454

His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Take something you strongly disagree with. Let's say a certain political party and their agenda. Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, a radical independent, doesn't matter what, just one you disagree with.

You've decided to provide a private service as an individual. Let's say, event planning.

A political party approaches you to host their biggest rally yet. On enquiring, what it's about, you find out it's the one you disagree with.

Should you be made to? Are you denying rights by declining your services to them, or are you exercising your own by choosing to stand by your beliefs?

Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are. It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue.. But you host events, you don't control water, shelter, justice, health, or food to societies. So unless that's somehow happening—and boy would that have been a regulatory fuck up—you have the freedom to not host events for things that go against what you believe, and we protect that even if people disagree with them.

You can't make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn't want to be made to do things against your own. That's called hypocrisy and double standards. We respect this by disagreeing with someone's beliefs, but we don't strip them from people and force our own on them, just because we disagree.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.

In the US, the civil rights legislation forces racists to serve black people and that is great.

[-] darq@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to "something you strongly disagree with" is not fitting analogy.

Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are.

We aren't talking about "beliefs". We're talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.

It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue…

And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.

You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.

We can and we do, all the time. That's part of living in society.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.

Let's say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says "Blood and Soil" with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.

For a wedding venue they'd like to have this excellent location and catering company.

They also need a wedding photographer and their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7' tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says "Arbeit Macht Frei" and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo's while they both kiss Hitler's cheeks. They plan to stop by Stak Studios tomorrow and talk to them about it.

And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them.

How are you feeling about your statement right now?

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You're confusing ideology with identity.

Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.

Which is equivalent to saying you want to bring back "whites only" or "no gays" signs and whatever else. No thanks.

And let's be clear. We aren't actually talking about getting "whatever" from "whomever." We are talking about people who are members of a group (not by choice) having the right to expect the same treatment as others from a business open to the public.

On the other hand, you have stated, essentially, bigoted owners of businesses open to the public can deny business to anyone who holds this proverbial membership card you mention.

[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.

Never said it was.

The rest of your comment is similarly meaningless. You must have misunderstood me. The service would, and could, be denied because they are asking for a Nazi-themed service. Being a Nazi is a choice, not an immutable trait, nor a protected class.

Nowhere have I said that gay people shouldn't be denied service for any reason, only that they shouldn't be denied service because they're gay.

How are you feeling about your statement right now?

Exactly the same as before you made your utterly irrelevant comment.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The thing's you say are very authoritarian. The disregard for individual thoughts and freedoms is honestly scary. You can't even differentiate private venture with public service. I suspect you discriminate against others all of the time, but it's fine since it's coming from you and your side of things, never questioning if you're the bad person or not.

It slowly gets worse and worse each time you type. That last part is just flat out disgusting to say.

The Handmaiden's Tale didn't get 8.4 on iMDB because people can't wait for that future enough.

[-] darq@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Nothing but baseless assumptions and accusations. Waste of time.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Heh. Thank you. My point and case for anti-libertarian rests on that response perfectly.

And I appreciate you taking your time to state you're wasting your time. Best your words and outlook rest here than elsewhere. We're trying to progress as a species so, in a way, this is unintentionally helping.

[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

More baseless accusations, without addressing anything I said.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You've been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you've said is in direct opposition of the protection of people's freedoms and beliefs. You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that's fine and that you can take people's beliefs from them and replace them, which is literally within definition of authoritatianism—the polar opposite of liberalism.

Are you simple?

[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

You’ve been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you’ve said is in direct opposition of the protection of people’s freedoms and beliefs.

More idiotic accusations, no substance.

You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that’s fine and that you can take people’s beliefs from them and replace them

What? I've said nothing of the sort.

Stop arguing with people you have imagined.

Yawn.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You know your text is still there, right? Like it's still totally readable and still totally there.

You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.

We can and we do, all the time. That's part of living in society.

Yeah, okay. I'll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It's fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it's way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we're reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can't refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We'll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they'll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!

[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

You know your text is still there, right? Like it’s still totally readable and still totally there.

Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don't actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though. They don't get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.

Yeah, okay. I’ll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It’s fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it’s way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we’re reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can’t refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We’ll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they’ll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!

I'm going to say it again: Stop arguing with people you have imagined.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don't actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though.

Yes, they fucking do in this case. How they go about doing that is when discrimination could arise.

They don't get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.

It's not discimination. They're not stopping these people from something everyone else gets. They're saying they won't do it.

What's your solution here if you think this is somehow discrimination? To stop "discrimination" all Musilims, Christians, Eastern orthodox, Catholics, some Buddhists, Hindus, and the Jews are now abolished from photography services...to stop discrimination.

Or do you have some practical plan better than what we already have which is...

"I would like you to do this."

"I won't do that based on my beliefs."

~~"Fair enough, I'll find someone else."~~ "I'm going to shame you through public court and media, to obviously lose, but I don't like that the person you are isn't what I want."

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You're right, but that's an unpopular take in this hive mind.

Lemmy folk can't handle reality that contradicts their ideals.

[-] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

a hive mind isnt when people disagree with you honey

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

This feels like it should be Libertarian 101. Thought the communities were left here, but apparently they just say that to feel good.

this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
454 points (94.0% liked)

News

23265 readers
3107 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS