Author Topic: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch  (Read 18514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #225 on: May 23, 2016, 02:37:20 pm »
And my proposed solution would let the business refuse to serve people for any reason whatsoever, not just on religious grounds.  Freedom of association used to be an accepted practice.  Being in business should not take that away.  All I'm proposing is that businesses be required to identify who they choose to associate with to avoid any confusion.

Is this what you had in mind?
 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #226 on: May 23, 2016, 02:49:18 pm »
Is this what you had in mind?
 


Why Gay Rights Are Not The New Civil Rights

Supporters of same-sex marriage love to make analogies to the African American Civil Rights Movement. Analogies are rhetorical devices that require careful scrutiny. While I do not find the attempt to connect bans on gay marriage to miscegenation laws persuasive, nevertheless there is nothing inherently wrong in trying to find parallels between these two social movements. In that spirit, let me offer my own reflections on what we can learn by comparing them.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/07/why-gay-rights-are-not-the-new-civil-rights


Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #227 on: May 23, 2016, 03:16:48 pm »
So basically we have here the same kind of debate that others have about Global Warming.

Not at all. It's both genetic and environmental. Why do people find this impossible to understand?

A gene is just a gene. It expresses a particular protein. Every cell has at least two copies of nearly every gene, one copy from the father and one copy from the mother (I said nearly because of the XY chromosomes - those are a special case.). Which one is expressed - gets switched on, if you like - is a combination of random change and environment.

Simple, no?
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,225
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #228 on: May 23, 2016, 03:18:57 pm »
Not at all. It's both genetic and environmental. Why do people find this impossible to understand?

A gene is just a gene. It expresses a particular protein. Every cell has at least two copies of nearly every gene, one copy from the father and one copy from the mother (I said nearly because of the XY chromosomes - those are a special case.). Which one is expressed - gets switched on, if you like - is a combination of random change and environment.

Simple, no?

I think it's pretty safe that the science is out on this one, there is no clear determination. It might possibly be a combination of genetic and environmental, could be completely one or the other.

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #229 on: May 23, 2016, 03:28:27 pm »
Is this what you had in mind?
 


Not my preference.  But it would make sense where these florists and bakers are concerned.  It'd keep them from getting sued.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #230 on: May 23, 2016, 03:40:17 pm »
Why Gay Rights Are Not The New Civil Rights

Supporters of same-sex marriage love to make analogies to the African American Civil Rights Movement. Analogies are rhetorical devices that require careful scrutiny. While I do not find the attempt to connect bans on gay marriage to miscegenation laws persuasive, nevertheless there is nothing inherently wrong in trying to find parallels between these two social movements. In that spirit, let me offer my own reflections on what we can learn by comparing them.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/07/why-gay-rights-are-not-the-new-civil-rights

What I was responding to was this quote from above:

Quote
And my proposed solution would let the business refuse to serve people for any reason whatsoever, not just on religious grounds.  Freedom of association used to be an accepted practice. 

And this one:

Quote
They should have that right, yes.  But a lot of these anti-discrimination laws make that impossible.  My own politically incorrect solution to this would be to do away with the anti-discrimination laws entirely but require businesses to clearly identify who they will not serve.  Bakeries and florists could post "We do not serve homosexuals" and then let the market sort things out.  Those who choose to patronize them regardless of their policy will do so.  Those who decide not to patronize them because of their policy will do so.  There will be no surprises, no embarrassments, no need for lawsuits.  As for the business, if they don't specify then they have to serve whoever walks in the door.  It could be the same for race, religion, nationality, whatever.


Thus my reminder of the "good old days" when businesses could refuse service for any reason.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #231 on: May 23, 2016, 04:03:26 pm »
Thus my reminder of the "good old days" when businesses could refuse service for any reason.

I would hardly consider that the "good old days" any more than I would consider what's going on with gay marriage and bakers the "good new days". 

The problem with the situation is that you cannot guarantee constitutional rights for one group without violating what another group sees as their constitutional rights.  Gay couples have anti-discrimination laws on their side that say they can't be discriminated against.  Fundamentalists have religious freedom on their side saying that if they can't discriminate then they can't practice their religion as they see fit.  Prejudice is going to exist on one side or the other, and all I'm saying is that we might as well be open about it and let people know.  I don't approve of discriminating against people based on religion or race or sexual orientation or whatever.  If I were faced with a sign that said "We don't serve blacks" or "We don't serve homosexuals" then I'd be inclined to take my business elsewhere even though I don't fall into either category.  Some people may feel the opposite, even though they don't fall into the same category either.  But at least the market can decide. 

