Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 12/1/2022 at 5:29 PM, I_M4_AU said:

 I don’t believe they have a right to force their ideology on anyone, just as I don’t have a right to force mine on there’s.

 

Do you think Gays advocating or demanding equal treatment under the law as citizens is "forcing their ideology" on other people?

Edited December 3, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

50 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I dont understand why this is an issue.

Would it be okay if instead of being gay he was black?

We are in the 2020s. I thought we would be past discriminating against humans for things they cant change like race, sexuality, etc. 

As for the no shoes no shirt no service, those are things that are a choice. People dont choose to be gay, just like people dont choose their skin color.

As for the religious argument, Jesus sought out the discriminated people to provide compassion. The people using Christianity as a reason for discrimination are completely missing lessons Jesus was preaching. Jesus was preaching love, respect, forgiveness. Not condemnation, hate, or discrimination. 

When religion is tied to governmental handouts there is a fear (whether true or not) with this law, as it is worded, the Republicans are concerned the government can withhold support if say a church does not teach or accept same sex marriage due to their beliefs.

A lot of churches have accepted the language of the act, but not all.  For the most part this is not an issue, but we will see going forward.

[Leftfield 2,593]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The examples of the grocery store, gas station or even the doctor do not hold a lot of concern as most of these entities are corporately owned and those corporations have policies that already exist about discrimination.  If you are talking about mom and pop stores, such as the Denver baker, that cause has been taken up and, I am sure, will be taken up again.  I am sure this law will embolden people to speak up whether the harm is egregious or not.

What you seem to be saying here is that this really isn't an issue because the major corporations aren't discriminating, so there should be room for smaller businesses to discriminate because there is plenty of choice. Do you have some idea how ridiculous that sounds? I don't think you would be this dismissive if you came across a store that wouldn't serve you because you believe in Jesus. This did take place in an area with other options, but there are still plenty of places in the US where that would not be the case.

As you yourself quoted, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing." Good and evil are often subjective. In this case the gay couple saw what they considered to be an evil. Would you expect them to do nothing?

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

There was a conversation on another thread (and I don’t know where) about a town in Alabama (in the Sand Mountain region) that were discriminating against people and all the locals knew it and so did the ones being discriminated against even with the Equal Protection Clause.  Would it be prudent for someone to go into that town and create a law suit involving these businesses?  

Not sure what you mean by "prudent," but perhaps it's a sign that many on the left aren't as aggressive in forcing their worldview on others as you usually argue? If no one is complaining about it, then perhaps the majority are taking the "live and let live" approach and letting society evolve a bit at its own pace. If you force something on someone, they are far less likely to acquiesce than they would by gradually accepting it on their own terms. Think I've shared this before, but one of my favorite movie quotes was about history taking too long, and the response was agreement, but "it's never kind to those who try to hurry it."

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Can the law pin down every instance of discrimination and should it?

Of course it can't, at least without a massive application of time and money. Should it? That's a tough call. I would argue not, mainly because of what I mentioned above about people coming to acceptance on their own terms. If you put a 24/7 focus on stamping it out and it's all we ever hear about, likely more harm than good would be done for the cause. However, if someone starts a lawsuit, of course it has to be addressed.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The law is for everyone, but everyone doesn’t always follow the law.  

Certainly, as the number of speeders in the world can attest to. That doesn't mean that some instances can't or shouldn't be adjucated. 

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

To be clear; I am not against the Marriage Act, but I am concerned about how this law, as written, will effect religious freedom with regard to governmental oversight.

I can certainly understand that. To be honest, I need to read through it and see what protections it offers for religious freedom. Though I am no longer religious, I have no desire to infringe upon it. However, I think the fact that this country has been majority Christian for so long has led to too much of an ingrained bias. We cite the fact that this nation was founded with religious freedom as one of its bedrocks, but when one religion dominates for so long it lends itself to a false sense of open-mindedness about views outside of its teachings. I don't even think it's done out of malice, at least in the majority of cases, it's simply a matter of minds not being able to accept what's been taught to them for so long. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

1 hour ago, arein0 said:

As for the no shoes no shirt no service, those are things that are a choice. 

