Thread: Sam on gay players: 'A lot of us'

Originally Posted by SR

I don't give a good goddamn about what that fool thinks.

Unfortunately, there's enough people like him to force a hard core Tea Party state like Arizona to cave into their demands. Hard core Tea Party (former) Governor Brewer caved in & veto the law that would ensure that what happened to the Wedding cake baker (I think in Colorado) wouldn't ever happen to an Arizona business owner. Our new Governor Duecy is even harder core Tea Party then Brewer, yet the Tea Party run legislature hasn't bother to repass that law so Duecy can sign it this time. If a state that run entirely by the Tea Party will cave into such demands, what state is going to have the backbone to stand its ground.

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

Unfortunately, there's enough people like him to force a hard core Tea Party state like Arizona to cave into their demands. Hard core Tea Party (former) Governor Brewer caved in & veto the law that would ensure that what happened to the Wedding cake baker (I think in Colorado) wouldn't ever happen to an Arizona business owner. Our new Governor Duecy is even harder core Tea Party then Brewer, yet the Tea Party run legislature hasn't bother to repass that law so Duecy can sign it this time. If a state that run entirely by the Tea Party will cave into such demands, what state is going to have the backbone to stand its ground.

Hey. Dude. The business owners being protected is a GOOD thing.

Originally Posted by SR

Hey. Dude. The business owners being protected is a GOOD thing.

YES, it is a good thing, but the gay advocates don't see it that way & forced Arizona's former hard core Tea Party governor to veto a bill that would have ensured that protection. The current Tea Party legislature hasn't repass the law in order that our current harder core Tea Party governor can sign it in order in ensure that protection.

Somebody help SR & I out. There seems to be a complete inability to get SR to understand my point that I support protecting businesses that the gay bully (note I didn't say rights) advocate will sue if they don't get their way. They've done it before & they do it again.

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

YES, it is a good thing, but the gay advocates don't see it that way & forced Arizona's former hard core Tea Party governor to veto a bill that would have ensured that protection. The current Tea Party legislature hasn't repass the law in order that our current harder core Tea Party governor can sign it in order in ensure that protection. Somebody help SR & I out. There seems to be a complete inability to get SR to understand my point that I support protecting businesses that the gay bully (note I didn't say rights) advocate will sue if they don't get their way. They've done it before & they do it again.

I got you now. You weren't being clear I guess. Or I wasn't understanding. But I got it.

Just to catch some up to speed, there have been at least a handful of cases where businesses were sued for refusing to offer their services when informed that they were for gay weddings. In most cases, they claim they did so for religious objections. Here's an example...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/03/28/...ce-gay-wedding

A judge in Washington state on Friday fined a florist $1,000 after she refused to sell flower arrangements for a gay couple's wedding, officials said.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who along with the couple - Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed - sued florist Barronelle Stutzman in 2013, applauded the ruling in a statement.
"My primary goal has always been to end illegal discrimination," Ferguson said. "I'm pleased that today's ruling clearly prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples."
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom's order on Friday also bars Stutzman and her Richland shop, Arlene's Flowers, from offering goods or services to straight couples that aren't also made available to same-sex couples, the statement said.

Many municipalities, including San Antonio and Houston, have passed ordinances, often called "Equal Rights" ordinances that prohibit businesses from refusing services based on sexual orientation or any other reason.

Proponents see denying services to gays that they would to straights as the equivalent of denying something to blacks that a business would provide to whites. Opponents, like the ones who passed the Indiana law, are saying that businesses should not be forced to provide a service for which the business owners have a moral or religious objection.

That's the political battle going on and Michael Sam playing in the NFL is just one more front on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Just to catch some up to speed, there have been at least a handful of cases where businesses were sued for refusing to offer their services when informed that they were for gay weddings. In most cases, they claim they did so for religious objections. Here's an example... http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/03/28/...ce-gay-wedding Many municipalities, including San Antonio and Houston, have passed ordinances, often called "Equal Rights" ordinances that prohibit businesses from refusing services based on sexual orientation or any other reason. Proponents see denying services to gays that they would to straights as the equivalent of denying something to blacks that a business would provide to whites. Opponents, like the ones who passed the Indiana law, are saying that businesses should not be forced to provide a service for which the business owners have a moral or religious objection. That's the political battle going on and Michael Sam playing in the NFL is just one more front on the battlefield.

It should all fall under separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

If a gay wants something, give it to him/her or you'll be branded a homophobic bigot. If you express an option that differs from the official view of the gay community, especially gender orientation & gay marriage, you’ll be branded a homophobic bigot.

For a man that from all appearances looks to be working tirelessly in the hopes of igniting a groundswell of empathy and support for an under-represented minority -- I can't help but find your statements to be surprisingly (if not hypocritically) hostile and un-empathetic.