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,225
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #232 on: May 23, 2016, 04:06:33 pm »
What I was responding to was this quote from above:

And this one:


Thus my reminder of the "good old days" when businesses could refuse service for any reason.

It's a good point. HOwever, where does it end?

Do you believe that a business has any right to refuse service for any reason? Do you have an obligation to serve child molestors, criminals, murderers, people you politically disagree with? If you own a business do you have an obligation to insist that transgenders use one bathroom or the other? What about people who have wronged you personally? Do you have a right to decline to do business with them?

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #233 on: May 23, 2016, 04:45:15 pm »
It's a good point. HOwever, where does it end?

Do you believe that a business has any right to refuse service for any reason? Do you have an obligation to serve child molestors, criminals, murderers, people you politically disagree with? If you own a business do you have an obligation to insist that transgenders use one bathroom or the other? What about people who have wronged you personally? Do you have a right to decline to do business with them?

That's a straw-man argument.  Yes you have a right to refuse service to anyone who has wronged you personally.  And I don't think murderers, child molesters, etc fall within the framework of the Civil Rights Act, unless by virtue of one of the protected classes.  In most jurisdictions it's still okay to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service".  The protected classes are covered by the Act, and do apply to public accommodation, which businesses are.  The USSC has declared gays a protected class under the 5th and 14th Amendments, and gay marriage legal in all states.  Obviously the courts aren't through with this issue especially as it applies to religious institutions, but I think public accommodation businesses aren't going to fare too well by using the First Amendment freedom of religion clause.

 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #234 on: May 23, 2016, 05:23:49 pm »
  The USSC has declared gays a protected class under the 5th and 14th Amendments, and gay marriage legal in all states.
 

Would it not be more accurate to say that the SC once again shat upon the states' rights to legislate in areas outside of the federal government's enumerated powers?

 

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #235 on: May 23, 2016, 05:26:21 pm »
I would hardly consider that the "good old days" any more than I would consider what's going on with gay marriage and bakers the "good new days". 

The problem with the situation is that you cannot guarantee constitutional rights for one group without violating what another group sees as their constitutional rights.  Gay couples have anti-discrimination laws on their side that say they can't be discriminated against.  Fundamentalists have religious freedom on their side saying that if they can't discriminate then they can't practice their religion as they see fit.  Prejudice is going to exist on one side or the other, and all I'm saying is that we might as well be open about it and let people know.  I don't approve of discriminating against people based on religion or race or sexual orientation or whatever.  If I were faced with a sign that said "We don't serve blacks" or "We don't serve homosexuals" then I'd be inclined to take my business elsewhere even though I don't fall into either category.  Some people may feel the opposite, even though they don't fall into the same category either.  But at least the market can decide.

Unfortunately, eliminating all discrimination laws would get you that and a lot worse.

The battle between religion and the discrimination laws will continue for quite a while.  There have been many cases of Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up women, people with alcohol, and even the blind.  I'm not too sure an uncovered woman would take kindly to being refused service by a cab driver.  Religious preferences cannot always win where public accommodation is concerned.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #236 on: May 23, 2016, 05:37:16 pm »
Would it not be more accurate to say that the SC once again shat upon the states' rights to legislate in areas outside of the federal government's enumerated powers?

Not to nit pick, but states do not have rights, only powers.  And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Court's findings relating to the Constitution do transcend those powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment.  Whether we like it or not, the 14th Amendment is the brass ring for those who feel they've been discriminated against.  And of course, the states are bound to comply with all of the amendments to the Constitution.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #237 on: May 23, 2016, 05:39:26 pm »
There are still a myriad of reasons that businesses can refuse to do business with someone.

So we should just do away with all of that?  A lawyer shouldn't be allowed to refuse to represent a Mob Boss based on moral and ethical grounds?  Should a Mafia Don have the right to sue said lawyer for discrimination?

