Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:

I ask this in all honesty: Could the business model of “Curves” run into this exact issue? After all, it’s denial of service based on gender, which we saw run into issues with golf course clubs etc.[/quote]

There is a such thing as legal discrimination, in that it is possible, as a business or employer, for there to be cases where discrimination is legal due to the necessity of the business practice. No law is absolute, and even the Constitution is not a suicide pact per se. For example, a commercial truck driving firm couldn’t logically be compelled to hire a blind driver.

Laws that permit legal discrimination are subject to “intermediate scrutiny.” The government must show that the law furthers an important governmental interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

Basically, in cases where a business or government can show that gender-based discrimination satisfies intermediate scrutiny, it is then a legally permissible gender-based discrimination. So basically if Curves can make a legal substantiation that gender-based discrimination is necessary to sustain their business model, because men and women are anatomically different, they can probably be given a legal pass since their interest in protecting their clients and providing a specific service outweighs the interests of men who wish to not be discriminated against.

To discriminate just for the sake of discriminating is not generally legally permissible, but there are going to be cases where a business or government has a compelling interest that supersedes the right of an individual person, in which case the intent to discriminate will, in the eyes of the court, be upheld as a necessary exception.

Edit: I know little about Curves. Is it a private club where memberships are paid and subject to approval, or is it actually a business open for regular customers who pay the membership fees? Private clubs and organizations generally can discriminated if they are NOT considered a business open to public accommodation - e.g., you can start a private guys club in your community that excludes any social category that you wish, as long as you are not actually a business per se.

342

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:

I ask this in all honesty: Could the business model of “Curves” run into this exact issue? After all, it’s denial of service based on gender, which we saw run into issues with golf course clubs etc.[/quote]

There is a such thing as legal discrimination, in that it is possible, as a business or employer, for there to be cases where discrimination is legal due to the necessity of the business practice. No law is absolute, and even the Constitution is not a suicide pact per se. For example, a commercial truck driving firm couldn’t logically be compelled to hire a blind driver.

Laws that permit legal discrimination are subject to “intermediate scrutiny.” The government must show that the law furthers an important governmental interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

Basically, in cases where a business or government can show that gender-based discrimination satisfies intermediate scrutiny, it is then a legally permissible gender-based discrimination. So basically if Curves can make a legal substantiation that gender-based discrimination is necessary to sustain their business model, because men and women are anatomically different, they can probably be given a legal pass since their interest in protecting their clients and providing a specific service outweighs the interests of men who wish to not be discriminated against.

To discriminate just for the sake of discriminating is not generally legally permissible, but there are going to be cases where a business or government has a compelling interest that supersedes the right of an individual person, in which case the intent to discriminate will, in the eyes of the court, be upheld as a necessary exception.

[/quote]

I see your point, and I’m not really sure how they approach the business model, so I can’t answer that. I was curious if the two were intertwined or if the situations were so different that they couldn’t connect, and it looks like they’re different situations. One question would be (if all things were equal): if your business model requires discrimination in order to succeed, should it be legal? At that point, it becomes a business owner’s intention or “belief” that dominates what they’re trying to do with their venture and how they’re going to go about it. (and I wouldn’t be surprised if curves is set up with the intent to get around it in the way you suggested, ie club status etc). But if they weren’t and their goal was to provide a place for women to work out without male intrusion, it would have to be predicated on a belief that male intrusion would be a drastic negative for women’s training. FWIW, I’m just scoping out different angles. I can certainly see the sexual-orientation discrimination angle of it, but someone brought up an analogy that sticks in my head: would a jewish baker be required by law to bake a cake for a nazi rally? And I guess, why would the nazi want a jewish cake? Or the homosexual couple want a dissenting christian to take their pictures?

