JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  fleaman uk

  It's a controversial issue, if you don't like it, dont read these threads. I don't get your point, what business of whose? They wanted a wedding cake, what is wrong with that? They have been open about the fact that they are making a point, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's an important issue. If you are saying it's none of my business, well then, what business is it of yours that I choose to comment on it?

  lisa rose, get off your ridiculous high horse. You inadvertently answered my question by saying they were making a point. Smacks of a pre defined compo claim too. The couple in question are as stirring and trouble making as the op.

  Btw, if you don't like my comments, dont read them. Thanks.
• 

  LisaRose

  People who attempt to effect change in society are usually considered troublemakers. If it weren't for such troublemakers women would not be able to vote, we wouldn't have safe working conditions and a forty hour work week and our streams and rivers would still be polluted.

  I guess you think Rosa Parks is a trouble maker for sitting in the part of the bus reserved for white people.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @LisaRose:

  No business owner has to be in business, that is a choice.

  Any no gay couple has to get their cake, photographs, or invitations from a business that does not wish to provide them. They too have the choice to move on to a shop that does.

  The government is simply saying that if you choose to run a business that serves the public, you must not discriminate on the basis or race, religion or sexual orientation. You may not like that, and yes it is limiting your freedom, but it is not slavery, far from it.

  I disagree. The reason slavery is morally wrong derives from private property rights - the most fundamental property right. One human can’t own another because each human has, from birth, the natural right of ownership of his or her body and the fruits of the labor resulting from that ownership. When you force someone to work in an endeavor that is not voluntary, it is the very definition of slavery.

  It is not about me ‘not liking it’ or just ‘limiting my freedom’. It is not even about hate. It is about eroding a fundamental natural right of human beings. This shouldn’t be sacrificed to try to “fix” the jerks of the world through law.

  A business owner could choose a different business, could choose not to be in business or choose to comply with the law, even if it is distasteful to them.

  The sword has two edges: the gay couple could just go to another business. In fact, in the NM photographer example, they did find a new photographer. Again, I agree that those business owners that deny their services on the basis of color or sexual orientation are jerks. But we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. We shouldn’t start a precedent (law loves to work off of precedent) that actually attacks fundamental rights.

  You seem very knowledgeable about the law, so I am surprised that you think this is just the same as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. Antonio chose not to work for someone, but it was not because of her race, religion or sexual orientation, so it does not violate the anti discrimination laws. You could say no one was criticizing him for it, but I doubt that is true, you yourself are criticizing him. If I were him I would have taken the job and used my time to find out why she believed that way and given her my viewpoint. So, he may be wrong, but it is not discrimination, at least when it come to the law. False equivalency.

  This isn’t about the law. It is a philosophical issue. On what basis, for what reason, does owning a business suddenly mean that the owners are to relinquish private property rights, not only to their business but also to their very labor? If you are saying that just the sheer action of providing the community with a service or good constitutes a relinquishing of these rights, then you are just a hop-skip-jump away from public ownership of the means of production.

  The example is not false equivalency. Both are discrimination on ideological grounds.

  The anti-gay photographer is saying: I don’t want to serve you because I believe X.

  The gay hair dresser is saying: I don’t want to serve you because you believe X.

  ….. where X is a religious belief that being gay is wrong.

  The hair dresser and the anti-gay photographer are both exercising their right to private property. Nothing wrong with either of them. I was not criticizing Antonio, I was agree with him.

  The government has discrimination laws in place for a reason, and it only applies to those particular protected classes. You may not like it, you may feel people should be able to do what they want, but I personally believe they are good laws, put in place for a reason. I don't want to go back to a world where gay people couldn't live openly and where black people could not eat in certain restaurants. I believe having these laws has helped society to move in a more positive direction. If you disagree, you should work towards getting the law changed.

  What is that reason? To change people morally? If people are to be punished for being jerks, the market will punish them. They will naturally have to pay for their discrimination, as there will be many willing businesses ready to compete. This if far more preferable to stripping away private property.

  MMM
• 

  cofty

  We shouldn’t start a precedent (law loves to work off of precedent) that actually attacks fundamental rights.

  Nobody has the right to discriminate.

  The anti-gay photographer is saying: I don’t want to serve you because I believe X

  Then he/she cannot be in business.
• 

  LisaRose

  Any no gay couple has to get their cake, photographs, or invitations from a business that does not wish to provide them. They too have the choice to move on to a shop that does.

  And no black person has to eat at a restruarant that wants to exclude them, but society has determined that there is public good in not not making them have to.

  The example is not false equivalency. Both are discrimination on ideological grounds.

  The anti-gay photographer is saying: I don’t want to serve you because I believe X.

  The gay hair dresser is saying: I don’t want to serve you because you believe X.

  No, the anti-gay photographer is saying I don't want to serve you because you ARE x. The gay person cannot simply choose to be heterosexual, nor can he reasonably be expected to marry a person that he is not romantically and sexually attracted to.

  ….. where X is a religious belief that being gay is wrong.

  Do you think if a business owner has a religious belief that women should not eat in a restrtaunt with men, should you be able to prevent them from eating in your restaurant? What if your religion forbids the mixing of races, should an owner be allowed to forbid those of another race from eating in his restruarant?