Should we now allow an accountant to be sued because a client wants him to keep two sets of books?

I know some folks in Alabama that will he happy the no shoes no service rule is repealed at Hardees.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #238 on: May 23, 2016, 05:40:54 pm »
Unfortunately, eliminating all discrimination laws would get you that and a lot worse.

The battle between religion and the discrimination laws will continue for quite a while.  There have been many cases of Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up women, people with alcohol, and even the blind.  I'm not too sure an uncovered woman would take kindly to being refused service by a cab driver.  Religious preferences cannot always win where public accommodation is concerned.

And in all those instances the Muslim won.  Like the Muslim truck drivers who won the right to refuse to hall loads of alcohol...or the ones working at a meat packing plant that refused to process pork.

But you let one Christian baker refuse to make a cake...
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,225
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #239 on: May 23, 2016, 06:09:45 pm »
That's a straw-man argument.  Yes you have a right to refuse service to anyone who has wronged you personally.  And I don't think murderers, child molesters, etc fall within the framework of the Civil Rights Act, unless by virtue of one of the protected classes.  In most jurisdictions it's still okay to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service".  The protected classes are covered by the Act, and do apply to public accommodation, which businesses are.  The USSC has declared gays a protected class under the 5th and 14th Amendments, and gay marriage legal in all states.  Obviously the courts aren't through with this issue especially as it applies to religious institutions, but I think public accommodation businesses aren't going to fare too well by using the First Amendment freedom of religion clause.

 

I wasn't making an argument, just asking a question. And I don't believe that USSC declared gays a "protected class" at all, just said that their due process rights were infringed in the case of barring them from being married.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #240 on: May 23, 2016, 06:38:10 pm »
How will our permissiveness affect the health and well being of our children and grandchildren?


Let me give you a metaphor in "Fermat's last theorem" .     


The theorem has been proved to be correct,   but the proof of it is massive,  requiring many many pages of equations to demonstrate.   



So too is the proof required to demonstrate how Homosexuality and general moral depravity will eventually affect the health and well being of your children and grandchildren.   


It's easier to just look at how such things have worked out in the past.    For example,   many people are familiar with the "Victorian Era",   which was a period of great prudishness and imposed sexual restraint.   (Incidentally,  coinciding with England's greatest rise to power. )   


What many people do not know is that it was preceded by the "Georgian Era",   which was a period known for it's sexual debauchery and excess.    The Georgian Era saw huge swaths of the population dying from sexually transmitted diseases,   and the mortality rate was becoming a threat to the nation's ability to defend itself.   


I used to have better links to these details,  but that was several years ago.   


The point is,   the Victorian Era  was a necessary consequence of the previous generation's excesses.     


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #241 on: May 23, 2016, 06:44:51 pm »
And Christians...even though they are the majority in the U.S. are persecuted ridiculed and pretty much banned form the public square.  But let one person demand that their gayness be accepted and a whole group of people will steamroll whomever they must to protect the special snowflake.


They may be the majority in the nation,   but they are the extreme minority in terms of people who control the television channels and movies.   


Those people who control the things we see on television are generally Liberal Urban Democrats who think Christianity is old fashion and out of date.    They disdain it,   they hate it,   and they mock it and everything it teaches....  except "equality."    That is the only lesson from Christianity which they respect. 









There are no "rights" being denied to gays.  There is NO comparison to the Civil Rights struggle of the 60's.


And most black people find it extremely offensive to compare homosexuality to being black.   They hate that comparison.   They think it demeans them,   and it demeans their suffering.   


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #242 on: May 23, 2016, 06:46:17 pm »
I wasn't making an argument, just asking a question. And I don't believe that USSC declared gays a "protected class" at all, just said that their due process rights were infringed in the case of barring them from being married.

Well, like it or not, sex including sexual preference is a protected class under the CRA of 1964.  Everything isn't treated the same depending whether it's a housing, employment or public accommodation issue.  Anytime a discrimination complaint is filed with the court, the defendant is given the opportunity to show that the alleged discrimination didn't take place, or if it did, what the legitimate compelling reason is for the discrimination.  Interestingly, religion is a suspect classification, giving it the highest level of protection against discrimination.  But in most cases, especially non-religious businesses or government agencies, religion cannot "trump" other suspect or quasi-suspect groups in a discrimination show-down. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #243 on: May 23, 2016, 06:46:54 pm »


Christianity is alive and thriving. If you see something to the contrary perhaps your prescriptions need adjusting.


