Other Resources The Political Joe » Boycotting NC Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2016-04-13 6:27 AM

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: Boycotting NC

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 



2016-04-13 7:48 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2802
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by tuwood

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 




Maybe PayPal would rather invest in a community where ALL their employees will feel welcome? I think it was Deutsche Bank that just announced they will not be adding jobs to their IS group in NC, but rather add them in another state. NC's loss. You'd think states would have learned a lesson from the Indiana debacle from last year.
2016-04-13 8:27 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by tuwood

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 

 

There is a big difference tuwood.  Not selling to a gay couple because of your beliefs is discriminatory.  When your belief system is your excuse for discrimination and being as arsehole to people, the rest of us are going to vote with our dollar.   There is also a huge difference between having a business and refusing to sell to or work with individuals, and having a state pass an unconstitutional law and then large corporation decide not to work within that state because this law discriminates against some of their employees.

2016-04-13 8:30 AM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

2016-04-13 8:56 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Ahhh, Bruce Springsteen, the music world's equivalent of Donald Trump. Sure, his fans are loyal and love him to death, but those who don't care for his music are like, "Meh, sounds like garbage being tumbled in a 55 gallon drum, with an awesome sax track playing in the foreground." I don't get it, maybe some day I will…

I wonder if anyone will consider suing BS for failing to keep up his end of contractual obligations on the grounds that he refused to perform because of his personal beliefs?

Boycotts are silly distractions that rarely accomplish anything but making those on the picket line feel they're changing things for the better. I remember a while back there a huge boycott against the financial world, with Wall St. in the crosshairs of those who'd been done wrong. I forget what they called it, but it was so effective that even the street signage of Manhattan was changed to remove all traces of the evil and omnipotent empire that was collectively referred to as Wall St.


2016-04-13 9:23 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 

 

There is a big difference tuwood.  Not selling to a gay couple because of your beliefs is discriminatory.  When your belief system is your excuse for discrimination and being as arsehole to people, the rest of us are going to vote with our dollar.   There is also a huge difference between having a business and refusing to sell to or work with individuals, and having a state pass an unconstitutional law and then large corporation decide not to work within that state because this law discriminates against some of their employees.

So here's the definition of discrimination:

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Bruce Springsteen is discriminating against the citizens of North Carolina based on the group they belong to because he doesn't agree with the positions of that group, right?  In his particular case he had the venue booked and scheduled which is a place of business and is now refusing to provide his services to the group. 



2016-04-13 9:31 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 

 

There is a big difference tuwood.  Not selling to a gay couple because of your beliefs is discriminatory.  When your belief system is your excuse for discrimination and being as arsehole to people, the rest of us are going to vote with our dollar.   There is also a huge difference between having a business and refusing to sell to or work with individuals, and having a state pass an unconstitutional law and then large corporation decide not to work within that state because this law discriminates against some of their employees.

So here's the definition of discrimination:

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Bruce Springsteen is discriminating against the citizens of North Carolina based on the group they belong to because he doesn't agree with the positions of that group, right?  In his particular case he had the venue booked and scheduled which is a place of business and is now refusing to provide his services to the group. 

he is not discriminating against the citizens of north Carolina.  a citizen of north Carolina can go buy a ticket to any show they want.   he is choosing not to do business in a state because the laws of that state are discriminatory.

2016-04-13 9:33 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  




So if the populace of a state wanted to bring back racial segregation, then the government should listen??? If the populace doesn't want to do business with people of a different race based on their beliefs then the state government should enact laws that allow them to refuse service to black people?

Yes a state's government should listen to the wants of its populace...but NOT when those wants interfere with the civil liberties of others. Period.

These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference.

The bible says slavery is ok as long as it is from a bordering country. So if the populace of Mississippi wants to enact slavery (for Canadians and Mexicans only) is that what the government should do? Obviously not, regardless of what their religion says, and regardless of the fact that the majority of the populace believes in that religion.

