The Gay-Wedding Cake Fight Isn’t About Religious Freedom—It’s About Sex

by Guest Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

The slippery-slope argument goes something like this: If Masterpiece Cakeshop, and its owner, Jack Phillips, can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, what’s to stop him from refusing to bake a wedding cake for two Jews, or an interracial couple, or anyone else for that matter?

There are good reasons to make that argument—I’ve made it myself on many occasions, and it may carry the day when the Supreme Court hears the case next week.

But ultimately, it misses the point: that it’s not Jews or people of color or anyone else who are the targets of these “religious freedom” claims. It’s women and LGBT people. Because at the end of the day, these “religious freedom” claims aren’t about religious freedom. They’re about the Culture War. They’re about sex.

First, if Phillips and his ilk were consistent, they would have plenty of sinful people to turn away from their businesses. In Matthew 5:32, for example, Jesus forbids divorce and says that remarriage is the same as adultery. So why isn’t Phillips turning away the remarried?

Here’s another example. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, one of the seven so-called clobber verses (out of 31,102 in the Bible) that talk about homosexuality, Paul states that “neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Whoever Paul is talking about here—it’s almost certainly not all gay men, and definitely not lesbians, but even if it were—they are placed on the same level as thieves, slanderers, and swindlers. No better and no worse.

And yet, I’m unaware of a single case in which a service provider sought the right to refuse service to a slanderer on the basis of a religious belief. Why?

Nor has Phillips asserted a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Hindu wedding, even though most evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a form of idolatry—which is forbidden over 100 times in the Bible, on penalty of death.

In other words, these “religious freedom” claimants are being highly selective about when their conscience compels them to discriminate. Of all of the sins in Scripture, it seems that only those involving sex and gender—contraception, abortion, LGBT people—are the only ones which trigger such claims.

Quite a coincidence, is it not?

Obviously, it is not. These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.

After all, the reason I’ve scare-quoted “religious freedom” here is that these kinds of claims are really quite novel. For two centuries, the First Amendment was primarily a shield held up by persecuted religious minorities—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Native Americans—against governmental interference in their religious practice. No third parties were involved; these minorities wanted to practice their religion and be left alone.

To be sure, this history is still marred by Christian domination. The First Amendment didn’t stop Mormon polygamy from being banned, and it didn’t stop the government from seizing lands held to be sacred by Native Americans. It was often used against Catholics as well.

But in principle, the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was a shield protecting minority religions from government interference.

Only in the last 20 years has it been used as a sword, allowing a religious individual to discriminate against someone else. In cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop or 2014’s Hobby Lobby, it’s not just the government and the practitioner. It’s the government, the practitioner, and the person the practitioner is harming. That is a crucial, and unprecedented, difference: Today’s “religious freedom” claimants want to abridge the rights of others.

And it’s not a coincidence. Poll data shows that when you scratch a “religious freedom” claimant, what you find underneath is someone who really wants to ban abortion, overturn same-sex marriage, and bring back anti-sodomy laws. These organizations—the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Becket Fund, Liberty Counsel—are fundamentally insincere. They’re not defending our “First Freedom.” They’re fighting the Culture War.

Now, having followed this issue for many years, I know that millions of conservative Christians sincerely believe their religion to be under attack. But the data doesn’t lie. Ultimately, Christian conservatives don’t just want to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. Ultimately, they want to impose their religious beliefs on others. They want to win the Culture War and ban the stuff they don’t like.

That’s why the slippery-slope argument is off point. We shouldn’t be asking “what’s to stop this person from turning away Jews?” We should be asking “why is it that the only people this person wants to turn away are women and gays?” Because that’s what reveals this campaign for what it is.

Now, two important caveats.

First—and this is a historical point I wish we could all keep in mind—this kind of religious freedom claim was, in fact, used against African Americans during the 1960s and 1970s. Bob Jones University, for example, argued that it had a First Amendment right to refuse admission to black students (and, later, to segregate them in special housing).

And on a local level, “religious freedom” was offered as a pretext by restauranteurs and hoteliers to deny service to blacks. God separated the races on different continents, evangelicals said in the 1950s, and we must not interfere with His plan.

The Bob Jones case went all the way to the Supreme Court—the university lost, and lost their tax-exempt status—and historian Randall Balmer has shown that it, not Roe v. Wade, was the chief motivation behind the formation of the “New Christian Right,” the term political scientists use to describe the Christian political movement that was born in the 1970s. (Prior to the Sexual Revolution, most evangelicals thought that Christians should stay out of the dirty business of politics. Times have changed.)

So it’s not as though the slippery slope isn’t true. It was true quite recently, in fact. The modern “religious freedom” movement was born in segregation.

