Religion Ranting Topic

[eclipse]

I'm not sure if you meant my post. I don't think it's a choice, but I also don't think it matters.

I don't think it's good that people would refuse me or LGBT people service, but I just value freedom of religion and right to refuse service more than I value access to luxury goods. When freedom and being nice conflict, freedom wins, unless there is harm being done to another involved. As they say "I think he's an asshole, but I will fight for his right to be an asshole." And I don't even think people who don't like homosexuality on the basis of religion are bad, we just have a difference of opinion.

Not at you at all.

I don't really follow because I'm actually legitimately not very interested in pursuing a discussion if you actually believe discrimination does not exist period. Whilst I don't like to make assumptions, the implication of some of your posts is very much that, and I'm asking not for an excuse to try to publically defame you, I'm asking because it will save us both a lot of time and effort. In a gesture of goodwill, I'll tell you I have denied my time and money towards people asking for it, but if you want to say "well you're just discriminating then" to me, then as I briefly alluded to earlier, I'm not a business open to the public that is advertising a service thus I do not see this as the same thing. I'm choosing to withhold something I've never agreed I would give away, even if certain conditions are met. Rather than being the person putting forward a contract and withdrawing it, I'm the person rejecting the contract that is being placed in front of me.

For the THIRD TIME: I have a reason for keeping quiet. You're free to be disappointed/mad/whatever, but you WILL respect the fact that I have a reason, and you're not entitled to know why, other than "it's nothing personal". That means that I may give you an incomplete response, or none at all.

I see business as a source of requests, not a source of obligations. I also firmly believe that businesses should be able to choose who they serve, and that whoever is served by the business is free to leave honest feedback. Let the business' actions be part of the determining cause of whether or not they stay open - a business who doesn't cater to its customers, whether they want to serve said customers or not, will eventually fail. That's about as much as I can say for the time being - anything else, and you'll have to read backwards, both in the White House thread and this one.

I believe there was a hotel that caught some heat for putting some idiotic clause that said something to the effect of not giving its customers their full deposit back if they left a bad review. These types of practices should be illegal (and IIRC, the FTC agreed).

[Tryhard]

For the THIRD TIME: I have a reason for keeping quiet. You're free to be disappointed/mad/whatever, but you WILL respect the fact that I have a reason, and you're not entitled to know why, other than "it's nothing personal". That means that I may give you an incomplete response, or none at all.

I see business as a source of requests, not a source of obligations. I also firmly believe that businesses should be able to choose who they serve, and that whoever is served by the business is free to leave honest feedback. Let the business' actions be part of the determining cause of whether or not they stay open - a business who doesn't cater to its customers, whether they want to serve said customers or not, will eventually fail. That's about as much as I can say for the time being - anything else, and you'll have to read backwards, both in the White House thread and this one.

I believe there was a hotel that caught some heat for putting some idiotic clause that said something to the effect of not giving its customers their full deposit back if they left a bad review. These types of practices should be illegal (and IIRC, the FTC agreed).

I don't understand why you are tiptoeing around the fact that you support the right to discriminate, though, that's all. It's not as if I stated that I thought it was outright inherently bad, but that's precisely what you're arguing in favour for and that obviously doesn't necessarily mean that you would do so yourself or would think that other businesses doing so is a good thing. If you don't want to admit that, then I'm not sure why. Evidently there is seen as a need and a reason to have anti-discrimination laws, as most civilized western nations have them. I would like to see an example of a country that did repeal anti-discrimination laws and the effect it had, if any, that would be interesting if such an example exists.

I'm not sure if you meant my post. I don't think it's a choice, but I also don't think it matters.

I don't think it's good that people would refuse me or LGBT people service, but I just value freedom of religion and right to refuse service more than I value access to luxury goods. When freedom and being nice conflict, freedom wins, unless there is harm being done to another involved. As they say "I think he's an asshole, but I will fight for his right to be an asshole." And I don't even think people who don't like homosexuality on the basis of religion are bad, we just have a difference of opinion.