These can also be seen as a public health issue due to hygiene and sanitation reasons. I can't imagine this hasn't come up in the courts at some point, but even if not it would be much easier to show them as an infringement on others' rights.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you think Gays advocating or demanding equal treatment under the law as citizens is "forcing their ideology" on other people?

Your typical *out of context remark*.  The paragraph above was talking about the LGBTQ+efeif   Coalition and that is who is forcing ideologies.  I’m sure you don’t believe you don’t believe the Coalition is as powerful as it is or that they don’t talk for all gay people.

The Coalition has done some good things, but have also have been very anti religion.  See Chick filament, Hobby Lobby and others.

[Leftfield 2,593]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

See Chick filament....

Chick-fil-a-mint should absolutely be their counter to the Shamrock Shake.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Chick-fil-a-mint should absolutely be their counter to the Shamrock Shake.

Got me on the autocorrect., but yes, I haven’t had one and it sounds horrible 

[Leftfield 2,593]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When religion is tied to governmental handouts there is a fear (whether true or not) with this law, as it is worded, the Republicans are concerned the government can withhold support if say a church does not teach or accept same sex marriage due to their beliefs.

I can understand that fear, and yes we would need to see the arguments should the government do that, but I think the key point would be whether that particular church were teaching to actively discriminate. I don't believe they should be forced to teach acceptance in terms of their beliefs, how they practice their private lives, or who they must associate with, but if that religion is teaching them to treat another as less than human because of it, that crosses a line.

[Leftfield 2,593]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Got me on the autocorrect., but yes, I haven’t had one and it sounds horrible 

Sorry, wasn't meant to be a spelling jab. I knew it was an auto-correct thing. Just got a kick out of it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

See Chick filament, Hobby Lobby and others.

Those are religions? 

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

13 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Not sure what you mean by "prudent," but perhaps it's a sign that many on the left aren't as aggressive in forcing their worldview on others as you usually argue? If no one is complaining about it, then perhaps the majority are taking the "live and let live" approach and letting society evolve a bit at its own pace. If you force something on someone, they are far less likely to acquiesce than they would by gradually accepting it on their own terms. Think I've shared this before, but one of my favorite movie quotes was about history taking too long, and the response was agreement, but "it's never kind to those who try to hurry it."

Basically my whole point.  I can see going after the low hanging fruit, but going higher in the tree seems counter productive.  

21 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I don't think you would be this dismissive if you came across a store that wouldn't serve you because you believe in Jesus.

I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all, of course I have not lived my life as a victim of any perceived oppression. 

29 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Of course it can't, at least without a massive application of time and money. Should it? That's a tough call. I would argue not, mainly because of what I mentioned above about people coming to acceptance on their own terms. If you put a 24/7 focus on stamping it out and it's all we ever hear about, likely more harm than good would be done for the cause. However, if someone starts a lawsuit, of course it has to be addressed.

We’re close here.  The only issue is why to bring a law suit if the *damage* is hard to see.

 

32 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I don't even think it's done out of malice, at least in the majority of cases, it's simply a matter of minds not being able to accept what's been taught to them for so long. 

To put it another way; it is more about the different interpretations than what you have been taught.  Sometimes it is difficult to accept the words on a page can be perceived differently.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

34 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I can understand that fear, and yes we would need to see the arguments should the government do that, but I think the key point would be whether that particular church were teaching to actively discriminate. I don't believe they should be forced to teach acceptance in terms of their beliefs, how they practice their private lives, or who they must associate with, but if that religion is teaching them to treat another as less than human because of it, that crosses a line.

Intent is key.  It would be difficult to distinguish between teachings and how the parishioners accept the teachings.  I hope for the best.

[Leftfield 2,593]

38 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all, of course I have not lived my life as a victim of any perceived oppression. 

