| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2011 12:40:20 AM · #5526 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I honestly don't see the difference. |
So do schools have to provide co-ed locker rooms?
The courts tend to allow exceptions for reasons of personal privacy, if those exceptions do not confer a distinct advantage to one of the parties.
"Separate but equal" fail in the most practical sense because it's rarely equal; however, dressing rooms and exercise equipment of equal quality and cost are readily available to men.
It's also possible that it is legally structured as a private membership "club" and not as a facility "open to the public" at all; I don't think it was the courts which made the Augusta National admit a couple of token Black members ... |
How about you guys just read the statute and point out where the exception is for curves. :) There is actually a clause that does talk about "separate but equal" as being ok. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 12:45:28 AM · #5527 |
Ha! I found this from 2006 from California. The details might not be exactly the same (I'm not going to bother to look it up), but I think this validates my point...
In a case that could have repercussions for single-sex fitness clubs, a Sonoma County judge has ordered a Santa Rosa women's health club to open its doors to men.
Judge Knoel Owen said Body Central must provide showers and lockers for men and stop advertising itself as a women-only health club.
He ruled in favor of the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which sued Body Central last year for allegedly violating California's anti-discrimination law.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2011 12:59:06 AM · #5528 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, that's such BS, Mousie. If you can't let your religion inform your life, then what is it worth?
You are just as welcome to be gay, but don't do it in public. That would be an equally unacceptable point of view. |
The reason you believe this is BS is the same reason we'll never see eye to eye. Thanks for the pithy evaluation though. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 02:00:21 AM · #5529 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ha! I found this from 2006 from California. The details might not be exactly the same (I'm not going to bother to look it up), but I think this validates my point...
In a case that could have repercussions for single-sex fitness clubs, a Sonoma County judge has ordered a Santa Rosa women's health club to open its doors to men.
Judge Knoel Owen said Body Central must provide showers and lockers for men and stop advertising itself as a women-only health club.
He ruled in favor of the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which sued Body Central last year for allegedly violating California's anti-discrimination law. |
Man are you persistant. Do you have a flag on the wall that says ¡Viva la discriminación!?
Message edited by author 2011-07-21 02:03:44.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2011 11:44:52 AM · #5530 |
BTW, in an attempt to totally derail what would otherwise be a fruitless conversation :), I heard this song on, of all places, NPR Saturday morning and thought the lyrics really took the conciliatory approach that I agree with, though have probably not expressed adequately in this thread. Take a minute to listen to it. On NPR it was preceded by David telling a little parable about two farmers, a cat, a carpenter and a bridge that was cute (yet powerful), but that isn't on this YouTube clip.
Fearless Love By David Wilcox |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 01:39:57 PM · #5531 |
Remember, this is where discrimination eventually leads:
Minister orders arrest of all homosexuals
So bizarre of me to insist that my relationship is legitimized by the state, eh?
Message edited by author 2011-07-21 13:40:50. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 02:26:06 PM · #5532 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and exactly what is your point  Nullix ? Surely you must recognize the fact that they did in fact discriminate against a couple based solely on the fact that they are gay.
Ray |
I think his point was that maybe 1000 posts ago the tone of this conversation was saying the religious people could have their view and nobody was forcing them to do anything but they should in turn allow others to do what they want. He's pointing out that as things progress this quickly does not appear to be the case and that there is a push-and-pull. It's always been argued that allowing religious freedom to inform social issues stifles expressions like gay marriage, but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom.
The trick is going to be finding the balance. It would have been easier if one way allowed for the existence of both, but it doesn't seem to be that easy. |
This is absolutely true. The more civil rights you grant gay people, the more you will discriminate against religions that believe homosexuality is a sin. It's unavoidable.
And the quicker we do it the better, just like pulling tape off of someone's mouth. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 04:23:14 PM · #5533 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
This is absolutely true. The more civil rights you grant gay people, the more you will discriminate against religions that believe homosexuality is a sin. It's unavoidable.
And the quicker we do it the better, just like pulling tape off of someone's mouth. |
I like Washington state's approach. Seems like a reasonable balance to me. If you favor one side completely you are part of the problem, not the solution. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 04:49:29 PM · #5534 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like Washington state's approach. Seems like a reasonable balance to me. If you favor one side completely you are part of the problem, not the solution. |
I can't believe you said that...