It's not freedom of religion as much as it probably should be in order to justify the topic relevancy, though, I would argue that it is a different freedom. As said before, you do believe that even if you're a raging athiest or the most apathetic person about religion you should have the same ability to reject LGBT (or any other appropriate group of) people for non-religious reasons, correct? Edited August 30, 2016 by Tryhard

[Raguna]

Oh, for sure. I just get a little bent out of shape when people say it's a genetic thing (this is part of my field of study, I get defensive), since both homosexuality and transgenderism haven't really been proven to be an inheritable characteristic. The science hasn't really been set in stone for the entire subject.

I'm an absolute newbie to genetics but wouldn't the simple cause of not being able to pass the genes through offspring unless it's extremely recessive be an issue here. I'm not exactly a fan of the reason 'being born this way' but wouldn't that sort of gene die out if it was tied to humans that way. I can understand certain genes affecting what one likes or how their brain works, but this idea seems far-fetched plus it seems like it invalidates the whole aspect of choice here. There are certain things that can't be changed like ethnicity for example, but I don't think what sex one prefers is in the same category. I'd love to hear anyone's opinion on the matter if you would all be so kind here.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Raguna

[Rapier]

I made a slight edit to my post that the two of you may want to look at. I also urge people to actually respond to the question about Title II; is this a law you disagree with? Was it uneccessary?

Again, I don't have a proper opinion about that, but no, I don't think it was unnecessary. It is a basic human necessity to be accepted and integrated on the society where they were born, and discriminatory actions threaten with social exclusion or stops those people from performing relevant acts of civil life. One of law's purposes is to protect the necessities of people, thus discrimination must be spoken against and the right to not be segregated should be protected.

But I think a line should be drawn because not all kind of discrimination provide enough harm to be legally relevant. Not allowing someone to marry because they're black or gay is a kind of discrimination that is legally relevant because marriage is oftenly held high by society and the State is not allowed to discriminate by its own principles.

Now, for private examples: Refusing to make a contract with someone because they're ugly/gay/black/asian may or not be juridically relevant. Going back to the cake example, if someone refuses to sell them a cake for one of those motives, the caused harm is not relevant to be a juridic issue, nor is selling cakes a relevant social service held high by society. If someone refuses to let them loan an apartment and that leaves them on the streets with no lodging, that's harmful enough to be a juridic issue, obviously because they'll sleep on the streets. If private schools refuse to allow a black child to be taught there, that's harmful enough to be a juridic issue, because [it is perceived and held in high value, at least, that] all children need education, and not doing so will provide even more harm in the future, because said child will need to get a job and lack the knowledge/skills for a decent one.

Ideally, no one should be discriminated for futile motives, and it is a morally reprovable act, but it's not always relevant to the juridic world, as far as I can see. For those less relevant acts of civil life, I stick with my former opinion that the State should intervene if and only if that person can't get any service (or has huge difficulty with getting one) due to general discrimination.

tbh, I can't help but feel I'm missing something important, and that I'm being misled by my own line of reasoning. Let's see if a reply will help me noticing what it is.

I'm an absolute newbie to genetics but wouldn't the simple cause of not being able to pass the genes through offspring unless it's extremely recessive be an issue here.

Gays can't reproduce with their gay couple, but they're perfectly capable of passing their genes just like heterossexuals can.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Rapier

[Rezzy]

I'm an absolute newbie to genetics but wouldn't the simple cause of not being able to pass the genes through offspring unless it's extremely recessive be an issue here. I'm not exactly a fan of the reason 'being born this way' but wouldn't that sort of gene die out if it was tied to humans that way. I can understand certain genes affecting what one likes or how their brain works, but this idea seems far-fetched plus it seems like it invalidates the whole aspect of choice here. There are certain things that can't be changed like ethnicity for example, but I don't think what sex one prefers is in the same category. I'd love to hear anyone's opinion on the matter if you would all be so kind here.

There's also bisexuals, if it has the same genes. I've successfully reproduced twice. So I very well could have passed on those particular genes, if there's a genetic component.