It’s also true that, when pressed, “religious freedom” activists admit that the slippery slope is accurate in principle. In one memorable exchange from 2014, Congressman Jerrold Nadler asked the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver why, under the laws Staver favored—which have now become law in 22 states—a wedding photographer couldn’t refuse service to Jews.

After trying to weasel out of the question—“I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to,” he stammered—Staver admitted that, yes, “She would have an issue there—a violation potential in that case.”

So, in principle, the slippery-slope argument is spot-on, and, as mentioned earlier, it may well be decisive at the Supreme Court. For the rule of law to mean something, people can’t pick which laws they wish to obey.

Yet I want to conclude with Staver’s initial response: “I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to.” That may well be true. Anti-Semitism has surged during the Trump administration, but probably Staver’s clients—including the Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, now a hero of the New Christian Right—wouldn’t turn Jews away. That’s not what they’re worried about.

No—what they’re worried about are women and gays; sex and gender; the Culture War and the Christian Nation. And they want to win. Don’t let claims of “religious freedom” fool you.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-fight-isnt-about-religious-freedomits-about-sex

by Original Quill Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:03 pm

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

The question was would you accept a business refusing to decorate a cake for the wedding of a mixed race couple.

You haven't answered that at all.

If you can't no worries, I understand.

I accept a business refusing to serve someone for whatever reason they like. I think that has been very clear throughout this thread. Is there any more confusion about how I don't believe in using force to make one man serve another?

That's interesting. Under your theory, Muslims--say, from Saudi Arabia--could buy control of Lockheed or Boeing Aircraft, and direct operations to stop making war planes.

Or...do you think the government should have regulatory power over private property?

by Maddog Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I accept a business refusing to serve someone for whatever reason they like. I think that has been very clear throughout this thread. Is there any more confusion about how I don't believe in using force to make one man serve another?

That's interesting. Under your theory, Muslims--say, from Saudi Arabia--could buy control of Lockheed or Boeing Aircraft, and direct operations to stop making war planes.

Or...do you think the government should have regulatory power over private property?

I don't think anyone should be forced to sell to the government.

Is this really that complicated?

Force.
synonyms: coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, harassment, intimidation, threats.

^ I'm not a fan.

by Maddog Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:36 pm

By the way Quill. The crap you throw at the right wingers about Muslims will have zero affect on me. The pretty little thing that rocks my world is a moderate follower of the 3rd oldest Abrahamic religion. Cool

by Original Quill Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:49 pm

Maddog wrote:By the way Quill. The crap you throw at the right wingers about Muslims will have zero affect on me. The pretty little thing that rocks my world is a moderate follower of the 3rd oldest Abrahamic religion.

It's not about you. We can talk political philosophy, economics or current events. Religion is OK, too. What do you have to say about it?

by Guest Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:50 pm

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

The question was would you accept a business refusing to decorate a cake for the wedding of a mixed race couple.

You haven't answered that at all.

If you can't no worries, I understand.

I accept a business refusing to serve someone for whatever reason they like. I think that has been very clear throughout this thread. Is there any more confusion about how I don't believe in using force to make one man serve another?

So base on your other poor reason and say in the south. A person is refused in countless shops and now has to go 300 miles just to get some daily food in order to survive.

That is the outcome and possibility of what you back

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:15 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

If a DJ/band offered a service to perform at weddings, but a Sikh couple tried to book them under instruction that they play only bangra/Punjabi drum music, and the DJ/band refused the gig because they didn't feel happy/comfortable/willing/able to play that type of wedding/music... would that be discrimination and 'Sikhaphobia' etc...!?

A DJ would play whatever he's paid to play. If he doesn't, he's in the wrong job.

If a stipulation of the booking was to play a load of music that they didn't provide as part of the service they offered, then they simply just refuse that particular job...!

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:21 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I accept a business refusing to serve someone for whatever reason they like. I think that has been very clear throughout this thread. Is there any more confusion about how I don't believe in using force to make one man serve another?

So base on your other poor reason and say in the south. A person is refused in countless shops and now has to go 300 miles just to get some daily food in order to survive.

That is the outcome and possibility of what you back

Did people starve when the government mandated segregation?

Of course not. Because for every dick, there were 5 other people that sold to whoever had money.

by Guest Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:25 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

So base on your other poor reason and say in the south. A person is refused in countless shops and now has to go 300 miles just to get some daily food in order to survive.

That is the outcome and possibility of what you back

Did people starve when the government mandated segregation?

Of course not. Because for every dick, there were 5 other people that sold to whoever had money.

1) Emphatically yes

2) You need to read your own history better

3) The reality is this. What you propose could see people unable to purchase items locally and have to travel far to obtain them, by such an absurd policy and all down to the inane and archaic religious or political beliefs

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:29 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Did people starve when the government mandated segregation?

Of course not. Because for every dick, there were 5 other people that sold to whoever had money.