You must have been missing the news and what passes for "entertainment"  nowadays.   



‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,225
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #244 on: May 23, 2016, 06:53:43 pm »
Well, like it or not, sex including sexual preference is a protected class under the CRA of 1964.  Everything isn't treated the same depending whether it's a housing, employment or public accommodation issue.  Anytime a discrimination complaint is filed with the court, the defendant is given the opportunity to show that the alleged discrimination didn't take place, or if it did, what the legitimate compelling reason is for the discrimination.  Interestingly, religion is a suspect classification, giving it the highest level of protection against discrimination.  But in most cases, especially non-religious businesses or government agencies, religion cannot "trump" other suspect or quasi-suspect groups in a discrimination show-down.

Ok, I'm sorry but I just find it ridiculous to fine someone $150k for refusing to bake a cake. I understand about discrimination and all that. Personally, yes I would have just baked the damn cake, or maybe just did a crappy job on it if I was personally upset.

I do feel that we should have some leeway in choosing who we do business with. I understand that no we do not want to go back to the days of "colored " drinking fountains, but to see a couple forced to pay $150K, that just doesn't gel with me. It really does reek of ... tyranny IMO.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #245 on: May 23, 2016, 06:58:45 pm »
Well, like it or not, sex including sexual preference is a protected class under the CRA of 1964. 

Hate to break it to you...but you're wrong.

Quote
Currently, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but does not mention sexual orientation, much less gender identity.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_protectlgbt.html


Facts....they're your friend.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #246 on: May 23, 2016, 07:00:54 pm »
Ok, I'm sorry but I just find it ridiculous to fine someone $150k for refusing to bake a cake. I understand about discrimination and all that. Personally, yes I would have just baked the damn cake, or maybe just did a crappy job on it if I was personally upset.

I do feel that we should have some leeway in choosing who we do business with. I understand that no we do not want to go back to the days of "colored " drinking fountains, but to see a couple forced to pay $150K, that just doesn't gel with me. It really does reek of ... tyranny IMO.

Yes, $150k is out of control. Bureaucrats gone wild.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #247 on: May 23, 2016, 07:02:08 pm »
And in all those instances the Muslim won.  Like the Muslim truck drivers who won the right to refuse to hall loads of alcohol...or the ones working at a meat packing plant that refused to process pork.

But you let one Christian baker refuse to make a cake...

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court

Muslim Cabbie fined For Not Allowing Woman Up Front

http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/muslim-cabby-fined-for-not-allowing-woman-up-front/

These religious versus public accommodation cases are going to proliferate.  And they aren't always decided the same at lower levels including state and federal agencies and courts. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #248 on: May 23, 2016, 07:06:08 pm »
Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court

Muslim Cabbie fined For Not Allowing Woman Up Front

http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/muslim-cabby-fined-for-not-allowing-woman-up-front/

These religious versus public accommodation cases are going to proliferate.  And they aren't always decided the same at lower levels including state and federal agencies and courts.

Hey look!  I can do that too!!!

Two Muslim truck drivers win $240,000 because they were fired for refusing to deliver beer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297078/2-Muslim-drivers-win-240K-judgment-discrimination-suit.html#ixzz49VVwj5Jh



The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Re: First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch
« Reply #249 on: May 23, 2016, 07:11:19 pm »
Hate to break it to you...but you're wrong.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_protectlgbt.html


Facts....they're your friend.

Indeed they are:

Quote
EEOC interprets and enforces Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.  These protections apply regardless of any contrary state or local laws.

Through investigation, conciliation, and litigation of charges by individuals against private sector employers, as well as hearings and appeals for federal sector workers, the Commission has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) applicants and employees against employment bias.  The Commission has obtained approximately $6.4 million in monetary relief for individuals, as well as numerous employer policy changes, in voluntary resolutions of LGBT discrimination charges under Title VII since data collection began in 2013.  A growing number of court decisions have endorsed the Commission's interpretation of Title VII.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

The federal government does take the position that sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII.  Perhaps the USSC will find that isn't the case some day, but I doubt it.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!