[Irysa]

Again, I don't have a proper opinion about that, but no, I don't think it was unnecessary. It is a basic human necessity to be accepted and integrated on the society where they were born, and discriminatory actions threaten with social exclusion or stops those people from performing relevant acts of civil life. One of law's purposes is to protect the necessities of people, thus discrimination must be spoken against and the right to not be segregated should be protected.

But I think a line should be drawn because not all kind of discrimination provide enough harm to be legally relevant. Not allowing someone to marry because they're black or gay is a kind of discrimination that is legally relevant because marriage is oftenly held high by society and the State is not allowed to discriminate by its own principles.

Now, for private examples: Refusing to make a contract with someone because they're ugly/gay/black/asian may or not be juridically relevant. Going back to the cake example, if someone refuses to sell them a cake for one of those motives, the caused harm is not relevant to be a juridic issue, nor is selling cakes a relevant social service held high by society. If someone refuses to let them loan an apartment and that leaves them on the streets with no lodging, that's harmful enough to be a juridic issue, obviously because they'll sleep on the streets. If private schools refuse to allow a black child to be taught there, that's harmful enough to be a juridic issue, because [it is perceived and held in high value, at least, that] all children need education, and not doing so will provide even more harm in the future, because said child will need to get a job and lack the knowledge/skills for a decent one.

Ideally, no one should be discriminated for futile motives, and it is a morally reprovable act, but it's not always relevant to the juridic world, as far as I can see. For those less relevant acts of civil life, I stick with my former opinion that the State should intervene if and only if that person can't get any service (or has huge difficulty with getting one) due to general discrimination.

tbh, I can't help but feel I'm missing something important, and that I'm being misled by my own line of reasoning. Let's see if a reply will help me noticing what it is.

Title II includes private businesses like gas stations, cinemas, etc. If you think the cake is too trivial, then why is seeing a film, buying food at a gas station, or going to a restaurant not trivial?

You talked of social consciousness and how it develops earlier; do you not recognise or accept that that law changed social consciousness? Or, to put it another way, do you not think the law reflected a change of social consciousness in society at large, and then helped it to spread? How long would it have taken America to end segregation and get discrimination down to even current levels if the government had thrown its hands up and said "not our problem"?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Irysa

[ping]

It would also be theoretically possible that homosexuality is caused by multiple genes which are favourable for reproduction on their own. Also keep in mind that DNA sequence is not the only thing that passes down to the offspring, even on a purely biological level. (I'm not a biologist though, so my knowledge in that regard is very limited)

Gays can't reproduce with their gay couple, but they're perfectly capable of passing their genes just like heterossexuals can.

However, if there actually was one Gay Gene, it probably would have gone extinct over time, simply because homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. Unless there are other attributes linked to it that make the person more attractive to the opposite gender. ;)

Now, for private examples: Refusing to make a contract with someone because they're ugly/gay/black/asian may or not be juridically relevant. Going back to the cake example, if someone refuses to sell them a cake for one of those motives, the caused harm is not relevant to be a juridic issue, nor is selling cakes a relevant social service held high by society. If someone refuses to let them loan an apartment and that leaves them on the streets with no lodging, that's harmful enough to be a juridic issue, obviously because they'll sleep on the streets. If private schools refuse to allow a black child to be taught there, that's harmful enough to be a juridic issue, because [it is perceived and held in high value, at least, that] all children need education, and not doing so will provide even more harm in the future, because said child will need to get a job and lack the knowledge/skills for a decent one.

Another thing: Selling a cake for a gay wedding is directly linked to, well, the gay wedding, unlike stuff like education, everyday food, shelter, electricity, public transport... that is actually necessary for everyday life. Saying that there is no difference is simply wrong. (btw, not baptizing Rezzy's kid because the church doesn't approve with the mom's sexual orientation is a really weird thing. or does the kid of a bisexual inherit an extra large original sin? -.-)

Honestly, there are many good reasons for a law regulating this (and even more to think that the baker is kind of a dick), but you don't have to be a advocate for a complete laissez-faire state to be against it, at least in this particular case.

