Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Gov Kodos]

State and local govt. perhaps but not the feds.

So state and local politicians should take their precious, limited time as well as spend state and local tax dollars to stand in the way of two adult, consenting people having a relationship?

Saying the feds have no right or place to do something but that those lower on the rungs do doesn't make it any more correct or morally right, especially when we're talking about the private relationships of consenting adults.

Government on ANY level has no right to say what two grown adults do with one another so long as someone isn't being hurt or killed.

The state and local governments don't get to trump the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Bigots do love the states rights argument, don't they?

 

[cooleddie74]

States' rights has been the excuse for a whole lot of bigotry, misery and even death in the long history of this nation.

625,000 men died because of states' rights in just a four-year timespan.

But I digress.

 

[Balrog]

I'm not saying it should. But it should let people treat each other the way they want.

I'm not saying that the govt. should have something like "whites only" water fountains and restrooms. That would be the govt. using govt. power and authority to further a racial belief or agenda.

At the same time, the govt. should not have the power to tell a small business owner, "you have to consider black and female applicants"

So, and just to be clear - You don't want Govt. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. But if a private business owner or company wants a "Whites Only" policy or something similar, that's OK by you?

 

[Knight Templar]

You are using governmental power to dictate how people with one set of beliefs treats other groups of people.

Why isn't that equally as bad as discrimination?

"Freedom" doesn't mean "Anything-Goes-Free-For-All".

Again, you have the freedom to think and act as you will, as long as your actions don't impede on another's freedom.

Isn't the govt. telling me what type of people to hire, rent to, or provide services to an impediment to my freedom?

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm not saying it should. But it should let people treat each other the way they want.

I'm not saying that the govt. should have something like "whites only" water fountains and restrooms. That would be the govt. using govt. power and authority to further a racial belief or agenda.

At the same time, the govt. should not have the power to tell a small business owner, "you have to consider black and female applicants"

So, and just to be clear - You don't want Govt. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. But if a private business owner or company wants a "Whites Only" policy or something similar, that's OK by you?

Got it in one. After all, no one is forced to use any business or private service.

Though business would be foolish to do so when it would cut down on their pool of customers

 

[cooleddie74]

Would you hire an openly gay person to work for you?

Stipulations: your only contact with them would be at the workplace, they have a great resume and background and they show you the proper respect as their boss.

Would you bite your tongue, put aside your personal religious beliefs about his or her lifestyle and orientation and give them a chance to be an outstanding employee?

If they failed, fine. That's later and not germaine to the scenario. But would you at least give them a chance and hire them if the resume were outstanding?

 

[Balrog]

I'm not saying it should. But it should let people treat each other the way they want.

I'm not saying that the govt. should have something like "whites only" water fountains and restrooms. That would be the govt. using govt. power and authority to further a racial belief or agenda.

At the same time, the govt. should not have the power to tell a small business owner, "you have to consider black and female applicants"

So, and just to be clear - You don't want Govt. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. But if a private business owner or company wants a "Whites Only" policy or something similar, that's OK by you?

Got it in one. After all, no one is forced to use any business or private service.

Though business would be foolish to do so when it would cut down on their pool of customers

So you'd be fine with the reverse? Companies and small business owners discriminating against, say, Christians?

 

[Gov Kodos]

I'm not saying it should. But it should let people treat each other the way they want.

I'm not saying that the govt. should have something like "whites only" water fountains and restrooms. That would be the govt. using govt. power and authority to further a racial belief or agenda.

At the same time, the govt. should not have the power to tell a small business owner, "you have to consider black and female applicants"

So, and just to be clear - You don't want Govt. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. But if a private business owner or company wants a "Whites Only" policy or something similar, that's OK by you?

Got it in one. After all, no one is forced to use any business or private service.

Though business would be foolish to do so when it would cut down on their pool of customers

You want the freedom to enact a racist, sexist, homophobic agenda. Bigot.

 

[Knight Templar]

Would you hire an openly gay person to work for you?

Stipulations: your only contact with them would be at the workplace, they have a great resume and background and they show you the proper respect as their boss.

Would you bite your tongue, put aside your personal religious beliefs about his or her lifestyle and orientation and give them a chance to be an outstanding employee?

If they failed, fine. That's later and not germaine to the scenario. But would you at least give them a chance and hire them if the resume were outstanding?

Depends.

If they were clearly the superior applicant then I would hire them.

But if they were roughly equal to another applicant who was not a homosexual (don't know how I would ever learn this upfront) then I would hire the other person.

 

[Knight Templar]

So, and just to be clear - You don't want Govt. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. But if a private business owner or company wants a "Whites Only" policy or something similar, that's OK by you?

