StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:41 PM) I really wish I could say that the last 2 pages of this thread were a nightmare and I didn't actually read it. Listen, Balta, the PC police have guaranteed that all forms of anti-LGBT bigotry get stamped out, which is why we're sure to see a big Democratic wave in Kansas in the next elections. Also, even though the PC police have been so viciously effective over the last few decades, it's still cool (and common?) to make fun of, fire, and refuse service to people for being ugly, fat, or stupid. This makes sense because

Are we really throwing "whites are the real victim of racism" on top of turning a blind eye to LGBT discrimination?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) I'd like to know the number of gays who are fired for being gay and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason. Show me the numbers that gay people are denied entry into businesses compared to others. Show me the numbers proving this and I'll gladly admit i'm wrong. Show me the number of racial minorities who are fired for being a racial minority and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:32 PM) Ignore my lawsuit comment. That's not really a concern in this. I'm just pointing out that in general I hate additional laws when they're not needed. So why is this Kansas law necessary? It's an additional law that you seem a-ok with. Your personal blindness to anti-LGBT bigotry is your problem, but it's not justification for opposition to protection from anti-LGBT bigotry. And why is SSM a separate issue? It demonstrates that anti-LGBT bigotry is alive and well. I think it's s***ty that businesses can do those things as well. If you can't run a business without firing or refusing service to someone because they're gay, I don't see why you should have any right to run a business. Again, your ignorance of anti-LGBT bigotry is your personal problem.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) Strong HISTORY, but not really a current problem anymore than the other types of people out there who suffer from discrimination but aren't protected either. I don't know why you keep saying that when: 1) A strong majority of states still do not have SSM, and many have constitutional bans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_co...d_on_amendments 2) This sort of discrimination obviously still exists, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits over it and pushes to get LGBT included as a federally protected class 3) Multiple states have passed "religious conscious" bills that exclude anti-LGBT bigotry from bullying laws 4) A state legislature just passed a law to explicitly legalize anti-LGBT discrimination. You're really just making a fool out of yourself when you insist it's "not really a current problem anymore."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) And anti-ugly, and anti-stupid, and anti-obese, and anti-white sox, and anti-gingers, and anti-D1 education and on and on and on. Everyone should be a protected class apparently. You should have zero say in who you employ or who you serve in your own business. That's what you're saying. What you're saying is that you support being able to fire someone for being gay or being able to refuse them service in a public business for being gay. You're more concerned about potential extra lawsuits than the impact those actions would have. You'll trivialize homophobic discrimination and pretend it's just like being "anti-white sox." You'll then extend the idea that LGBT should be protected from bigotry to meaning that literally everything should be a protected class and that business should have zero hiring/firing power, doing a fantastic job of knocking down strawmen instead of justifying your indifference-at-best towards the anti-LGBT discrimination that is alive and well in this country.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) You can be fired in Illinois for a million reasons. You can't be fired for about 7 specific ones. Why should being gay deserve some special recognition over any of those other reasons? Strong history of bigotry against that class in particular? Can you draw a distinction for why you'd be against protections for being fired for being LGBT but would support protections for being fired based on race or religion?