[Moblin Major General]

My opinion on this issue: genes might cause attraction to the same sex or even identifying with the other sex, but they are a factor, not a cause. Someone with kleptomania might steal, but them doing so was a choice, even if it was an impulsive one. A choice is still a choice, but unlike theft, it's not a bad choice. I might not see it as a good choice, but I don't believe in "praying the gay away" because I refuse to weaponize my faith. To me, homosexuality is a worldly practice observed by worldly people, so I will have no part of it myself, but I want nothing more than people to be happy in this world if they can't in the next, and vice versa, because both are happening every day.

[ping]

Sorry, but I don't think that's a good comparision. If you're kleptomaniac, you can't choose not to have the urge to steal, you just (hopefully) can have the willpower not to follow it.

And I don't think you can actually choose who you're attracted to, you can just choose to ignore or deny it. I mean, who has never been disappointed because that particular guy/girl is in a relationship already? ;) Most people most of the time will probably not try to steal him/her away, but that's because of their ethics, not because of no attraction. And in the case of homosexuals, these reasons might be their faith, fear of the reaction of society or the wish for (biological) children. But that doesn't make them not gay or bi.

[Rapier]

Title II includes private businesses like gas stations, cinemas, etc. If you think the cake is too trivial, then why is seeing a film, buying food at a gas station, or going to a restaurant not trivial?

You talked of social consciousness and how it develops earlier; do you not recognise or accept that that law changed social consciousness? Or, to put it another way, do you not think the law reflected a change of social consciousness in society at large, and then helped it to spread? How long would it have taken America to end segregation and get discrimination down to even current levels if the government had thrown its hands up and said "not our problem"?

Ok, you have a point, but how does that contradict with the "juridical irrelevance" line that I mentioned? I don't think the law was unnecessary, but I don't need to agree with it 100%. And I did not claim that the State should throw it's hands up and leave people alone. I only said that, on those specific cases, it shouldn't intervene.

Also, no, I don't see how laws change social consciousness. If anything, they're subsidiary to ideas that change social consciousness. A law by itself has little to no efficacy, it necessitates to be integrated into customs in order to work, some way or another. Usually, good customs become laws (I remember reading an author that claims customs are a main source for laws because all, if not most laws, come from customs, but it's a brazilian author and it's not really relevant to this, so whatever), and those laws start with some significant efficacy, but uncostumary laws have very limited efficacy (at least in the start) and people will find ways to go through them if those laws are against that society's customs. If anything, "black lives matter" had a bigger social consciousness influence than any law. I mean, I'm not trying to say that laws are useless, but ideas have a much more significant impact on changing customs.

However, if there actually was one Gay Gene, it probably would have gone extinct over time, simply because homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. Unless there are other attributes linked to it that make the person more attractive to the opposite gender. ;)

Even if that were true, being less likely to reproduce and gradually lowering the number of homossexuals wouldn't make the "gay gene", if there is one, extinct. It reminds me of when people say we won't have red hairs after some time because it's becoming rarer and rarer. That isn't true, because (if I haven't flunked biology so badly) it'll still remain a recessive gene (for both cases), potentially there but just rarer.

well in Crusader Kings 2 gay people are more attractive to gay people and get a +30 affinity from them, so you may have a point

This red hair quote from wikipedia sums it up and can be used as analogy to the "gay gene" case:

The redhead gene is not becoming extinct. In August 2007, many news organizations reported that redheads would become extinct, possibly as early as 2060, due to the gene for red hair being recessive. Although redheads may become more rare (for example, mixed marriages where one parent is from a group without the redhead gene will result in no redheaded children, but some redheaded grandchildren), redheads will not die out unless everyone who carries the gene dies or fails to reproduce.^[299] This misconception has been around since at least 1865, and often resurfaces in American newspapers.^[300]

Edited August 30, 2016 by Rapier

[Moblin Major General]

Remember that the closet is still a thing, for good or ill. If their is a propensity for homosexuality or transsexualism, the decision to come out or stay in the closet is entirely the choice of the person concerned. I admit there are better comparisons, but either that or psychopathy came to mind for me, and that latter is an even worse analogy.