Everyone in this country has the right to practice their religion until it interferes with the liberties of others. This law is crossing that line.
2016-04-13 9:39 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 

 

There is a big difference tuwood.  Not selling to a gay couple because of your beliefs is discriminatory.  When your belief system is your excuse for discrimination and being as arsehole to people, the rest of us are going to vote with our dollar.   There is also a huge difference between having a business and refusing to sell to or work with individuals, and having a state pass an unconstitutional law and then large corporation decide not to work within that state because this law discriminates against some of their employees.

So here's the definition of discrimination:

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Bruce Springsteen is discriminating against the citizens of North Carolina based on the group they belong to because he doesn't agree with the positions of that group, right?  In his particular case he had the venue booked and scheduled which is a place of business and is now refusing to provide his services to the group. 

he is not discriminating against the citizens of north Carolina.  a citizen of north Carolina can go buy a ticket to any show they want.   he is choosing not to do business in a state because the laws of that state are discriminatory.

This does make a little more sense.  I guess if we use the baker analogy it would be the equivalent of a baker closing up shop in lets say San Francisco because the baker doesn't agree with a local bathroom ordinance mandating shared bathrooms (just made that up).

Then on the flip side, it would be probably more alike if Springsteen were to only allow certain people into his concert venue in NC versus canceling all together.

2016-04-13 9:42 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

 

 

There is a big difference tuwood.  Not selling to a gay couple because of your beliefs is discriminatory.  When your belief system is your excuse for discrimination and being as arsehole to people, the rest of us are going to vote with our dollar.   There is also a huge difference between having a business and refusing to sell to or work with individuals, and having a state pass an unconstitutional law and then large corporation decide not to work within that state because this law discriminates against some of their employees.

So here's the definition of discrimination:

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Bruce Springsteen is discriminating against the citizens of North Carolina based on the group they belong to because he doesn't agree with the positions of that group, right?  In his particular case he had the venue booked and scheduled which is a place of business and is now refusing to provide his services to the group. 

he is not discriminating against the citizens of north Carolina.  a citizen of north Carolina can go buy a ticket to any show they want.   he is choosing not to do business in a state because the laws of that state are discriminatory.

This does make a little more sense.  I guess if we use the baker analogy it would be the equivalent of a baker closing up shop in lets say San Francisco because the baker doesn't agree with a local bathroom ordinance mandating shared bathrooms (just made that up).

Then on the flip side, it would be probably more alike if Springsteen were to only allow certain people into his concert venue in NC versus canceling all together.

exactly!  if the baker wants to move to a different state with different rules, go for it!  If bruce springsteen was only allowing gays to his show and no one else, I'd have a problem with it. (example)

2016-04-13 9:44 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  




I get what you're saying, but discrimination against people for their race, gender, etc. has already been determined to be illegal. I'm sure there would be lots of happy people in certain states if they decided to reinstitute segregation, but that doesn't mean that they can do it just because there is a certain constituency who would be in favor of it, even if that group represents the majority.

The problem with all of these laws, IMO, is the vague way in which they're being written-- essentially allowing anyone to hide behind their religion as an excuse to deny service to pretty much anyone they choose to.

The bigots who write these laws and support them don't have the guts to come out and say, "I don't like gay people and I don't want 'em in my place". So instead, they make it about their religion. As if choosing to serve a sandwich to a person who is gay is somehow a violation of their faith. It's bigotry and hypocrisy and nothing else. Period. We've had this conversation before-- until you show me a businessperson who's just as steadfast about not serving divorced people or people who live together and aren't married, then all of this is just a BS smokescreen for narrow minded, homophobic idiots to hide behind their faith because they lack the guts to say what they truly are out loud.

Segregation was based on religious principles also. Christians claimed that to offer blacks equal treatment was somehow in violation of their Christian faith, and therefore, segregation was justified under their religion. It's no different than what's happening now.

If you want to put a sign on your window that says, "No gay people, please", go right ahead. I doubt any of them would shop there anyway. Of course, you'll soon be sued out of existence, but at least you'll be open an honest about your bigotry, instead of pretending it's somehow related to your religion.