Problem: Wedding reception for gay couple turned down by an inn that, as a matter of policy, discriminates against gay couples wishing to celebrate their unions.
DrAchoo position: If the gay couple is unwilling to concede that the inn has a right to do this, then they are PART of the problem?
I tell ya, Doc, you gotta go all the way on this. You don't have a leg to stand on here unless you want to expand your list of "private rights" to include such things as refusing to host wedding receptions for, say, multi-racial couples, and whoever else these innkeepers might not feel personally enthusiastic about.
How about it? Is it your position that ANY business owner should have the right to deny services to any customer he doesn't, personally, approve of, for whatever reason? Or is it only *religious* reasons that pass muster with you? And if that's the case, don't you SEE how specious and downright dangerous that is?
R. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 05:00:54 PM · #5535 |
| Obviously enough people think it's dangerous that there are laws on the books to mitigate it. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 05:08:28 PM · #5536 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
This is absolutely true. The more civil rights you grant gay people, the more you will discriminate against religions that believe homosexuality is a sin. It's unavoidable.
And the quicker we do it the better, just like pulling tape off of someone's mouth. |
I like Washington state's approach. Seems like a reasonable balance to me. If you favor one side completely you are part of the problem, not the solution. |
Washington state's approach (everything but marriage) makes no sense unless you believe that the United States Government is your brand of Christian. If marriage is provided by the State, then the State must not discriminate against who should receive it.
If you believe that two adults who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry, then you are part of the problem, not the solution, because your empathy has failed you.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2011 06:24:02 PM · #5537 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like Washington state's approach. Seems like a reasonable balance to me. If you favor one side completely you are part of the problem, not the solution. |
I can't believe you said that...
Problem: Wedding reception for gay couple turned down by an inn that, as a matter of policy, discriminates against gay couples wishing to celebrate their unions.
DrAchoo position: If the gay couple is unwilling to concede that the inn has a right to do this, then they are PART of the problem?
I tell ya, Doc, you gotta go all the way on this. You don't have a leg to stand on here unless you want to expand your list of "private rights" to include such things as refusing to host wedding receptions for, say, multi-racial couples, and whoever else these innkeepers might not feel personally enthusiastic about.
How about it? Is it your position that ANY business owner should have the right to deny services to any customer he doesn't, personally, approve of, for whatever reason? Or is it only *religious* reasons that pass muster with you? And if that's the case, don't you SEE how specious and downright dangerous that is?
R. |
The bolded comment was specifically to Don, not to the Innkeeper issue. I don't know what the solution is frankly. On one hand, I understand the slope you are worried about slipping down. On the other hand, are we going to make the Jewish innkeeper serve pork or the Muslim serve alcohol because the married couple want it? Can an innkeeper refuse a room to a couple who are not married? I realize those are not currently part of the Vermont statute as written, but the slope runs both ways. I do not believe one must completely check your personal beliefs at the door when serving the public.
Regardless, the very bottom line is that we now have some answer to the oft repeated question of, "who is harmed?" when it comes to gay marriage. People who disagree with it who run a business. I'm guessing the reply with be, "screw them"... |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 06:25:11 PM · #5538 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
If you believe that two adults who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry, then you are part of the problem, not the solution, because your empathy has failed you. |
So, Don, just to be clear...any two adults who love each other should be allowed to marry? That's your only stipulation?
Message edited by author 2011-07-21 18:25:41. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 06:36:57 PM · #5539 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If you believe that two adults who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry, then you are part of the problem, not the solution, because your empathy has failed you. |
So, Don, just to be clear...any two adults who love each other should be allowed to marry? That's your only stipulation? |
Ahh, the infamous Achoo sibling trap. Shocker.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2011 06:49:42 PM · #5540 |
How in the WORLD are you folks still talking about this!??
LOL!
I haven't followed the thread at all... but I see it ALL THE TIME on the top of the feed....
Wow!
I am very impressed with your tenacity... whatever side you're on!
|
|
|
|
07/21/2011 06:57:34 PM · #5541 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ahh, the infamous Achoo sibling trap. Shocker. |
The natural foil like the elderly couple who want to marry when someone says marriage is about raising a family. The point is just to show that extreme examples can be raised which seem to be exceptions. Once there are exceptions, it's all open for debate. I only "shockingly" bring it up, because it's an effective example.