[Irysa]

Ok, you have a point, but how does that contradict with the "juridical irrelevance" line that I mentioned? I don't think the law was unnecessary, but I don't need to agree with it 100%. And I did not claim that the State should throw it's hands up and leave people alone. I only said that, on those specific cases, it shouldn't intervene.

I'm asking specifically about Title II because it applies to private business, the rest of the act doesn't. You don't agree with it 100% (well more like you've explictly said for trivial things it shouldnt apply, so you actually entirely disagree), but don't think it was uneccessary; I don't understand what your position actually is? Are you trying to say that it was neccessary to pass a law you disagree with? That feels like doublethink to me.

To the final part of this quote, the "in those specific cases, it shouldn't intervene" that's what I'm asking about. Do you believe there would have been no significant impact if Title II was not part of the law, or do you think it did affect things?

Also, no, I don't see how laws change social consciousness. If anything, they're subsidiary to ideas that change social consciousness. A law by itself has little to no efficacy, it necessitates to be integrated into customs in order to work, some way or another. Usually, good customs become laws (I remember reading an author that claims customs are a main source for laws because all, if not most laws, come from customs, but it's a brazilian author and it's not really relevant to this, so whatever), and those laws start with some significant efficacy, but uncostumary laws have very limited efficacy (at least in the start) and people will find ways to go through them if those laws are against that society's customs. If anything, "black lives matter" had a bigger social consciousness influence than any law. I mean, I'm not trying to say that laws are useless, but ideas have a much more significant impact on changing customs.

Thats what I said in the second half of the sentence you're looking at. There was a changed social consciousness that led to the push to have laws that banned such discrimination. So yes, there was ground work there already, but the effect the law has in normalising particular types of behaviour undoubtedly helps in redefining what is percieved as a social norm, because the law basically forces people to comply with that steadily changing social consciousness. To me what is happening now is just similar; social awareness of other other marginalised groups is increasing, and with that, social consciousness is changing and thus a push to legislate occurs.

Remember that the closet is still a thing, for good or ill. If their is a propensity for homosexuality or transsexualism, the decision to come out or stay in the closet is entirely the choice of the person concerned. I admit there are better comparisons, but either that or psychopathy came to mind for me, and that latter is an even worse analogy.

They're still attracted to the opposite sex even if they're in the closet. You don't become gay by coming out. To be gay is not a lifestyle choice, to partake in relationships with those of the same sex is (although that is as much a lifestyle choice as choosing to partake in a straight relationship too frankly). But I get the feeling your contention is more about what category of lifestyle choice it falls into (moral or immoral), since you make comparisons towards people being inclined to steal with it and say you don't see it as a good choice. If this is the case, can I also assume that the morality of it is because God says so?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Irysa

[Phoenix Wright]

Oh, for sure. I just get a little bent out of shape when people say it's a genetic thing (this is part of my field of study, I get defensive), since both homosexuality and transgenderism haven't really been proven to be an inheritable characteristic. The science hasn't really been set in stone for the entire subject.

what about heterosexuality?

and what about evidence of it? has the research showed reason to continue to look? i know the "gay gene" has never been found, but genetic manipulation is still a ways away for us.

[Life]

what about heterosexuality?

and what about evidence of it? has the research showed reason to continue to look? i know the "gay gene" has never been found, but genetic manipulation is still a ways away for us.

Of course we should look.

Science is not governed by concensus. It's governed by truth. There's always room to learn more.

At no point should we ever throw up our hands and say "well, we're done here".

[Phoenix Wright]

Of course we should look.

Science is not governed by concensus. It's governed by truth. There's always room to learn more.

At no point should we ever throw up our hands and say "well, we're done here".

you misunderstand. it is entirely possible that we are looking in the wrong place, or are hypothesizing the wrong answer. science is not picking an explanation and running with it, science is ruling out all other possible explanations.