2016-04-13 9:47 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

So if the populace of a state wanted to bring back racial segregation, then the government should listen??? If the populace doesn't want to do business with people of a different race based on their beliefs then the state government should enact laws that allow them to refuse service to black people? Yes a state's government should listen to the wants of its populace...but NOT when those wants interfere with the civil liberties of others. Period. These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. The bible says slavery is ok as long as it is from a bordering country. So if the populace of Mississippi wants to enact slavery (for Canadians and Mexicans only) is that what the government should do? Obviously not, regardless of what their religion says, and regardless of the fact that the majority of the populace believes in that religion. Everyone in this country has the right to practice their religion until it interferes with the liberties of others. This law is crossing that line.

For the record the Bible laws regarding slavery are in the context of the time where slavery was fully supported as the law of the land.  One could argue that the Bible gave far more rights to slaves in that era than any other form of government.  Trying to apply Jewish law from 4000 years ago to today is no different than trying to apply Egyptian law to today, but I digress.

A complete tangent; but I always find the enactment of laws and the boundaries for them an interesting topic.  All laws are based on what either an individual (dictatorships) or the citizens (democracy) want.  However, in America our founders created the Constitution to protect individual rights as you mention above which puts some boundaries on the laws that are able to be created.

There are dozens of countries in the world where you can be legally put to death for being gay because its what the population/leader wants.  That's kind of scary to me.

2016-04-13 9:54 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

So if the populace of a state wanted to bring back racial segregation, then the government should listen??? If the populace doesn't want to do business with people of a different race based on their beliefs then the state government should enact laws that allow them to refuse service to black people? Yes a state's government should listen to the wants of its populace...but NOT when those wants interfere with the civil liberties of others. Period. These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. The bible says slavery is ok as long as it is from a bordering country. So if the populace of Mississippi wants to enact slavery (for Canadians and Mexicans only) is that what the government should do? Obviously not, regardless of what their religion says, and regardless of the fact that the majority of the populace believes in that religion. Everyone in this country has the right to practice their religion until it interferes with the liberties of others. This law is crossing that line.

For the record the Bible laws regarding slavery are in the context of the time where slavery was fully supported as the law of the land.  One could argue that the Bible gave far more rights to slaves in that era than any other form of government.  Trying to apply Jewish law from 4000 years ago to today is no different than trying to apply Egyptian law to today, but I digress.

A complete tangent; but I always find the enactment of laws and the boundaries for them an interesting topic.  All laws are based on what either an individual (dictatorships) or the citizens (democracy) want.  However, in America our founders created the Constitution to protect individual rights as you mention above which puts some boundaries on the laws that are able to be created.

There are dozens of countries in the world where you can be legally put to death for being gay because its what the population/leader wants.  That's kind of scary to me.




The part about homosexuality being an abomination is also in context of a time when that was ok. So the same argument applies. Applying an Abrahamic law from 4,000 years ago regarding homosexuality is all the same. Which is even more infuriating to me and points to the root of the drive of these people. It's not about religion, it is about hate. If it was about religion, they'd be fighting to have Red Lobster banned as well. They are cherry picking the bible and only acknowledging what they need to discriminate.

As you mentioned, our country is set up to protect citizens. So this law is contrary to that. And I think it is just as scary, and takes us one step closer to those other countries.
2016-04-13 9:58 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

I get what you're saying, but discrimination against people for their race, gender, etc. has already been determined to be illegal. I'm sure there would be lots of happy people in certain states if they decided to reinstitute segregation, but that doesn't mean that they can do it just because there is a certain constituency who would be in favor of it, even if that group represents the majority. The problem with all of these laws, IMO, is the vague way in which they're being written-- essentially allowing anyone to hide behind their religion as an excuse to deny service to pretty much anyone they choose to. The bigots who write these laws and support them don't have the guts to come out and say, "I don't like gay people and I don't want 'em in my place". So instead, they make it about their religion. As if choosing to serve a sandwich to a person who is gay is somehow a violation of their faith. It's bigotry and hypocrisy and nothing else. Period. We've had this conversation before-- until you show me a businessperson who's just as steadfast about not serving divorced people or people who live together and aren't married, then all of this is just a BS smokescreen for narrow minded, homophobic idiots to hide behind their faith because they lack the guts to say what they truly are out loud. Segregation was based on religious principles also. Christians claimed that to offer blacks equal treatment was somehow in violation of their Christian faith, and therefore, segregation was justified under their religion. It's no different than what's happening now. If you want to put a sign on your window that says, "No gay people, please", go right ahead. I doubt any of them would shop there anyway. Of course, you'll soon be sued out of existence, but at least you'll be open an honest about your bigotry, instead of pretending it's somehow related to your religion.