1) Emphatically yes

2) You need to read your own history better

3) The reality is this. What you propose could see people unable to purchase items locally and have to travel far to obtain them, by such an absurd policy and all down to the inane and archaic religious or political beliefs

People did not starve because no one would sell them food.

They actually bought wedding cakes and got married too, Cool

by Eilzel Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:32 am

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Your question has been answered. You don't like my answer. I'm cool with that. I don't want the government to force you to agree with me either.

The question was would you accept a business refusing to decorate a cake for the wedding of a mixed race couple.

You haven't answered that at all.

If you can't no worries, I understand.

I accept a business refusing to serve someone for whatever reason they like. I think that has been very clear throughout this thread. Is there any more confusion about how I don't believe in using force to make one man serve another?

So you think it's OK to refuse equal treatment to people based on race and sexuality because 'freedom'. And then wonder why many are wary of libertarianism...

by Guest Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:32 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) Emphatically yes

2) You need to read your own history better

3) The reality is this. What you propose could see people unable to purchase items locally and have to travel far to obtain them, by such an absurd policy and all down to the inane and archaic religious or political beliefs

People did not starve because no one would sell them food.

They actually bought wedding cakes and got married too,

Its called acces to buying food.

I mean who used to own many of the shops back when the US was segregated?

I mean, shall we go on about what happened to many African Americans during the depression?

No?

Sure?

Well many could not get married within the same places as others and others were not even allowed to marry

So again your view seems very neglectful of its history.

by Guest Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:35 am

Fordham University College Republicans were forced to leave an on-campus coffee shop for wearing MAGA hats.

The self-identified president of the student club that runs the coffee shop told the College Republicans that their hats “violated safe space policy” with their headgear, and that she had to evict them.

A video obtained by Campus Reform shows the leader of the student group, which runs Rodrigue’s Coffee House, telling the students they had five minutes to leave. She did not explain what would happen if they refused.

Get out! Five minutes,” ordered the proprietor. “I’m protecting our customers … you are wearing hats that completely violate safe space policy. You have to go.”

“We are your customers, we bought something,” a College Republican replied.

“I don’t want people like you supporting this club… no one here wants people like you supporting our club,” the woman barked. “I am giving you five minutes.”

When she was asked for an explanation, she yelled “Fascism. Nazis! Three minutes.”

Speaking to the New York Post, College Republicans member Michael Esposito called the experience “humiliating.”

“It was humiliating to be called a Nazi in front of so many people I go to school with,” he said. “It’s almost scary.”

The club president presented the College Republicans a flyer outlining the coffee shop’s “Safer Space Policy,” which reads:

Do not make assumptions about someone’s gender, sexuality, race, class, or experiences. Be aware of your own identity, while being considerate of the personhood of your peers. Be mindful of the ways in which your words and actions impact others. Be aware of the boundaries of other’s space, physical or otherwise, and respect their consent.

No racism – No sexism – No homophobia.

If you feel that someone has transgressed this policy, we want you to feel comfortable confronting them or approaching a member behind the counter, who is available as a resource to assist you.”

The rules make no mention of hats.

One of the students evicted from the coffee shop told Campus Reform that the group went there to test the “unwritten rule that conservatives were banned from that coffee shop.”

“We went there and just started doing some homework and studying. Then we were asked to leave,” he said, adding that he and the other students pay their tuitions and should be allowed to use any building on campus, just like any other student.

“This school is over $70,000 a year in tuition, therefore I feel that I have the right to go into all of the buildings that other students are allowed to go into. I also have the right to wear what I want to wear and express my own political views.”

Fordham University, which is investigating the incident, states that the university does not have a campus safe space policy.

“There is no University safe space policy, nor one that excludes any members of the Fordham community from any public spaces on the basis of their political views,” Fordham assistant president Bob Howe wrote. “Fordham is a community that values diverse opinions, and in which students should disagree with one another in a civil fashion.”

https://www.dangerous.com/38285/campus-cafe-kicks-college-republicans-violating-safe-space-policy/

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:37 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

People did not starve because no one would sell them food.

They actually bought wedding cakes and got married too,

Its called acces to buying food.

I mean who used to own many of the shops back when the US was segregated?

I mean, shall we go on about what happened to many African Americans during the depression?

No?

Sure?

Well many could not get married within the same places as others and others were not even allowed to marry

So again your view seems very neglectful of its history.

I know my history.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.— Twenty years ago, before racial segregation laws were wiped off the books and black people became welcome as shoppers in the downtown stores, the black business district anchored by Fourth Avenue and 18th Street was flourishing, with small service shops by the dozens, four movie theaters and several restaurants and small hotels.

Today there are abandoned storefronts, cleared lots, boarded buildings and only a handful of businesses. This landscape is representative of old black business districts across America, and the state of black-owned business generally is not much brighter.