343

[quote]Zen Taco wrote:
I see your point, and I’m not really sure how they approach the business model, so I can’t answer that. I was curious if the two were intertwined or if the situations were so different that they couldn’t connect, and it looks like they’re different situations. One question would be (if all things were equal): if your business model requires discrimination in order to succeed, should it be legal? At that point, it becomes a business owner’s intention or “belief” that dominates what they’re trying to do with their venture and how they’re going to go about it. (and I wouldn’t be surprised if curves is set up with the intent to get around it in the way you suggested, ie club status etc). But if they weren’t and their goal was to provide a place for women to work out without male intrusion, it would have to be predicated on a belief that male intrusion would be a drastic negative for women’s training. FWIW, I’m just scoping out different angles. I can certainly see the sexual-orientation discrimination angle of it, but someone brought up an analogy that sticks in my head: would a jewish baker be required by law to bake a cake for a nazi rally? And I guess, why would the nazi want a jewish cake? Or the homosexual couple want a dissenting christian to take their pictures?
[/quote]

Those are good questions, and hence why the judicial system has to interpret the law on a case-by-case basis. I don’t know the answer to those questions, honestly, but they are compelling questions for consideration.

344

[quote]JR249 wrote:
There is a such thing as legal discrimination, in that it is possible, as a business or employer, for there to be cases where discrimination is legal due to the necessity of the business practice.]

The only two safe BFOQ’s based on sex are wet nurse and sperm donor.

345

We should really let the business owners do as they will and let the community decide whether they care or not.

Personally, if someone didn’t want to do business with me, although I’d be curious to know why, I ultimately wouldn’t want to do business with them especially if it’s simply for discriminatory reasons.

In fact, I’d rather know than unknowingly financially support someone who has such degenerative beliefs. And to be clear using this topic as an example, it’s not that I wouldn’t do business with someone who disliked homosexuality, but who would go out of their way and care enough to actually discriminate against them as if they are some lower form of human.

346

Three women in MA ‘married’ to themselves…

347

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
We should really let the business owners do as they will and let the community decide whether they care or not.

Personally, if someone didn’t want to do business with me, although I’d be curious to know why, I ultimately wouldn’t want to do business with them especially if it’s simply for discriminatory reasons.

[/quote]

I agree. I am gay, but I understand that for certain specialized business services (e.g., cakes, photography, florist, direct service of a same-sex wedding), the religious precepts of the business owner’s personal faith would require his or her provision of the good or service to be complicit in a practice with which s/he morally disagrees. Therefore, I don’t think the force of law should be used to compel the business owner to do so in those limited circumstances, and in fact, as a libertarian, I generally believe the market should sort it out anyhow, as you opined, sans government legislative fiat. Arizona’s proposed law would have probably faced far less scrutiny had it been tailored more specifically to address this precept than to attempt to allow businesses to simply discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation carte blanche.

348

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
We should really let the business owners do as they will and let the community decide whether they care or not.

Personally, if someone didn’t want to do business with me, although I’d be curious to know why, I ultimately wouldn’t want to do business with them especially if it’s simply for discriminatory reasons.

In fact, I’d rather know than unknowingly financially support someone who has such degenerative beliefs. And to be clear using this topic as an example, it’s not that I wouldn’t do business with someone who disliked homosexuality, but who would go out of their way and care enough to actually discriminate against them as if they are some lower form of human.[/quote]

Yes indeed. Good post. Outside of a few remote areas–and mind you that these are remote areas that most reasonable people would never visit, let alone live–any restaurant, for example, that refused service to blacks or gays or women or whatever would be shamed and boycotted into oblivion within a month or two. It’s win-win–more freedom for everybody, and, as a perk, economic hardship for bigots.

349

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Three women in MA ‘married’ to themselves…

[/quote]
I wonder what we should call this strange type of union. I think I came up with a word: polygamy. I bet no one has ever thought of that before.

350

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You calling me Chicken Little? This from the guy who is convinced that gay marriage and homosexuality in general is an inevitable precursor to the collapse of the family unit and the end of western civilization as we know it? I laugh.[/quote]

Best post.

Kinda.

Well maybe not.

Nope, not at all.

Sorry.