I have a little bit of a different take on the justification for not supporting some of these laws.

As an example, I own a business and am very welcoming to all people who want to work here.  I'm a pretty strong Christian, but I have a few card carrying atheists working here and had a gay employee in the past. (he quit, I didn't fire him.  lol)

Anyways, in Nebraska they've tried a few times to pass laws elevating sexual orientation as a protected class for businesses which seems like a good thing on the surface.  However, when you dig into the actual language of the laws they're extremely vague and open up a whole legal can of worms with any person you fire for any reason.  Meaning, there's absolutely zero legal definition for what constitutes a same sex attraction when it involves to insert yourself into this class.
So, hypothetically, if I were to hire you and you decided to be a big slacker and I fired you after a few months you could sue me for discrimination because of your sexual identity.  All you'd have to do is say you're bisexual and it doesn't matter beyond that legally speaking.  I now have to legally defend myself and my business spending tens of thousands of dollars and prove that I didn't fire you based on your sexual orientation and I also have to prove that I fired you for legitimate reasons.  The burden of proof is on me, not you.

So, on the surface I fully support protecting anyone from discrimination or harassment based on their sexual orientation but I have yet to see any legislation in my state that even remotely is functional.  I'm not a bigot, homophobe, or religious zealot.  I'm just a business owner who fights to prevent laws that put my business in a very tough spot.

2016-04-13 9:58 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
" These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. "

I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO.

Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico.

Edited by mdg2003 2016-04-13 10:00 AM
2016-04-13 10:00 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

I get what you're saying, but discrimination against people for their race, gender, etc. has already been determined to be illegal. I'm sure there would be lots of happy people in certain states if they decided to reinstitute segregation, but that doesn't mean that they can do it just because there is a certain constituency who would be in favor of it, even if that group represents the majority. The problem with all of these laws, IMO, is the vague way in which they're being written-- essentially allowing anyone to hide behind their religion as an excuse to deny service to pretty much anyone they choose to. The bigots who write these laws and support them don't have the guts to come out and say, "I don't like gay people and I don't want 'em in my place". So instead, they make it about their religion. As if choosing to serve a sandwich to a person who is gay is somehow a violation of their faith. It's bigotry and hypocrisy and nothing else. Period. We've had this conversation before-- until you show me a businessperson who's just as steadfast about not serving divorced people or people who live together and aren't married, then all of this is just a BS smokescreen for narrow minded, homophobic idiots to hide behind their faith because they lack the guts to say what they truly are out loud. Segregation was based on religious principles also. Christians claimed that to offer blacks equal treatment was somehow in violation of their Christian faith, and therefore, segregation was justified under their religion. It's no different than what's happening now. If you want to put a sign on your window that says, "No gay people, please", go right ahead. I doubt any of them would shop there anyway. Of course, you'll soon be sued out of existence, but at least you'll be open an honest about your bigotry, instead of pretending it's somehow related to your religion.

I have a little bit of a different take on the justification for not supporting some of these laws.