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

There are fewer than 500 black-owned businesses operating in Birmingham today as against more than 1,000 in the early 1960's, according to veteran black business leaders here, and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

''Desegregation improved social conditions - it just didn't work out economically,'' said J. McKinley Neal, a member of the Missouri Legislature for 18 years who has been the owner of Regal Pharmacy in Kansas City for 44 years. ''I fought hard in the Legislature for integration. I thought it would work both ways, that whites would patronize black businesses.''

''Twenty or 30 years ago we had a full, thriving black business district,'' he said. ''Now it looks like a graveyard.'' Districts Have Lost Cohesion

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/us/businesses-owned-by-blacks-still-fighting-an-uphill-battle.html?pagewanted=all

by Guest Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:37 am

Classic example of discrimination.

by Guest Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:39 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Its called acces to buying food.

I mean who used to own many of the shops back when the US was segregated?

I mean, shall we go on about what happened to many African Americans during the depression?

No?

Sure?

Well many could not get married within the same places as others and others were not even allowed to marry

So again your view seems very neglectful of its history.

I know my history.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.— Twenty years ago, before racial segregation laws were wiped off the books and black people became welcome as shoppers in the downtown stores, the black business district anchored by Fourth Avenue and 18th Street was flourishing, with small service shops by the dozens, four movie theaters and several restaurants and small hotels.

Today there are abandoned storefronts, cleared lots, boarded buildings and only a handful of businesses. This landscape is representative of old black business districts across America, and the state of black-owned business generally is not much brighter.

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

There are fewer than 500 black-owned businesses operating in Birmingham today as against more than 1,000 in the early 1960's, according to veteran black business leaders here, and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

''Desegregation improved social conditions - it just didn't work out economically,'' said J. McKinley Neal, a member of the Missouri Legislature for 18 years who has been the owner of Regal Pharmacy in Kansas City for 44 years. ''I fought hard in the Legislature for integration. I thought it would work both ways, that whites would patronize black businesses.''

''Twenty or 30 years ago we had a full, thriving black business district,'' he said. ''Now it looks like a graveyard.'' Districts Have Lost Cohesion

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/us/businesses-owned-by-blacks-still-fighting-an-uphill-battle.html?pagewanted=all

You know your history by posting an article not about the depression and something from 1981?

So again does any of the above disprove my points?

Nope

Wanna try again?

by Guest Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:42 am

I also love how you use one single place in the US to make an argument and not something that shows the whole of the US maddog.

That is poor selective arguments, do you not think?

Anyway, you have to show me that segregation did not cause starvation, poverty etc.

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:54 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I know my history.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.— Twenty years ago, before racial segregation laws were wiped off the books and black people became welcome as shoppers in the downtown stores, the black business district anchored by Fourth Avenue and 18th Street was flourishing, with small service shops by the dozens, four movie theaters and several restaurants and small hotels.

Today there are abandoned storefronts, cleared lots, boarded buildings and only a handful of businesses. This landscape is representative of old black business districts across America, and the state of black-owned business generally is not much brighter.

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

There are fewer than 500 black-owned businesses operating in Birmingham today as against more than 1,000 in the early 1960's, according to veteran black business leaders here, and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

''Desegregation improved social conditions - it just didn't work out economically,'' said J. McKinley Neal, a member of the Missouri Legislature for 18 years who has been the owner of Regal Pharmacy in Kansas City for 44 years. ''I fought hard in the Legislature for integration. I thought it would work both ways, that whites would patronize black businesses.''

''Twenty or 30 years ago we had a full, thriving black business district,'' he said. ''Now it looks like a graveyard.'' Districts Have Lost Cohesion

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/us/businesses-owned-by-blacks-still-fighting-an-uphill-battle.html?pagewanted=all

You know your history by posting an article not about the depression and something from 1981?

So again does any of the above disprove my points?

Nope

Wanna try again?

The 50's & 60's vs 1981.

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:58 pm

Didge wrote:I also love how you use one single place in the US to make an argument and not something that shows the whole of the US maddog.

That is poor selective arguments, do you not think?

Anyway, you have to show me that segregation did not cause starvation, poverty etc.

and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

It's more than one place.

Segregation was stupid, but people worked around it.

On a more relevant topic, gay bars are losing business now too. Seems that folks are just going out wherever, and not drinking based on sexual preference of the clientel.

by Eilzel Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:42 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:I also love how you use one single place in the US to make an argument and not something that shows the whole of the US maddog.

That is poor selective arguments, do you not think?

Anyway, you have to show me that segregation did not cause starvation, poverty etc.

and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

It's more than one place.

Segregation was stupid, but people worked around it.

On a more relevant topic, gay bars are losing business now too. Seems that folks are just going out wherever, and not drinking based on sexual preference of the clientel.