It was good for about two seasons. I stuck with the whole thing, but it really started going downhill in s3 and then just got dumb after that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) I didn't mean that the law would create some flood of litigation. I'm just saying, anytime you put a law on the books and someone claims they were damaged, there's a lawsuit. And I just don't think it's a good thing. You know what's a worse thing? Anti-LGBT bigotry.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) Come on, the "market" has changed the view of homosexuals radically. In about 2 decades we've gone from a country that made gay jokes openly and frequently to a country that can't tell people that someone is transgendered without a lynch mob forming on the gay side of the aisle. We also still have a majority of states where gay couples can't get married, where it's legal to fire someone for being gay, and now we've got Kansas passing a bill legalizing anti-gay discrimination along other lines as well. We have a good track record of laws actually working very well to combat this very problem and a pretty horrible track record of "the market" doing so. Why should we suddenly reject using the thing that has worked well in the past in favor of the thing that never works well and for which there's little reason to believe that it will do so now? Again, think about it. Why would this even be an issue if, as you say, the "PC Police" have won nobody anywhere can be anti-LGBT? A whole bunch of conservative Republicans were elected in Kansas while being anti-LGBT, they just passed an anti-LGBT law and they are not going to lose office because of it. Why would we expect the same population that elects and supports these Republicans and this law to suddenly turn against any business that won't serve a gay couple?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) Here's where I go back to my point about it being 2014. Are the majority of gay people denied entry into a business these days? Are they precluded from living somewhere? Are they being rounded up and hanged from trees? No. Back when most equal protection laws were passed that was actually the case. So those laws made sense to combat an actual problem. Gay people are still denied service, fired from jobs, denied marriage equality, ranted about by bigots on TV/radio, and demonized by public officials. If you hadn't noticed, even though it's 2014, one state's legislature just passed a horrendous bill legalizing anti-LGBT discrimination. It is still very much an actual problem.

Jenks' concern about equal protection/public accommodations laws creating more litigation (which is apparently a bigger concern than equal treatment?) makes me wonder: how much litigation is there these days over race- or sex-based refusal of public service incidents? Or has the existence of these laws prevented those incidents from happening in the first place?

ha, what was the final straw?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) I'm pretty sure based on that Colorado case from the 90's this law won't be around very long, even if gays aren't a federally protected class. Heck it might even violate Kansas law, I dunno. Are they a protected class there? There's a recent Colorado case as well as a New Mexico case that this law is a reactionary response to. But both of those cases were based on state law that explicitly included sexual orientation as a protected class.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:42 PM) I wouldn't say i'm cool with it, but if that's what the state of Kansas wants to do, and if that's how certain businesses want to operate, so be it. This is 2013. With social media and everything, that kind of stuff won't be tolerated and those businesses will be targeted quickly. Frankly I'd rather "the market" weed this stuff out in lieu of putting more laws on the books that create more litigation. "The market" has a pretty s*** record of weeding out discrimination against minorities while government laws have a pretty good record of breaking it. Do you feel the same about public accommodations laws in general? edit: think about what you're saying "the market" will do here. "The market" has given Kansas complete Republican domination that lead to this horrible bill being passed in the first place. I don't imagine much backlash coming from the Republican electorate there in the next elections. Now why would we expect "the market" to suddenly weed out the sort of discrimination that the democratically elected Kansas legislature just explicitly enabled?

Seems like it's just aimed at the thread topic? I'd imagine duke's on the road.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) We both know that it would not be okay to say "I wont bake you a cake because youre a white guy marrying a black girl" OTOH plenty of libertarians make explicitly that argument.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) Reading the text of the law leads me to believe that any kind of service in which the provider knows about the client's sexuality can be denied. The only slight hole is that the law asks the organization to try to find someone without such religious convictions to provide the service if it doesn't cause "undue harm" to the provider. I think it would depend on how far you could stretch this language: What qualifies as "related to" a domestic partnership?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 01:30 PM) Replace gay with ugly, red headed, fat, rich, stupid, a white sox fan, etc. and that's the law of the land already. Edit: Actually I'm wrong, because the law of the land is that you can discriminate against those types of people without having to justify the discrimination based on a religious belief. So you're cool with this sort of bigotry or?

Yeah the hospital claim strikes me as obviously wrong, there are overriding federal laws about treating anyone who comes in the door. I'd imagine police services are similar, but who knows, the bill could be worded poorly enough that it allows any government employee to refuse service.

Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination

Yeah but Presidents have explicit pardon powers, it wouldn't be an executive order

I'll take those 3:1 odds for $1000 from both of you. Easiest money I'll ever make.

FWIW the AP style guide says that relevance should determine whether or not you include party affiliation.

I've gotten really lazy over the last several months, I could use some good free weight routines I could do ~3 days a week.