[Rezzy]

And I don't think you can actually choose who you're attracted to, you can just choose to ignore or deny it. I mean, who has never been disappointed because that particular guy/girl is in a relationship already? ;) Most people most of the time will probably not try to steal him/her away, but that's because of their ethics, not because of no attraction. And in the case of homosexuals, these reasons might be their faith, fear of the reaction of society or the wish for (biological) children. But that doesn't make them not gay or bi.

Me wanting to have kids was a primary driving force for my marriage choice. I tend to lean more to the lesbian side of the spectrum, but I really wanted kids of my own.

My opinion on this issue: genes might cause attraction to the same sex or even identifying with the other sex, but they are a factor, not a cause. Someone with kleptomania might steal, but them doing so was a choice, even if it was an impulsive one. A choice is still a choice, but unlike theft, it's not a bad choice. I might not see it as a good choice, but I don't believe in "praying the gay away" because I refuse to weaponize my faith. To me, homosexuality is a worldly practice observed by worldly people, so I will have no part of it myself, but I want nothing more than people to be happy in this world if they can't in the next, and vice versa, because both are happening every day.

I can respect your views, but I still believe that I've been trying to live a decent life and am a positive force in the world. Hopefully, whatever greater power there is doesn't hold my sexual nature and experiences against me.

what about heterosexuality?

and what about evidence of it? has the research showed reason to continue to look? i know the "gay gene" has never been found, but genetic manipulation is still a ways away for us.

Do you mean having an exact gene that codes for heterosexuality? That would seem to be the evolutionary default, since that's how the genes would be passed down in the first place. So I'd be highly surprised if there was a single gene that coded for heterosexuality. More likely, there's several, and maybe if one or more get coded incorrectly it leads to homosexuality. It's hard to say, and this is coming from someone outside that norm.

[eclipse]

I don't understand why you are tiptoeing around the fact that you support the right to discriminate, though, that's all. It's not as if I stated that I thought it was outright inherently bad, but that's precisely what you're arguing in favour for and that obviously doesn't necessarily mean that you would do so yourself or would think that other businesses doing so is a good thing. If you don't want to admit that, then I'm not sure why. Evidently there is seen as a need and a reason to have anti-discrimination laws, as most civilized western nations have them. I would like to see an example of a country that did repeal anti-discrimination laws and the effect it had, if any, that would be interesting if such an example exists.

It's not freedom of religion as much as it probably should be in order to justify the topic relevancy, though, I would argue that it is a different freedom. As said before, you do believe that even if you're a raging athiest or the most apathetic person about religion you should have the same ability to reject LGBT (or any other appropriate group of) people for non-religious reasons, correct?

Yes. Because it's freedom, first and foremost. The Sweet Cakes incident just happens to be on religious grounds, but I don't think the basis should matter. If an atheist didn't want to serve someone who was religious based on their beliefs, I'd have no problems with it, either. Hell, if someone didn't want to serve me because I'm Asian/a woman, I'd take note of the place and leave. . .then write the worst review possible, and encourage everyone else that I know to never give them so much as the time of day. I think businesses should have the right to filter who they want to serve, and I also think that they should be subject to any and all social criticism/profits and losses that arise because of that.

Lastly, I am extremely disappointed that THIS is being focused on, of all things. Like, I'm repeating myself at this point, and I think that is a gigantic waste of my time. Have a question? I probably answered it earlier, whether it be in this topic or the White House one.

Edited August 31, 2016 by eggclipse

[Phoenix Wright]

Do you mean having an exact gene that codes for heterosexuality? That would seem to be the evolutionary default, since that's how the genes would be passed down in the first place. So I'd be highly surprised if there was a single gene that coded for heterosexuality. More likely, there's several, and maybe if one or more get coded incorrectly it leads to homosexuality. It's hard to say, and this is coming from someone outside that norm.

i'm more asking about the science of sexuality. if it's the genetic "default," then perhaps the claim that homosexuality is either a recessive trait or a mutation of the heterosexual gene is stronger. after all, if the claim is that there is "no evidence" that homosexuality is genetic, what about heterosexuality?