Got it in one. After all, no one is forced to use any business or private service.

Though business would be foolish to do so when it would cut down on their pool of customers

So you'd be fine with the reverse? Companies and small business owners discriminating against, say, Christians?

Yes. It is their business. They own it.

 

[gturner]

The state and local governments don't get to trump the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Bigots do love the states rights argument, don't they?

Not just bigots. Try buying a pistol in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Knight Templar]

So, and just to be clear - You don't want Govt. "Whites Only" water fountains and restrooms. But if a private business owner or company wants a "Whites Only" policy or something similar, that's OK by you?

Got it in one. After all, no one is forced to use any business or private service.

Though business would be foolish to do so when it would cut down on their pool of customers

You want the freedom to enact a racist, sexist, homophobic agenda. Bigot.

Bigot defined in the wikipedia.

You will note that I do not fit the definition as I am willing to reconsider my positions (thus not obstinate) and I do not deal with members of a group with hatred

"'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"[

 

[{ Emilia }]

Isn't the govt. telling me what type of people to hire, rent to, or provide services to an impediment to my freedom?

You don't have the freedom to discriminate against others. Where do you get that idea from?

There are many things you're not "free to do". This is one of them because it goes against the basic principle of "all people are created equal".

For some reason I don't think I have to explain this to you. You're well aware of how bigoted the thought is. It's just that you don't care.

 

[Knight Templar]

The state and local governments don't get to trump the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Bigots do love the states rights argument, don't they?

Not just bigots. Try buying a pistol in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Rights of homosexuals are mentioned nowhere in the U.S. constitution.

Rights of gun owners specifically are.

Yet, the rights of homosexuals is what has people up in arms. So to speak.

 

[cooleddie74]

If they were clearly the superior applicant then I would hire them.

But if they were roughly equal to another applicant who was not a homosexual (don't know how I would ever learn this upfront) then I would hire the other person.

So, even if the gay applicant were roughly equal to a straight applicant you wouldn't roll the dice and take a shot with the gay applicant? Just to give them a chance and see how good they may or may not be?

Isn't that still naked prejudice? Two people with the same skills, at least on paper. You reject the one who happens to have a sexual orientation that isn't the same as yours? What if there's a chance that that person would be better at the job than the straight person who applied? Might not be...that's a granted. Who knows, though? You didn't roll the dice and take a chance to see.

You already know the gay applicant's qualified and just as skilled as his straight competitor. What's the harm in, at least every once in a while, throwing someone a bone and giving them a chance to shine?

Unless bigotry trumps all...which seems to be evident.

 

[Balrog]

So, to be clear again, and you can answer with a simple yes or no -

You do not support Govt. discrimination.

But you do support open discrimination by small business owners and companies.

 

[Knight Templar]

You didn't roll the dice and take a chance to see.

You already know the gay applicant's qualified and just as skilled as his straight competitor. What's the harm in, at least every once in a while, throwing someone a bone and giving them a chance to shine?

.

Why should a business owner have any obligation whatsoever to "roll the dice", or "throw a bone" or "give someone a chance to shine"?

You sure you didn't cliche overload in that post?

 

[Peacemaker]

You are using governmental power to dictate how people with one set of beliefs treats other groups of people.

Why isn't that equally as bad as discrimination?

"Freedom" doesn't mean "Anything-Goes-Free-For-All".

Again, you have the freedom to think and act as you will, as long as your actions don't impede on another's freedom.

Isn't the govt. telling me what type of people to hire, rent to, or provide services to an impediment to my freedom?

You're now the one equating freedom with license.

 

[Knight Templar]

So, to be clear again, and you can answer with a simple yes or no -

You do not support Govt. discrimination.

But you do support open discrimination by small business owners and companies.

I am against govt. discrimination.

I'm for small businee owners, companies, and individuals being free to do what they want WITH THEIR OWN STUFF as long as it causes no direct physical harm to anyone else.

 

[Peacemaker]

So, to be clear again, and you can answer with a simple yes or no -

You do not support Govt. discrimination.

But you do support open discrimination by small business owners and companies.

I am against govt. discrimination.

I'm for small businee owners, companies, and individuals being free to do what they want WITH THEIR OWN STUFF as long as it causes no direct physical harm to anyone else.

So, it's okay for a business to hire Baptists and Presbyterians, but not members of your own local church. It's okay for a business to hire gays but not straights. It's okay for them to hire men, not women, women not men; blacks not whites; Muslims not Christians, Jews not Christians, etc. etc.

All this does is move the question back one step.

You move it back from the feds to the states, the states to the local, then local gov't to business, etc., etc. You have a nasty habit of passing the buck in order to justify your desire to get away from gays.