing it.



These two statements contradict eachother somewhat. Unless you purely mean based on the political spectrum. Conservatives or liberals not welcome here kind of thing.

When you tell somebody they are too gay to get a cup of coffee in their cafe. Or, I will only serve you if you sit at this indentified counter, means you are hurting someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0