I always found it odd that only gay people tend to go to gay bars in the US. In the UK gay bars are always popular, with gays and straights alike Smile

And, did you just passively suggest segregation wasn't so bad?

by eddie Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:48 pm

Gay bars are fabulous. Several of the ones in London sell their drinks far cheaper than other places, have blindingingly great atmospheres and the music is much better. Cool

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:49 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

It's more than one place.

Segregation was stupid, but people worked around it.

On a more relevant topic, gay bars are losing business now too. Seems that folks are just going out wherever, and not drinking based on sexual preference of the clientel.

I always found it odd that only gay people tend to go to gay bars in the US. In the UK gay bars are always popular, with gays and straights alike

And, did you just passively suggest segregation wasn't so bad?

I've been to gay bars, but it's not something most straight males do very often. Straight women tend to do it more often.

Is English your native tongue?

Do you know what the word "stupid" suggests?

by Eilzel Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:53 pm

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

It's more than one place.

Segregation was stupid, but people worked around it.

On a more relevant topic, gay bars are losing business now too. Seems that folks are just going out wherever, and not drinking based on sexual preference of the clientel.

I always found it odd that only gay people tend to go to gay bars in the US. In the UK gay bars are always popular, with gays and straights alike

And, did you just passively suggest segregation wasn't so bad?

I've been to gay bars, but it's not something most straight males do very often. Straight women tend to do it more often.

Is English your native tongue?

Do you know what the word "stupid" suggests?

A lot of gay men take their straight go with their straight friends to gay bars in the UK. I guess we are just not so segregated in Britain Laughing

And yes, I got the stupid comment there, but I read your sentence as meaning "segregation was stupid, but people got by so we should have government getting involved to prevent it". Sound about right?

by Maddog Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:58 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I've been to gay bars, but it's not something most straight males do very often. Straight women tend to do it more often.

Is English your native tongue?

Do you know what the word "stupid" suggests?

A lot of gay men take their straight go with their straight friends to gay bars in the UK. I guess we are just not so segregated in Britain

And yes, I got the stupid comment there, but I read your sentence as meaning "segregation was stupid, but people got by so we should have government getting involved to prevent it". Sound about right?

If a bar is full of a mixture of gay and straight people, it's just called a bar here.

Yes, people not only managed but the black economy did far better before the government "saved" them.

by Eilzel Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:13 am

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I've been to gay bars, but it's not something most straight males do very often. Straight women tend to do it more often.

Is English your native tongue?

Do you know what the word "stupid" suggests?

A lot of gay men take their straight go with their straight friends to gay bars in the UK. I guess we are just not so segregated in Britain

And yes, I got the stupid comment there, but I read your sentence as meaning "segregation was stupid, but people got by so we should have government getting involved to prevent it". Sound about right?

If a bar is full of a mixture of gay and straight people, it's just called a bar here.

Yes, people not only managed but the black economy did far better before the government "saved" them.

So, when I suggested you didn't think segregation was 'so bad' it turns out I was right...

A gay bar that advertises itself as such and is a gay bar. Most their clientel are gay. But many straight men and women go too.

Of course today in the UK gay people are welcome in most places but there are always some places friendly to openly gay couples than others. Gay bars are just a safe bet. As far as the UK pub and bar scene goes, if they are in a city they do well, outside cities they struggle, gay or straight Sad

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:17 am

Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If a bar is full of a mixture of gay and straight people, it's just called a bar here.

Yes, people not only managed but the black economy did far better before the government "saved" them.

So, when I suggested you didn't think segregation was 'so bad' it turns out I was right...

A gay bar that advertises itself as such and is a gay bar. Most their clientel are gay. But many straight men and women go too.

Of course today in the UK gay people are welcome in most places but there are always some places friendly to openly gay couples than others. Gay bars are just a safe bet. As far as the UK pub and bar scene goes, if they are in a city they do well, outside cities they struggle, gay or straight

It's not a matter of what I think. Black businesses thrived under segregation, and failed when segregation ended. I still "think" that segregation is a stupid idea, but I also "know" that black businesses did better when it was in place.

There is no need to try to twist my words, because I will be very clear as to what I mean.

Are there any more comments that I have made, that need more clarification?

by Original Quill Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 am

Maddog wrote:...black businesses did better when it [segregation] was in place.

No word twisting, MD. Bullshit!!

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:39 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:...black businesses did better when it [segregation] was in place.

No word twisting, MD. Bullshit!!

Yes they did. And I posted the link.

It's up to you to read it. Wink

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:40 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:...black businesses did better when it [segregation] was in place.

No word twisting, MD. Bullshit!!

Let me help you out.

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

Any questions?

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:47 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

You know your history by posting an article not about the depression and something from 1981?

So again does any of the above disprove my points?

Nope

Wanna try again?

The 50's & 60's vs 1981.

You said you knew history

That was a blatant lie. Being as you posted one area and even this one area, there is no evidence to show that because segregation ended. Was the reason that there was a decline in prosperity.
It shows that again you do not know history and how and why economic down turns caused such closures.