This is the only part of your post I really disagree with. This is fairly easy for you to say because I doubt you've ever been discriminated against, at least routinely, and particularly for who you are. My example about you being denied service due to your religion would be discrimination against something you choose. I would point out that evidence on some of your posts refutes this, because this is not the first thread where you've complained about attacks on religion. 

A mindset can change quite a bit when subjected to constant pressure. Certainly there are people out there making plenty of noise about issues such as this, and many times they may be jumping at shadows, but I'm not going to completely condemn them because I have no idea what it feels like to be routinely ridiculed/insulted/berated for who I am.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Leftfield

[homersapien 11,362]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Your typical *out of context remark*.  The paragraph above was talking about the LGBTQ+efeif   Coalition and that is who is forcing ideologies.  I’m sure you don’t believe you don’t believe the Coalition is as powerful as it is or that they don’t talk for all gay people.

The Coalition has done some good things, but have also have been very anti religion.  See Chick filament, Hobby Lobby and others.

You're the one who implied they were "forcing their ideology" while discussing basic civil rights.

Own it.

Edited December 3, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

35 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This is the only part of your post I really disagree with. This is fairly easy for you to say because I doubt you've ever been discriminated against, at least routinely, and particularly for who you are

Back when I was trying to start my career, the fastest way was to be in the military and have them teach me how to fly.  The military had a restriction of 20/20 uncorrected vision to be able to fly.  Through no fault of my own, I didn’t have that requirement.

There was an alternate way, so I paid for my lessons and took some menial work to get experience.  Throughout the journey I was constantly told airlines don’t hire you unless you have 20/20 uncorrected vision.  In the aviation community I was considered a second class pilot.  Undaunted, I got my ratings, experience and found a regional airline that would accept pilot applications from pilots that did not have 20/20 uncorrected vision as long it was correctable.

I felt I was being discriminated against, but never thought of suing for *damages* as it would be the wrong way to get into the industry I wanted to be in so badly.

Long story short, I was a commercial airline pilot for 34 years, 31 of those years as captain.  Once I was hired the feeling of discrimination ceased. I never considered myself as a victim.

Today the 20/20 uncorrected vision is not a requirement for commercial airlines.

American Airlines Pilot Job Requirements:

• Minimum age of 23.
• Ability to learn and work with PEDs.
• Fluently speak and understand English.
• Must have the right to work in the United States.
• Distance vision corrected to 20/20 and near vision corrected to 20/40 or better in each eye

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

A mindset can change quite a bit when subjected to constant pressure.

Yes, it can.

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I'm not going to completely condemn them because I have no idea what it feels like to be routinely ridiculed/insulted/berated for who I am.

I kind of do know what it feels like.  I do not completely condemn their actions if they were really *damaged*.  Suing just because you can is a different story.

[Leftfield 2,593]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Back when I was trying to start my career, the fastest way was to be in the military and have them teach me how to fly.  The military had a restriction of 20/20 uncorrected vision to be able to fly.  Through no fault of my own, I didn’t have that requirement.

There was an alternate way, so I paid for my lessons and took some menial work to get experience.  Throughout the journey I was constantly told airlines don’t hire you unless you have 20/20 uncorrected vision.  In the aviation community I was considered a second class pilot.  Undaunted, I got my ratings, experience and found a regional airline that would accept pilot applications from pilots that did not have 20/20 uncorrected vision as long it was correctable.

I felt I was being discriminated against, but never thought of suing for *damages* as it would be the wrong way to get into the industry I wanted to be in so badly.

Long story short, I was a commercial airline pilot for 34 years, 31 of those years as captain.  Once I was hired the feeling of discrimination ceased. I never considered myself as a victim.

Today the 20/20 uncorrected vision is not a requirement for commercial airlines.

It stuns me that this is anywhere close to similar in your mind.

First and foremost, you're talking about an issue that the military and airlines considered to be a matter of safety. Whether they were correct in their assessments can surely be debated, but there may have been very legitimate reasons for the exclusion of vision correction. Certainly in the case of the military there would have been issues with glasses or the like interfering with other equipment.