BTW, copy and paste in this thread where I supposedly said the things you claim I said. Take your time and get it right. I’ll wait.[/quote]

Ah, the standard fallback position. Place the onus on me to sift through dozens of pages of bullshit to validate the point that you and I both know has merit to it. As if you’ve never said that gay marriage could lead to an entire colony of people marrying each other, or animals, or a rock, or even the complete breakdown of the family unit.

Sure, the “end of western civilization as we know it” is open to interpretation, but I think you and I can both agree that if people really started marrying animals or the members of a country club or some shit like that, societal collapse can’t be too far around the corner. I simply don’t think that gay marriage is the Chicken Little situation you, as well as others, have made it out to be.[/quote]

Hey pal, this thread is not about the legalities of gay marriage.

Distinctions. They are always important.[/quote]

Hey pal, then why are you bringing up unrelated threads referring to Chicken Little scenarios?

You’re right, the THREAD is not about gay marriage. But my comment is about something you wrote in this thread. You called my scenario in an unrelated thread a Chicken Little scenario. I simply pointed out the irony in that statement, considering that you have posted in this forum in the past about the slippery slope that gay marriage is (specifically about how it will lead to people marrying animals and football teams and book clubs and so forth).

It doesn’t matter what thread I am exposing your double-standard in.

edit: if I were to go back and sift through some of the older gun threads, I’d find multiple instances in which you advocate gun rights in order to protect yourself in the event of some catastrophic event, such as the gov’t taking over everything and turning the country into some police state. And you call me Chicken Little?

Ironically, the scenario you and others like to point to as an inevitability will most likely arise out of societies/regions/countries/whatever that are ill-prepared for the effects of climate change.

351

As a secular humanist/atheist, there is no doubt the left uses very insidious tactics.

I genuinely hate the Abrahamic religions for a multitude of reasons, but I was a Christian for some time, and the left’s labeling of anyone who doesn’t think gay marriage is a good thing as bigots is unfair. I know this because I know what it felt like and I was around a lot of other Christians. It’s not hatred of gays.

But who cares about gays. Government shouldn’t be involved in a religious institution like marriage anyway. Legally, it basically amounts to a contract. Who cares who enters into contracts with each other as long as they are both competent?

354

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

I genuinely hate…

[/quote]

Aw man, c’mon man, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now.

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_youngbloods/get_together.html[/quote]

I didn’t say I hate the people who practice those religions. Just as the Christians say, “hate the sin, not the sinner.”

356

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

I genuinely hate…

[/quote]

Aw man, c’mon man, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now.

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_youngbloods/get_together.html[/quote]

I didn’t say I hate the people who practice those religions. Just as the Christians say, “hate the sin, not the sinner.”
[/quote]

I see. Maybe you hate the fellers that “invented” those religions? Is that it?[/quote]

Since those were men too, no, I don’t. But thinking I just hate god is easier than acknowledging that there are people who genuinely see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a deity.

357

‘In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics…For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew.’ - Polybius

358

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics…For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew.’ - Polybius[/quote]

Are we in some kind of war where we need to keep being fruitful right now though?

Sounds like Greece had it right. If we can start managing population that’s probably a good thing… Being, “fruitful” these days leads to more suffering and lack than most other things. The footprint of a single person is immense, and exponentially such with the more people who are born.

359

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Are we in some kind of war where we need to keep being fruitful right now though?

Sounds like Greece had it right. If we can start managing population that’s probably a good thing… Being, “fruitful” these days leads to more suffering and lack than most other things. The footprint of a single person is immense, and exponentially such with the more people who are born. [/quote]

Can’t you understand the lessons to be learned from history? Must you always view everything through the narrow prism of radical leftism? In just a few generations Greece went from ruler of virtually the entire known world to a desolate backwater which was overthrown by the Romans - Polybius himself becoming a Roman slave. I don’t want Western civilisation to become a desolate backwater.

360

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Sounds like Greece had it right. [/quote]

And where are they now? Do you really want America to disappear from the face of the earth?