  The hair dresser and the anti-gay photographer are both exercising their right to private property. Nothing wrong with either of them. I was not criticizing Antonio, I was agree with him

  The difference is that in one case it violates the law, in the other it doesn't.

  This isn’t about the law. It is a philosophical issue.

  If this is not about law, why do you keep bringing up property rights?

  On what basis, for what reason, does owning a business suddenly mean that the owners are to relinquish private property rights, not only to their business but also to their very labor? If you are saying that just the sheer action of providing the community with a service or good constitutes a relinquishing of these rights, then you are just a hop-skip-jump away from public ownership of the means of production.

  On the basis that society has determined that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. That is the law. It is a not a hop, skip and a jump from these laws to public ownership, the slippery slope is not a valid argument here. I would be fighting for the rights of these businesses if it involved anything more that making them treat people equally, even if you don't like the fact that they are gay. The private property argument has been used unsuccessfully in the past to say that businesses have the right to prevent black people from eating in their restaurants, it didn't work then, it won't work now. Tell me, do you feel the anti discrimination laws are valid when it involves race, or is it only gay people that you want to exclude from nondiscrimination laws? Is it because you feel being gay is a choice? If so, what scientific evidence do you have to back that up?

  I think that this is only under discussion because some people find homosexuality personally repugnant. I get that. The Watchtower did a very good job at demonizing homosexuality, and they aren't the only religion to do so. As a church, you have the right to say it is wrong, the JWs have a right to disfellowship people for it, a church can refuse to marry gay people. All those things I think are rights, even though I think they are backwards to do so. But when you refuse to serve someone in your public business, you have crossed a line that is well established legally.

  Philosophically, it's your right to believe it's a bad law. Obviously I don't agree. I think society overall is moving in the direction of acceptance and understanding of gay people, I think it's a good thing.
• 

  DJS

  MMM,

  You are entitled to your opinion, just as you are entitled to be wrong. The courts have rightly determined that you and your kind are wrong, and this isn't simply a US phenomenon. You are in the minority and growing smaller with each passing day. Rant on with your ridiculous rationale. You are simply trying to cloak your hatred behind faulty rationale, just like all of the other AOWM who aren't happy unless the world looks as they desire it: white, male, entitled with everyone else falling distinctly beneath them in the pecking order.

  Your 'rationale' (and I am being kind) has been completely obliterated on this post and others like it. There isn't and never has been an 'argument' to support this type of hate. Your pathetic attempts to support your continued hatred of those not like you or for whom you have disgust is transparent to the vast majority of those on this site, the majority in this country and in the rest of the developed world. You are T-Rex short for the world. And I am glad.
• 

  KateWild

  They too have the choice to move on to a shop that does.-MMM

  What if all shops refused them business?

  This is the point of the thread. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate full stop. And, as I keep saying she is a hypocrite, she is not refusing based on her faith. She is doing business with fornicators.

  Kate xx
• 

  galaxie

  How many Windows were washed by JWs where the householders were gay! They still collected the money.

  Hypocrits!!
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @LisaRose and DJS:

  I’ll go through your questions, LisaRose, a little bit later when I have time. But first I have to address something. It has already been addressed in my previous posts.

  LisaRose wrote:

  Is it because you feel being gay is a choice? If so, what scientific evidence do you have to back that up? I think that this is only under discussion because some people find homosexuality personally repugnant.

  and DJS wrote:

  You are simply trying to cloak your hatred behind faulty rationale, just like all of the other AOWM who aren't happy unless the world looks as they desire it: white, male, entitled with everyone else falling distinctly beneath them in the pecking order.

  I wrote the quote below just one single post back (look on pp 7):

  First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.

  Let me add to that, in case I wasn’t clear enough. I am an atheist and a libertarian. The WT has not caused me to hate gay people. In fact, if a man decided to have sex with another man, and then (out of sheer adventure) add a women, a goat, and a horse to the mix - I don’t care. My only lament would be that perhaps the goat and the horse, if give a choice, would run away. Other than that, I don’t care.

  As with most of the political discussions that I get into, we have to get past a set of accusations stating that I am either parroting Fox news, or have some sort of white supremacist agenda. None of those are the case. I see a lot of social issues making inroads into natural rights. When JWN posters call on governments to somehow making shunning illegal, I end up on the side of the WT, not because I like the WT, but because that would undermine freedom of association. In this instance I am making the case for private property rights, not because I think discrimination is right, but because I feel the erosion of private property has dire consequences and sets a bad precedent. It is the same with proposed "hate speech" laws - as if hate speech is somehow different thatn free speech.

  MMM
• 

  steve2

  If you substituted "ethnicity" for "sexual orientation" you'd see how discriminatory the practice is.

  I grew up in a small town during the 1960s when citizens "quietly" discriminated against unwanted ethnic minorities. It was just the way it was. Those minorities had no voice or even awareness that it was not okay to be discriminated against. By far most of them simply made do in difficult circumstances. If they did question the discrimination, they were viewed as troublemakers. I also remember how citizens "hid" behind their religious beliefs.

  There is absolutely no difference between being discriminated against due to your ethnicity and your sexual orientation. Period.