It's just as shocking to see that you continue to read along, but only contribute one-liners to the conversation... ;P
BTW, I think way back when the example was the infamous "gay brothers in love". You can go with a brother and sister if you'd like, but the sister happens to have a hysterectomy so we don't have any inbred children to worry about.
Message edited by author 2011-07-21 19:06:07. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 07:14:14 PM · #5542 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ahh, the infamous Achoo sibling trap. Shocker. |
The natural foil like the elderly couple who want to marry when someone says marriage is about raising a family. The point is just to show that extreme examples can be raised which seem to be exceptions. Once there are exceptions, it's all open for debate. I only "shockingly" bring it up, because it's an effective example.
It's just as shocking to see that you continue to read along, but only contribute one-liners to the conversation... ;P
BTW, I think way back when the example was the infamous "gay brothers in love". You can go with a brother and sister if you'd like, but the sister happens to have a hysterectomy so we don't have any inbred children to worry about. |
Why wouldn't I just contribute one-liners? What more is there to ADD? I just get a kick out of reading people's insanity.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2011 07:27:12 PM · #5543 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why wouldn't I just contribute one-liners? What more is there to ADD? I just get a kick out of reading people's insanity. |
I hear ya, but the issue is obviously inflammatory all around. People have strong opinions. All you wind up doing is throwing fuel on the fire and then standing there claiming, "I didn't do nuthin". What's the point? If there's nothing to add in your opinion, don't add anything. You can read without typing.
CC: Richard. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 10:14:45 PM · #5544 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If you believe that two adults who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry, then you are part of the problem, not the solution, because your empathy has failed you. |
So, Don, just to be clear...any two adults who love each other should be allowed to marry? That's your only stipulation? |
When thousands of brothers and sisters start demonstrating for the right to marry, I have to admit I'll be one of the first ones to support their cause. It's about empathy. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 12:18:45 AM · #5545 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why wouldn't I just contribute one-liners? What more is there to ADD? I just get a kick out of reading people's insanity. |
I hear ya, but the issue is obviously inflammatory all around. People have strong opinions. All you wind up doing is throwing fuel on the fire and then standing there claiming, "I didn't do nuthin". What's the point? If there's nothing to add in your opinion, don't add anything. You can read without typing.
CC: Richard. |
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what you have contributed besides PR for your prejudices.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2011 12:17:52 PM · #5546 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why wouldn't I just contribute one-liners? What more is there to ADD? I just get a kick out of reading people's insanity. |
I hear ya, but the issue is obviously inflammatory all around. People have strong opinions. All you wind up doing is throwing fuel on the fire and then standing there claiming, "I didn't do nuthin". What's the point? If there's nothing to add in your opinion, don't add anything. You can read without typing.
CC: Richard. |
Oh, I add much more than fuel to the fire, it's just to a side you don't support, which is mainly your own folly.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2011 12:45:15 PM · #5547 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what you have contributed besides PR for your prejudices. |
You can always ask someone else for help if you need it... :P |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 11:22:39 PM · #5548 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I think the curves issue is more of a business model and the right to promote a business how you see fit(pun). |
I honestly don't see the difference. If you can promote a business model that discriminates based on gender, why can't you promote a business model that discriminates based on sexual orientation?
Both are listed in the paragraph of the statute so I would think either both would be disallowed or both would be allowed.
From the statue, arranged for clarity:
An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation...shall not, because of...sex...deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation.
An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation...shall not, because of...sexual orientation...deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation. |
Curves is a place of accomodation? Up here they sell bras, panties and teddies. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 11:34:31 PM · #5549 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
Curves is a place of accomodation? Up here they sell bras, panties and teddies. |
Curves is a women's only gym, focusing on a healthy shape rather than hard body ubber fitness. The market sector is designed to allow women who are perhaps self conscious of their shapes to work out in an environment where they are not being judged by men. A worthy goal, but perhaps an illegal one, since men are not allowed to join, |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 04:29:18 PM · #5550 |
One of the delightful pictures to emerge after the New York State decision.
Niagara Falls in living color
|
|