So again, lets see some real historic evidence that shows for the whole US

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:49 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

The 50's & 60's vs 1981.

You said you knew history

That was a blatant lie. Being as you posted one area and even this one area, there is no evidence to show that because segregation ended. Was the reason that there was a decline in prosperity.
It shows that again you do not know history and how and why economic down turns caused such closures.

So again, lets see some real historic evidence that shows for the whole US

There are fewer than 500 black-owned businesses operating in Birmingham today as against more than 1,000 in the early 1960's, according to veteran black business leaders here, and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

''Desegregation improved social conditions - it just didn't work out economically,'' said J. McKinley Neal, a member of the Missouri Legislature for 18 years who has been the owner of Regal Pharmacy in Kansas City for 44 years. ''I fought hard in the Legislature for integration. I thought it would work both ways, that whites would patronize black businesses.''

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:50 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:I also love how you use one single place in the US to make an argument and not something that shows the whole of the US maddog.

That is poor selective arguments, do you not think?

Anyway, you have to show me that segregation did not cause starvation, poverty etc.

and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

It's more than one place.

Segregation was stupid, but people worked around it.

On a more relevant topic, gay bars are losing business now too. Seems that folks are just going out wherever, and not drinking based on sexual preference of the clientel.

Well considering your first very old article did not offer any evidence that the end of segregation ended the prosperity of such places. You really have to do better than making poor assumptions, just as the article did.

I mean, if as you claim that due to segreation ended, throughout any period of US history, we would see a continious case of shops closing down througout the US.

This simple is not the case

Segregation privilidged the white groups and made for those African americans to suffer at every level.

Sorry but you need to actually read some real histrory

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:50 am

And Didge, Don't call me liar.

It's a pussy move. Smile

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

You said you knew history

That was a blatant lie. Being as you posted one area and even this one area, there is no evidence to show that because segregation ended. Was the reason that there was a decline in prosperity.
It shows that again you do not know history and how and why economic down turns caused such closures.

So again, lets see some real historic evidence that shows for the whole US

There are fewer than 500 black-owned businesses operating in Birmingham today as against more than 1,000 in the early 1960's, according to veteran black business leaders here, and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

''Desegregation improved social conditions - it just didn't work out economically,'' said J. McKinley Neal, a member of the Missouri Legislature for 18 years who has been the owner of Regal Pharmacy in Kansas City for 44 years. ''I fought hard in the Legislature for integration. I thought it would work both ways, that whites would patronize black businesses.''

So you offer again the opinion of one the Missouri Legisture as your evidence.

Wow

So again was it down to the end of segregation that causes buisness to close down or was it down to other economic down turns?

You need to do better than hearsay

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo.

It's more than one place.

Segregation was stupid, but people worked around it.

On a more relevant topic, gay bars are losing business now too. Seems that folks are just going out wherever, and not drinking based on sexual preference of the clientel.

Well considering your first very old article did not offer any evidence that the end of segregation ended the prosperity of such places. You really have to do better than making poor assumptions, just as the article did.

I mean, if as you claim that due to segreation ended, throughout any period of US history, we would see a continious case of shops closing down througout the US.

This simple is not the case

Segregation privilidged the white groups and made for those African americans to suffer at every level.

Sorry but you need to actually read some real histrory

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:54 am

Maddog wrote:And Didge, Don't call me liar.

It's a pussy move.

Pussy move?

You said you knew history and then proceeded to post a very old article.

That is not knowing history is it mate?

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:56 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well considering your first very old article did not offer any evidence that the end of segregation ended the prosperity of such places. You really have to do better than making poor assumptions, just as the article did.

I mean, if as you claim that due to segreation ended, throughout any period of US history, we would see a continious case of shops closing down througout the US.

This simple is not the case

Segregation privilidged the white groups and made for those African americans to suffer at every level.

Sorry but you need to actually read some real histrory

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

You see, you just keep plagerizing the same rubbish from others.

What happened is many African Americans moved to more Urbanized city areas for better work.

Now that they were no longer discriminated in a number of job roles.

Hence there was a drive to get out of the poverty stricken rural areas.

If you calll that a side effect. It would have happened at any point with the break down of segregation at any point. Because the effect was that now Blacks could get better work in the cities

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:00 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:And Didge, Don't call me liar.

It's a pussy move.

Pussy move?

You said you knew history and then proceeded to post a very old article.

That is not knowing history is it mate?

I said people were served prior to desegregation. I posted an article showing that people got services during segregation. You stated they didn't.

One of us was correct. Me

Then you called me a liar.

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:04 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out'

You see, you just keep plagerizing the same rubbish from others.

What happened is many African Americans moved to more Urbanized city areas for better work.