As an example, I own a business and am very welcoming to all people who want to work here.  I'm a pretty strong Christian, but I have a few card carrying atheists working here and had a gay employee in the past. (he quit, I didn't fire him.  lol)

Anyways, in Nebraska they've tried a few times to pass laws elevating sexual orientation as a protected class for businesses which seems like a good thing on the surface.  However, when you dig into the actual language of the laws they're extremely vague and open up a whole legal can of worms with any person you fire for any reason.  Meaning, there's absolutely zero legal definition for what constitutes a same sex attraction when it involves to insert yourself into this class.
So, hypothetically, if I were to hire you and you decided to be a big slacker and I fired you after a few months you could sue me for discrimination because of your sexual identity.  All you'd have to do is say you're bisexual and it doesn't matter beyond that legally speaking.  I now have to legally defend myself and my business spending tens of thousands of dollars and prove that I didn't fire you based on your sexual orientation and I also have to prove that I fired you for legitimate reasons.  The burden of proof is on me, not you.

So, on the surface I fully support protecting anyone from discrimination or harassment based on their sexual orientation but I have yet to see any legislation in my state that even remotely is functional.  I'm not a bigot, homophobe, or religious zealot.  I'm just a business owner who fights to prevent laws that put my business in a very tough spot.

our laws are generally designed to protect the weak at the expense of the strong.  I am ok with people using that excuse if it protects those who are actually being fired for their sexual orientation.  People will always take advantage of laws in this country, race, religion, sexual orientation etc.  that does not mean the law is a bad idea.  we have an obligation to protect the minority and oppressed peoples in our society.



2016-04-13 10:02 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
5761
50005001001002525
Bartlett, TN
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

I think the problem with these types of law is that is never just a simple law. There are multiple things in the law the way it is written. So I might agree with 1 point of that law but I have to vote no on the other point of it. So I never believe it is ever as simple as someone saying they hate a certain group of people.

Read this the other day:

Congressman Robert Pittenger made a great point yesterday: ‘PayPal does business in 25 countries where homosexual behavior is illegal, including 5 countries where the penalty is death, yet they object to the North Carolina legislature overturning a misguided ordinance about letting men in to the women’s bathroom? Perhaps PayPal would like to try and clarify this seemingly very hypocritical position.’”

Now I know it doesn't say anything about building offices in these countries, and as far as I understand it PayPal will continue to do business in NC but I found it interesting....

 

There is a lot of hypocrisy amongst us all if we really want to get down to it

2016-04-13 10:10 AM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by mdg2003

" These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. "

I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO.

Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico.


It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing.

A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem.
2016-04-13 10:22 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
5761
50005001001002525
Bartlett, TN
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico.
It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem.

Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore.

2016-04-13 10:26 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico.
It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem.

I break all kinds of laws almost every day...  I would go very hungry.   

2016-04-13 10:26 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by velocomp

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

I get what you're saying, but discrimination against people for their race, gender, etc. has already been determined to be illegal. I'm sure there would be lots of happy people in certain states if they decided to reinstitute segregation, but that doesn't mean that they can do it just because there is a certain constituency who would be in favor of it, even if that group represents the majority. The problem with all of these laws, IMO, is the vague way in which they're being written-- essentially allowing anyone to hide behind their religion as an excuse to deny service to pretty much anyone they choose to. The bigots who write these laws and support them don't have the guts to come out and say, "I don't like gay people and I don't want 'em in my place". So instead, they make it about their religion. As if choosing to serve a sandwich to a person who is gay is somehow a violation of their faith. It's bigotry and hypocrisy and nothing else. Period. We've had this conversation before-- until you show me a businessperson who's just as steadfast about not serving divorced people or people who live together and aren't married, then all of this is just a BS smokescreen for narrow minded, homophobic idiots to hide behind their faith because they lack the guts to say what they truly are out loud. Segregation was based on religious principles also. Christians claimed that to offer blacks equal treatment was somehow in violation of their Christian faith, and therefore, segregation was justified under their religion. It's no different than what's happening now. If you want to put a sign on your window that says, "No gay people, please", go right ahead. I doubt any of them would shop there anyway. Of course, you'll soon be sued out of existence, but at least you'll be open an honest about your bigotry, instead of pretending it's somehow related to your religion.

I have a little bit of a different take on the justification for not supporting some of these laws.