Secondly, they very fact that vision can be corrected sets your situation apart from what we're talking about, as homosexuality cannot be "corrected".

Additionally, your situation proves that society in general evolves toward inclusion. If society can find a way to allow people to do things they haven't traditionally been able/allowed to do, usually it will.

I truly am glad that you were able to find a way to do what you loved, but these situations are not remotely the same.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

18 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

It stuns me that this is anywhere close to similar in your mind.

Of course you don’t.

18 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

First and foremost, you're talking about an issue that the military and airlines considered to be a matter of safety. Whether they were correct in their assessments can surely be debated, but there may have been very legitimate reasons for the exclusion of vision correction. Certainly in the case of the military there would have been issues with glasses or the like interfering with other equipment.

In the case of the military, I agree.  The airlines have always adapted the way the military did things, well because, *that’s the way we’ve always done it*.  The commercial airlines are not as critical on acquiring the enemy trying to shoot you down, in fact the airspace is so regulated and controlled (air traffic controllers) you are seldom without a watchful eye keeping you straight.

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Secondly, they very fact that vision can be corrected sets your situation apart from what we're talking about, as homosexuality cannot be "corrected"

You must have missed the part where I mentioned at the time of me trying to get on with the airlines, the major ones did NOT accept any pilot application that did not have 20/20 uncorrected.  The fact that they do now should tell you they have evolved.  Therefore, as far as the major airlines were concerned, I was persona non grata, a non person or discriminated against.  There was no way, at the time, to correct my situation that was approved by the FAA Medical.

 

31 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Additionally, your situation proves that society in general evolves toward inclusion. If society can find a way to allow people to do things they haven't traditionally been able/allowed to do, usually it will.

Exactly, at the time there was no coalition to help my situation so I took the bull by the horns.  Back in the day if you were not hired by the time you reached 32, you turned into a pumpkin.  I was hired when I was 31.  Again, this too evolved.  Your statement can also be applied to the present situation and let it naturally evolve, but no, we need it now.

37 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I truly am glad that you were able to find a way to do what you loved, but these situations are not remotely the same.

Good, I am too.  So is the situations not being remotely the same due to the fact I succeeded or because you have never experienced this type of discrimination?

[Leftfield 2,593]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You must have missed the part where I mentioned at the time of me trying to get on with the airlines, the major ones did NOT accept any pilot application that did not have 20/20 uncorrected.  The fact that they do now should tell you they have evolved.  Therefore, as far as the major airlines were concerned, I was persona non grata, a non person or discriminated against.  There was no way, at the time, to correct my situation that was approved by the FAA Medical.

Didn't miss it. I pointed out that the validity of their position on the level of vision required could certainly be debated, but there were obvious safety reasons for having a certain level of vision as a requirement. You wouldn't let a blind person get a pilot's license today, but the technology may exist in the future where they can.

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Exactly, at the time there was no coalition to help my situation so I took the bull by the horns.  Back in the day if you were not hired by the time you reached 32, you turned into a pumpkin.  I was hired when I was 31.  Again, this too evolved.  Your statement can also be applied to the present situation and let it naturally evolve, but no, we need it now.

So because you handled the situation differently, everyone else should? Why didn't you challenge the requirement?

I said it would be a mistake to loudly hammer on every situation or there is a risk of inducing apathy, which could be detrimental. I never said no one should challenge the status quo. That would be absurd. Without challenges change would be excruciatingly slow. 

 

22 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So is the situations not being remotely the same due to the fact I succeeded or because you have never experienced this type of discrimination?

I pointed out the reasons the situations aren't the same, but I'll freely admit I've never experienced the type of discrimination that gay people have.

I'll add, though, that they also aren't similar because you're talking about technical qualifications for a job, rather than a civil rights issue. Obviously homosexuality can't be used as a form of discrimination by employers, but vision can because that's equally applied regardless of gender/race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Didn't miss it. I pointed out that the validity of their position on the level of vision required could certainly be debated, but there were obvious safety reasons for having a certain level of vision as a requirement. You wouldn't let a blind person get a pilot's license today, but the technology may exist in the future where they can.