Now that they were no longer discriminated in a number of job roles.

Hence there was a drive to get out of the poverty stricken rural areas.

If you calll that a side effect. It would have happened at any point with the break down of segregation at any point. Because the effect was that now Blacks could get better work in the cities

It was in the urban areas where black businesses failed after desegregation. So I guess all the blacks moving to the urban areas caused black businesses in those areas to fail. Wink

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:06 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Pussy move?

You said you knew history and then proceeded to post a very old article.

That is not knowing history is it mate?

I said people were served prior to desegregation. I posted an article showing that people got services during segregation. You stated they didn't.

One of us was correct. Me

Then you called me a liar.

And as i stated many Blacks suffered due to this discrimination.

You completely buying into nonsense buddy

How am I am lying when you had to post an article when you claim to know your own history.

You posted something based on one area, not even understanding that people left the rural areas, to seek better paid jobs, now that they could not be discriminated against

So saying people got services, whoopdeedo. Its like claiming that blacks were treated well during slavery.

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:08 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

You see, you just keep plagerizing the same rubbish from others.

What happened is many African Americans moved to more Urbanized city areas for better work.

Now that they were no longer discriminated in a number of job roles.

Hence there was a drive to get out of the poverty stricken rural areas.

If you calll that a side effect. It would have happened at any point with the break down of segregation at any point. Because the effect was that now Blacks could get better work in the cities

It was in the urban areas where black businesses failed after desegregation. So I guess all the blacks moving to the urban areas caused black businesses in those areas to fail.

It happened to many white buisness also. People sought work where it was.

So it is always inevitable that buisness is rural areas close, the more work is found in cities.

This happens globally.

So this happens without segregation.

I always was concerned what historical trash they seem to teach in parts of Texas.

Now my fears are right

Laughing

by Maddog Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:30 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

It was in the urban areas where black businesses failed after desegregation. So I guess all the blacks moving to the urban areas caused black businesses in those areas to fail.

It happened to many white buisness also. People sought work where it was.

So it is always inevitable that buisness is rural areas close, the more work is found in cities.

This happens globally.

So this happens without segregation.

I always was concerned what historical trash they seem to teach in parts of Texas.

Now my fears are right

Why are you bringing up rural areas?

It was the places in the urban areas that were closing.

I wouldn't worry about my knowledge 0f history in light of your inability to read. Wink

by Guest Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:34 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

It happened to many white buisness also. People sought work where it was.

So it is always inevitable that buisness is rural areas close, the more work is found in cities.

This happens globally.

So this happens without segregation.

I always was concerned what historical trash they seem to teach in parts of Texas.

Now my fears are right

Why are you bringing up rural areas?

It was the places in the urban areas that were closing.

I wouldn't worry about my knowledge 0f history in light of your inability to read.

I would hardly call what you post as a major city, would you mate with Birmingham Alabama back then?

They are what I would class as rurual towns and again you are going off your one poor article.

So has the point sunk in yet, that small town industries, businesses lost many people to major city jobs and where they then moved into white suburban areas?? Thus better hosuing areas, than the poor housing areas they lived in.

Cool

by Ben Reilly Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:33 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

I have nothing wrong, because it is my opinion. I know what the law states, which has no bearing on what I think is the moral way to handle the situation. I believe all exchanges should be voluntary on both sides. Force should only be used to protect people from harm.

Exactly, and when business owners who say they are open to the public choose to discriminate against paying customers on the basis of factors beyond the customers' control, such as race, orientation, gender, etc., they are harming those customers.

You can't argue that you being forced to go ten, twenty, fifty miles out of your way to access a good or service that most people can access far more easily does you no harm. Irrational discrimination is aggression. Bigotry isn't harmless, hate isn't neutral.

It is quite moral for a government to protect its citizens from the harm of bigotry.

by Syl Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:59 pm

eddie wrote:Gay bars are fabulous. Several of the ones in London sell their drinks far cheaper than other places, have blindingingly great atmospheres and the music is much better.

You would love the gay village in Manchester.
I used to go quite a bit....when everywhere else was dead in town that place would be thriving...and everyone was welcome.

by HoratioTarr Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:49 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:Gay bars are fabulous. Several of the ones in London sell their drinks far cheaper than other places, have blindingingly great atmospheres and the music is much better.

You would love the gay village in Manchester.
I used to go quite a bit....when everywhere else was dead in town that place would be thriving...and everyone was welcome.

Ah happy days. We used to go to New York New York where you could stand cheek by jowl sharing your lippy with the trannies in the ladies toilets. Best music played in gay clubs. Remember Napoleon's? It was hardcore gay and no women allowed. My ex and his mate went down there one night while we women waited up top and they both came out white faced!!! Handle Bars. Strap ons. Hammocks. Nuff said.

by Syl Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:28 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

You would love the gay village in Manchester.
I used to go quite a bit....when everywhere else was dead in town that place would be thriving...and everyone was welcome.