As an example, I own a business and am very welcoming to all people who want to work here.  I'm a pretty strong Christian, but I have a few card carrying atheists working here and had a gay employee in the past. (he quit, I didn't fire him.  lol)

Anyways, in Nebraska they've tried a few times to pass laws elevating sexual orientation as a protected class for businesses which seems like a good thing on the surface.  However, when you dig into the actual language of the laws they're extremely vague and open up a whole legal can of worms with any person you fire for any reason.  Meaning, there's absolutely zero legal definition for what constitutes a same sex attraction when it involves to insert yourself into this class.
So, hypothetically, if I were to hire you and you decided to be a big slacker and I fired you after a few months you could sue me for discrimination because of your sexual identity.  All you'd have to do is say you're bisexual and it doesn't matter beyond that legally speaking.  I now have to legally defend myself and my business spending tens of thousands of dollars and prove that I didn't fire you based on your sexual orientation and I also have to prove that I fired you for legitimate reasons.  The burden of proof is on me, not you.




First, anyone can sue anyone for anything, pretty much. There are so many anti-discrimination laws on the books that it's almost impossible to find someone who doesn't fall into at least one category already.

If you're being a responsible business owner, you are keeping track, in writing, of your associate's transgressions, and making them aware of their poor performance, in writing, leading up to their termination. If you've done all of that, they can still sue you, but you'll be protected against any allegation that you fired them for any reason other than poor performance. If you can't be bothered to responsibly manage the performance of your employees, you probably deserve to get sued and lose.

The burden of proof will be on them, fwiw, to explain how you either knew or should have known about their sexual orientation, so unless they can credibly explain how you knew them to be gay, you can't be held liable for terminating them on the basis of sexual orientation. If they're not actually gay, as you suggest is a possibility in your example, that would be hard for them to do.


2016-04-13 10:28 AM
in reply to: jford2309

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by jford2309

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by mdg2003 " These laws aren't protecting their religious freedom, they are infringing on the rights of others. Big difference. " I believe the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom and protects us from persecution while practicing those rights. I don't recall reading where it guaranteed citizens rights to demand those people drop their religious beliefs just so we don't slide backwards into the abyss that was segregation? We all have the same civil liberties and that includes the liberty to take your business where it is wanted. I think the gay rights movement takes an exponential leap forward in this country by ignoring the azzholes that don't want their business. We can change social beliefs, but we shouldn't try to change the religious beliefs of anyone, certainly not under the guise of commerce. The argument that we are sliding backwards to segregation could also be made that we are sliding backwards towards times of religious persecution as well. It's a slippery slope on both sides of the issue IMO. Oh, we already DO have slaves in this country from Mexico.
It's not persecuting Christians. It has nothing to do with Christianity and that is obvious. It is a free ticket to discrimination. We all break at least one Abrahamic law at any given time. So allowing a business to refuse service indiscriminately is pretty much what they are doing. A restaurant owner could legally refuse service to every black customer and claim it was because they are wearing two different fabrics and the bible strictly prohibits that. Are we going to demand that they kick out all the white people wearing poly/cotton blends? No. Yet they could legally do this under these laws. Because of this indiscriminate application they are pretty much allowing them to refuse service to anyone they want. That's the problem.

Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore.




I'm aware of that. However, the only place that homosexuality is distinctly prohibited is in the Old Testament, so why is homosexuality an issue?

Also Jesus Christ was an adamant pacifist. Let's see a Christian business in NC refuse service to members of the military and see how that turns out.
2016-04-13 10:30 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC

religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks.  I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT.  its bear discrimination.

2016-04-13 10:32 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by dmiller5

religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks.  I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT.  its bear discrimination.




So does that mean you can sleep in anyone's bed you want?
2016-04-13 10:38 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Boycotting NC
Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by dmiller5

religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks.  I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT.  its bear discrimination.




So does that mean you can sleep in anyone's bed you want?


Not in North Carolina, you can't....
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Boycotting NC Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4
 
 
RELATED POSTS

NC school bans 9 yo's My Little Pony Backpack Pages: 1 2 3

Started by switch
Views: 4333 Posts: 56

2014-03-25 2:28 PM Aarondb4