Originally Posted by tomjonesrocks

For a man that from all appearances looks to be working tirelessly in the hopes of igniting a groundswell of empathy and support for an under-represented minority -- I can't help but find your statements to be surprisingly (if not hypocritically) hostile and un-empathetic.

I should have empathy for bullies? Trust me; I've been bullied throughout my upbringing, so I know a bully when I see one. The gay advocates have become as big of bullies when it comes to forcing their view down everyone's throat as Westboro Baptist. I've open condemned that "church" for how they handle the gay issue numerous occasions, so I'm not a hypocrite when I call out the gays for conducting themselves in the same manner. Yes, gays were bullied though out history, up until the 90s.

When I grew up in the 70s & 80s, gay bashing was the social norm. When I was at Phoenix Job Corps (a government funded vocational training program) in 88-89, a homosexual student got outed. Actually, I knew he was gay for a couple of months prior & kept his secret. Nevertheless, his out resulted in his immediate ostracization. When I saw him in the cafeteria the next morning, no one would sit at the same table. I, being the leader of the campus Bible study at the time, knew I’d send shockwaves through campus by sitting next to him. In an act of blatant act of defiance of social expectations, I made a statement to the entire school by sitting next to him.

Nevertheless, the tide started to turn in the 90s & gay bashing became scorned. As someone who was bullied, I fully support this change in the attitude. However, since the start of the 21 century, they have gone from being bullied to being bullies. They condemn their opponents with what formally trained debaters refer to as “straw man arguments.” This is where you invent a belief system that you declare to be that of your opponent that is designed to make them look bad. Although Westboro Baptist does actually embrace this hate filled belief system, declaring that anyone who disagrees with the gays is the same as WB is not only slanderous, but is hypocritical of them because their belief system is as grounded in as much hatred as WB.

By the way, my view of the entire gay debate is based less on what the Bible says, & more to do with similarities that I've observed in both the gay & Autistic/Aspie communities. After all, their are a lot of gays in our community, & are many similarities in their stories with ours that have led me to make a lot of unorthodox conclusions about why they are the way the are. Their personalities & belief system about who they are as grounded in the intolerance that they've endured as ours, but that doesn't give them the right to be intolerant of others. I'll start a thread in the Political forum so I can start this conversation from scratch so it might have a chance to go in a constructive direction.

Would you also support a bill that proposed to protect business owners from selling to aspies

Why can't the gay couple just buy a gay decoration and put it on the cake? That's like suing a baskin robins cause they won't sell hummus flavored ice cream because it sounds gross.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

Would you also support a bill that proposed to protect business owners from selling to aspies

There are many businesses that create max-sensory environments, which are hostile to many Autistics/Aspie, but are proven to bring in more money from those without sensory issues. What do we do? Some might try to educate the owner about it if they’re interested, but we don’t sue them if they don’t change. We simply take our money to an environment that less hostile towards us. We’re not talking about schools, hospitals, government building, etc. which we must have access to. We’re talking about 1 of 1,000s of places that we can take our recreational money. If the business decides they only sell to people 3 piece suits, then I guess I won’t be taking my money to them. If I can’t eat there for under $20, then I won’t be eating there very often. If they want me to be a regular, then they make it possible for me to eat for under $10. If they don’t, I’m not going to sue them for discriminating against the poor, I’m going to go somewhere where they will sell me a “meal” for what I can afford.

As a former taxi driver, I know that there are some parts of town that very few drivers are willing to serve at night. Should they be sued for discriminating against the poor as well? One of many problems I had as a cab driver was that my safety protocols were too stringent in terms of who I’d let in my cab. I just had this thing about not wanting to be mugged. If they called our number & I met them at a legitimate address, then fine. However, at 2 am, the only way you’re going to make money is by letting some guy on a dark street who’s waving you down into your cab. I just didn’t feel comfortable doing that, which is one reason why I’m not driving cab.

As a business owner, as well as cab driver, the more limitations on the customers that you’ll serve, the less you’ll money you’ll make. If you refuse service to too many potential customers, you’ll go out of business. This is why businesses don’t just refuse services for any random reason. So far, all of the examples of business refusing services to gay have to do with assisting in gay weddings. If one place doesn’t want to service your wedding, just do what Autistics/Aspies do to business that want to have max-sensory environments, take your money & business elsewhere.

By the way, when I was a cab driver, I got my share of calls to gay bars. I gave them the exact same service that I gave everyone else that I pick up at a legitimate address.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

Would you also support a bill that proposed to protect business owners from selling to aspies

Now. let me ask you a question that gets back the subject of the OP. If you're an employer & you let go of an employee go because he wasn't good enough to keep around, but then he start insinuating that the real reason that you let him go might have been that he's gay, how do you respond?

I actually can't believe we are having conversations like these in 2015 - seriously, it frys my brain.

But anyway FanInAz - I agree with your point, if the service is not good, go elsewhere.

Why does the state need to intervene to legitimise discrimination