Ultimately there was no safety reason for requiring 20/20 uncorrected vision ever to fly for a commercial airline as proven by not being stipulated today.  Major airlines back in the 70’s required this to filter application and nothing more.  The FAA’s only requirement was corrected to 20/20.  Regional airlines, at the time, had restrictions of 20/50 or better corrected to 20/20, so please tell me how major airlines could legally require 20/20.  

That’s the whole point is that it was a totally arbitrary requirement. They have corrected that policy.  It was the same with age.  Not hiring someone who has reached their 32nd birthday was also arbitrary.  Now it would be age discrimination.  That one was resolved around 1985 after Braniff went under.  The government required airline hiring to hire ex-Braniff pilots if the airline was hiring.  Interesting how that works.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

So because you handled the situation differently, everyone else should? Why didn't you challenge the requirement?

As I stated earlier; I didn’t want to get into the industry that way.  I was going to take my shot and see what would happen.  Different times.  My point of mentioning handling it differently was to point out not everything rises to the level of suing because you are butt hurt.  There are ways to get want you want.  All you have to do is go to another baker.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Without challenges change would be excruciatingly slow. 

That’s what aviation is all about.  The official retirement age was 60 yo as when that was instituted the jet had just been introduced and older pilots were having a difficult time adjusting.  That restriction stayed until recently.  In December of 2007 it was raised to 65 and it was driven by massive retirements more that any other factor.

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I'll add, though, that they also aren't similar because you're talking about technical qualifications for a job, rather than a civil rights issue.

I was talking about arbitrary restrictions for qualification which is discriminatory.  They are not allowed today basically proving they were discriminatory back in the 70’s

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Obviously homosexuality can't be used as a form of discrimination by employers, but vision can because that's equally applied regardless of gender/race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality.

It is now, but not back in the day when I was trying to get on with the airlines because it was an arbitrary restriction.  

Again, I have never felt I was a victim, therefore, there was no need to press the arbitrary restrictions at that time.

 

[Leftfield 2,593]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

As I stated earlier; I didn’t want to get into the industry that way.  I was going to take my shot and see what would happen.  Different times.  My point of mentioning handling it differently was to point out not everything rises to the level of suing because you are butt hurt.  There are ways to get want you want.  All you have to do is go to another baker.

So, before I misrepresent your position, please clarify: is it your position that the gay couple should not have sued because they had the option of another bakery?

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So, before I misrepresent your position, please clarify: is it your position that the gay couple should not have sued because they had the option of another bakery?

Could have gone to another baker, they did what they did. 

[arein0 950]

The first step to change is recognition of the problem. If everyone is silent about a problem, you have no chance of having a change since no one will see it as a problem. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Could have gone to another baker, they did what they did. 

Because they were "butt hurt," right?

Just like those irritating black people who could have gone to another restaurant when one wouldn't serve them. I mean, why be jerks about it? Society was going to change. Couldn't they have just waited?

The fact you would describe someone being denied their civil rights as just being "butt hurt" is astounding. It shows complete apathy and lack of understanding.

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Because they were "butt hurt," right?

Just like those irritating black people who could have gone to another restaurant when one wouldn't serve them. I mean, why be jerks about it? Society was going to change. Couldn't they have just waited?

The fact you would describe someone being denied their civil rights as just being "butt hurt" is astounding. It shows complete apathy and lack of understanding.

Maybe you could explain the damage incurred by this couple for not having a cake baked by this baker.  Have they healed?  What was their end game for suing?

A racist act by a restaurant owner is somewhat self explanatory.  I can’t believe you are trying to compare the two.

[Leftfield 2,593]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Maybe you could explain the damage incurred by this couple for not having a cake baked by this baker.  Have they healed?  What was their end game for suing?

A racist act by a restaurant owner is somewhat self explanatory.  I can’t believe you are trying to compare the two.

Please tell me the difference between discrimination of a gay couple compared to a black couple?