Ah happy days. We used to go to New York New York where you could stand cheek by jowl sharing your lippy with the trannies in the ladies toilets. Best music played in gay clubs. Remember Napoleon's? It was hardcore gay and no women allowed. My ex and his mate went down there one night while we women waited up top and they both came out white faced!!! Handle Bars. Strap ons. Hammocks. Nuff said.

I never went to Napoleons, some of the really hard core gay places rooms adjacent to the bar where anything and everything took place....they were the ones I gave a miss to, for obvious reasons. Shocked

Remember the Union? that was one of the original gay/transgender places in Manchester, it was there when I first went to town in the 60's.

And FooFoos palace, had some of the best girls nights out there. Cool

by Maddog Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:42 pm

One of the most iconic gay bars in Ft Worth (yes we have gay bars) burned down about 6 months ago. I can see where it was from my balcony. At first there was talk of rebuilding it a few blocks away, but those plans have been shelved. There is still a gay bar (Country Western) across the street. It seems to be doing OK, but I have noticed that the gay folks are just hanging out at other bars in my neighborhood. I think their will always be some demand for gay bars, but not nearly as much as there used to be. Bars are becoming just bars, and everyone of all flavors go them. Of course I live in the most liberal part of the city, so maybe it's different here. I'll admit that it would be very odd to see two gay guys dancing and holding hands in the place that Eddie is using for her avi.

by HoratioTarr Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:35 pm

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Ah happy days. We used to go to New York New York where you could stand cheek by jowl sharing your lippy with the trannies in the ladies toilets. Best music played in gay clubs. Remember Napoleon's? It was hardcore gay and no women allowed. My ex and his mate went down there one night while we women waited up top and they both came out white faced!!! Handle Bars. Strap ons. Hammocks. Nuff said.

I never went to Napoleons, some of the really hard core gay places rooms adjacent to the bar where anything and everything took place....they were the ones I gave a miss to, for obvious reasons.

Remember the Union? that was one of the original gay/transgender places in Manchester, it was there when I first went to town in the 60's.

And FooFoos palace, had some of the best girls nights out there.

Yes, I do remember The Union, used to go in there after work. I used to work at Sight and Sound on the same street. Back in the late 80s.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:09 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I have nothing wrong, because it is my opinion. I know what the law states, which has no bearing on what I think is the moral way to handle the situation. I believe all exchanges should be voluntary on both sides. Force should only be used to protect people from harm.

Exactly, and when business owners who say they are open to the public choose to discriminate against paying customers on the basis of factors beyond the customers' control, such as race, orientation, gender, etc., they are harming those customers.

You can't argue that you being forced to go ten, twenty, fifty miles out of your way to access a good or service that most people can access far more easily does you no harm. Irrational discrimination is aggression. Bigotry isn't harmless, hate isn't neutral.

It is quite moral for a government to protect its citizens from the harm of bigotry.

The gays weren't denied service because they were gay... they were accepted as customers and the business was happy to serve them, offering to provide the exact same service to them as everybody else, in that the business offered to provide them with each/every style of cake that the business was happy to provide to any other customer...

They asked cake maker to provide a style of cake that was not on offer as part of their service and was not available/on offer to any other customer either...!

If a woman goes into a tailors shop and ask for a flowery skirt be made, and is told not a service provided, but she can have service of the same list of garments that they would normally provide for anyone else... does she have any basis for complaint for discrimination/sexism etc...?

What if she tries arguing that the tailors made kilts... so why not skirts for women...?

Are the tailors being discriminatory/sexist for 'denying her service' because she 'is a woman'...?

I went into 'Morrisons' supermarket the other day to buy a few cheap plain T-shirts to use wear for work... looked around the clothes sections, but couldn't find any adult males clothes anywhere... when I asked, I was told that they only had 'womens/childrens' clothes in their clothes sections...!

Am I a victim of discrimination...?

Although I was never denied service of purchasing any of the clothes they did have on offer because of my age/gender/sexuality/etc... the available selection was the same to me as every other customer had as available service to them to buy...!

Also... I didn't see any clothes on offer that had any specifically designed 'gay themes'... and I haven't heard of any gays complaining that they are feeling discriminated against by Morrisons because although the supermarket sell clothes, they refused service to gays who wanted 'gay themed' clothes, while only offering them the same selection/types of clothes that they had on offer to all other customers...!

by Eilzel Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:04 am

It may come as a surprise, Tommy, but gay people wear the same kind of clothes as you do and everyone else does. You probably dress the same as a lot of gay men, a fact that probably frightens you...

There is no need for 'gay themed' T-shirts in a shop anymore than Star Wars themed ones.

A gay wedding cake however, is a standard expectation. Our options shouldn't be limited by an owner's bigotry.