Wondering Woman

I'm having some trouble thinking of the context in which this question would arise.

[image deleted]

Well, you are not giving any context or examples, either in your original meme or your reply. Therefore, when in doubt, check the constitution and/or prior case law.

What I had in mind was the new North Carolina law.

OK, forgive me, I don't keep up on the news of the day in North Carolina, still need details.

How do you not know about this? It's been all over the news, Facebook, everywhere. Are you outside the US?

[image deleted]Why are you being so vague about it? Grow a pair and tell me wtf you're referring to?

It's got nothing to do with lacking the courage to type something into a computer. I'm busy writing a particle system at the moment for my simulator. :P

OK, I did Google it. Really doesn't concern me. I believe in States Rights and I don't keep up on the LGBLTXYZ issues or Rob Reiner, although he was good in "All in the Family" and "This is Spinal Tap".

Again, without knowing anything about the details of the law in question, I go back to my original meme reply, what does the Constitution and/or the First Amendment say? First, if the NC law is unconstitutional, then either the NC courts or the U.S. Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.

I know that you're going to label me a homophobe or some other name, but I also do not agree with Westboro Baptist Church. There's a lot of free speech in this country that I don't agree with, but I served my country for 22 years so that people have a right to say what they want, whether I agree with it or not.

Basically I think what it's about is whether somebody can refuse somebody service or not at their business because somebody is gay. They're not claiming freedom of speech, they're claiming "religious liberty." I.e., these people think homosexuality is an abomination under God, therefore they risk divine wrath by serving gays in their restaurants and so forth. Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, it's something more in lines with the 14th.

The principle disagreement with this is deeper though, it would seem to set a precedent that wouldn't just be about sexuality, but would apply equally to race, gender, or anything else. On the one hand I can see a point that my business is my business, and I should be able to refuse service to whoever I wish for whatever reason I wish. The libertarian in me agrees with that. On the other hand what comes to mind are the old pictures of "we don't serve blacks" and this kind of thing that so many people worked hard to end. While I'm a bit on the fence about all that generally speaking, I can't help but notice that all the laws that have been created to end discrimination in the private sector are rather meaningless if somebody can simply ignore them for, in the case of a religious person a religious reason, and in the case of a non-religious person (me for example) a moral objection.

The reason for the discrimination doesn't matter, it's still discrimination. As far as I know nobody has ever used the 1st Amendment argument you're using to try to overturn any anti-discrimination laws. If they were considered unconstitutional in fully developed arguments on issues of freedom of speech and discrimination, they'd have been struck down long ago. So I think the "hey, go read the 1st Amendment" argument may be a wee bit naive.

Like you said, we'll see how this plays out in court probably. Thanks to the 14th Amendment the government has never been allowed to do this kind of thing, but I don't know how it plays out in the private sector. Refusing to hire somebody because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation is discrimination and illegal, plain and simple. You can't even ask somebody during a job interview if they're married or not.

Dude, honestly, genuinely impressed (no sarcasm here at all). Thanks for taking the time to a) update me on the law better than Google could have b) telling me how you feel about it and c) noting that some of my points are valid (always the sign of a good debater).

Please reread the history of our conversation, I didn't have a lot to go on, neither I nor Socrates knew what you were referring to. If you're going to take the time to make a meme and someone else takes the time to ask about it you really should help them out a bit. That's the only reason that I went with the First Amendment, I didn't have a lot of context to go on. Anyhow, you did provide a good conversation eventually, so thanks again.

At first blush, it would appear that we're at odds over this, but I think we actually have more in common than not. First, I never bought into the whole do anything you can to screw over another human being because they don't agree with you or look like you or whatever, all in the name of religion. My brand of Christianity (I do not participate in organized religion) follows the golden rule, treat others as you would want them to treat you, do unto others, yadda yadda yadda. People that are dicks in the name of religion (any religion) really don't represent a religion that I want to be associated with. Second, if I'm in business, I'm selling my products or services to anybody that has my favorite color...green.

Peace Out!