[Tryhard]

Lastly, I am extremely disappointed that THIS is being focused on, of all things. Like, I'm repeating myself at this point, and I think that is a gigantic waste of my time. Have a question? I probably answered it earlier, whether it be in this topic or the White House one.

You were being evasive for no real reason, and no, you weren't being very clear. Consistency is kind of important.

Regardless, that's all I wanted to know.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes. Because it's freedom, first and foremost. The Sweet Cakes incident just happens to be on religious grounds, but I don't think the basis should matter. If an atheist didn't want to serve someone who was religious based on their beliefs, I'd have no problems with it, either. Hell, if someone didn't want to serve me because I'm Asian/a woman, I'd take note of the place and leave. . .then write the worst review possible, and encourage everyone else that I know to never give them so much as the time of day. I think businesses should have the right to filter who they want to serve, and I also think that they should be subject to any and all social criticism/profits and losses that arise because of that.

this wouldn't do anything.

[Tangerine]

this wouldn't do anything.

Errr, I don't agree with Eclipse's stance, but I'm guessing you have absolutely no experience with small business, because word of mouth can make or break a fledgling business owner.

Big businesses are more reputation-proof, but that also depends on how much traction a story gains in the media, the nature of the business and it's position in the market they represent.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tangerine

[Magical Glace]

I don't normally post in Serious Discussion, but I will say that the Cake thing resulted in a loss of potential profit from their own choice. I certainly wouldn't make that decision if I was a business owner, but if they want to turn down profit it's their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences.

And I still lack personal agreement with the priest who refused to baptize Rezzy's child because of something the mother just happens to be, but again, it's not really my place to judge due to lack of knowledge of the Catholic church.

[Life]

Errr, I don't agree with Eclipse's stance, but I'm guessing you have absolutely no experience with small business, because word of mouth can make or break a fledgling business owner.

Big businesses are more reputation-proof, but that also depends on how much traction a story gains in the media, the nature of the business and it's position in the market they represent.

I'm going to expand on that one.

Word of mouth absolutely destroys small businesses and I know it from first hand experience.

In my current workplace, my boss (the owner) goes out of his way to provide extra service to customers to return. And we're still operating at a loss (the place is a small bar/kitchen that has been open for 2.5 months since a renovation).

Imagine how bad it would be for the business if word got around about how the owner doesn't serve X person for a discriminatory reason. This place would shut down in a month.

I've seen new businesses fold very quickly. For a small business to reasonably survive, it has to chase the dollar. No two ways around it.

[Tangerine]

Reading over my post, I didn't mean for it to sound so condescending, so sorry about that, not intended lol! @Phoenix

Above post:

Yes, I run a small business and have many friends who've either started their own successfully or been forced out of their chosen market as a result of whether or not they could connect with the communities in the cities they'd chosen to settle in. A small startup who was refusing to serve people based on their race/origin/religion/etc could very easily be hammering nails into their own coffin. I don't agree that the fact that they're punished independent of law or government intervention justifies the act of discrimination though.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tangerine

[Rezzy]

To clarify my stance, I believe private companies can refuse service on religious or whatever personal views they hold, with only a few exceptions.

1: If it's a vital service: like phone lines, internet access, non-luxury grocery-type foods in limited market, etc.

2: Hospital and medical care

3: It's a government service

And I still lack personal agreement with the priest who refused to baptize Rezzy's child because of something the mother just happens to be, but again, it's not really my place to judge due to lack of knowledge of the Catholic church.

Yeah, I wish that Leo did not have to pay for "the sins of the father (or mother)", but the Church is within its rights to deny me, whether I like it or not. They don't think having one parent an unrepentant sinner and one parent being gnostic would lead us to raise him properly, but ironically I still have faith and believe in 99% of what Catholicism believes and plan to raise my son as such.