whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

At this point in our nation's history, we are struggling with the age-old problem of "majority rule" versus "minority rights." In our case, we are approaching these problems on any number of fronts, not the least of which are the rights of migrants, the L***Q community, and (realistically) the rights of w***e s*********ts and r****ts to voice their opinions and act on them.
Each of these are a minority group that has protected rights under the Constitution. Notice that religious groups are not included here … more about that later.
First and foremost, let's define the terms:
Majority Rule --- Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the v**es. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including all the legislatures of democratic nations. (Wikipedia)
Minority Rights --- Minority rights are the normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or g****r and sexual minorities; and also the collective rights accorded to minority groups. Minority rights may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision. (Wikipedia)
Where is the dividing line between these two? Where is the dividing line between the tyrrany of the absolute majority, and the realization of the rights of a minority group?
In the case of groups like w***e s*********ts and the KKK, it has been a legal precedent that they have the right to their views and can demonstrate in public for their concept of political thought. While offensive to many, it is legal.
When it comes to the issues of migrants, it is a somewhat different story. While they may have broken the law in coming here, they do have rights and are entitled to due process if they ask for asylum. We may treat them deplorably while they wait for their claims to be heard, but we nonetheless must treat them humanely while they wait.
Where the real contention comes is when a majority attempts to legislate laws that try to legalize discrimination or ban conduct that is religiously based, examples of which are the anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish and anti-L***Q movements. All of these attempts are based on a "Christian" viewpoint of morality that is derived solely from a Biblical teaching.
Mankind has a basic flaw, in that "anything that is not like me is a threat and must be destroyed." It exists in our i****e s****m when we reject organ t***splants, and when it destroys harmful v***ses and bacteria. It exists in our own social interactions when we choose to associate with those around us that share similar views on politics and religion, and are of the same appearance racially speaking. We amplify this when we elevate these associations and morals to a governmental level and the result becomes segregation and suppression (sometimes violently) of minority groups. It's just a "what's so."
Many of the attempts at discrimination and suppression are due to a viewpoint that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation." That is a stretch, considering that the Declaration of Independence mentions only "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", a "Creator", and "Divine Providence." There is no mention specifically of Christianity as a tenet of the document or of the people of the country. This corresponds to the fact that most of the founders of the country were 'deists', and not necessarily 'Christian' per se. There is no mention whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution of Christianity at all, and only in the First Amendment does it ban the government from establishing a state religion, and prevent it from suppressing the free expression of religious views.
Given that premise, there can be no legal reason to be able to discriminate or suppress any minority group or prevent them from exercising their rights under our form of government.
The example of 'Sharia law' is one where we are attempting to ban the Moslem religious culture. It is true that it encompasses a strict set of punishments for infractions which we can prevent from being carried out, since the laws of this country regarding criminal behavior supersede that religious code. But the remainder of their religious tenets must be observed without interference.
Orthodox Jews have a set of rules in the Torah (Old Testament) that require stoning of adulterers and other such punishments which are not carried out here. The remaining religious tenets are performed without interference.
Another example is the plural marriage tenet of the Mormon Church. They removed that practice in the religion years ago, but there are still sects that practice it, although not legally.
While we're on the subject of marriage, there is no prohibition as such in Biblical texts for same-sex unions. There is the admonition against 'man laying down with man', but that's a sexual prohibition, and in actuality has nothing to do with marriage. And it applies only to the religious adherence of that particular religion, not as a possible rule of law. Tradition has it that both the church and the government have to sanction the procreation of children, but there is nothing that prohibits the association of two same-sex adults in a legal partnership. It does not demean the term 'marriage' to have a same-sex couple use it. We talk about the 'marriage' of two corporations, or two businesses without any outcry against the use of the term.
As for discrimination based on religious belief, in our private lives we can associate with whomever we wish or only produce such products as we care to, courtesy of our Second Amendment. When it comes to providing services or products for the "general public", by that very definition, it has to include the entire public, not just those segments of the society that we agree with or like.
Could a local middle-eastern restaurant refuse service to all Christians? I think the outcry would be huge. Could a local Muslim barber refuse to give a close shave to a customer because they believed in facial hair being central to their religion? Can a baker refuse to provide a custom-made cake to a gay couple, based on their religious beliefs?
In each of these cases, you could make the case that the customers would have the option of going elsewhere to get the services or products that they want, and you'd be right. But it is the concept of "serving the general public" that is at the heart of the matter. If you're the only place in the area for that product or service and you discriminate against certain customers, you are violating minority rights, at least in my opinion. Your mileage will vary (and I'm sure it will.)
So where does the line get drawn between majority rule and minority rights? Where you stand is where you sit.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

As is usual from you, another outstanding post

Rose42

Where do the rights of the individual business owner come into play? Are they to always cede their rights to others? What gives others the right to demand service of anyone they choose? The government? Where has true liberalism gone?

Does the Constitution give people the right to not be offended yet be offensive? When a minority such as L**Tetc targets children and wants special privileges why should anyone accept it?

Various perversions have become so normalized that people now defend them. Our nation is sliding further into the abyss. Its profoundly sad.

Where you stand is where you sit indeed.

Cuda2020

Valid points taken, I believe the line has been drawn, what we have to do now is to ensure our SCJ's tow that line and not smudge it when possibly leaning to one side or the other, let the line be clear cut as also where American principles stand.

Rose42

As time passes there have become more lines on where American principles stand.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

The same answer applies to both ... when you choose to open a business or offer services to "the general public", you are required to serve that same "general public." No ands, ifs, or buts. The Supreme Court has ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that certain health care benefits for their employees can be withheld in a privately-held corporation, but that only applies internally to companies that do not offer stock to the general public or sole proprietorships.

Nowhere. It's here and flourishing. Otherwise we would be operating under a dictatorship headed by Dear Leader Trump.

The Constitution doesn't say squat about your personal feelings. In a democracy, I can be offended by things yet I do not have the right to act on that offensiveness except to verbally respond or avoid such things in the future. As to offensiveness, you need not look further than this forum for your answer.

As usual, trotting out the old untrue trope about the L***Q community to stir things up. First, the vast percentage of child molesters are straight white males (ask Jeffrey Epstein). Second, the L***Q community isn't asking for "special rights" (another old untrue trope). They are merely asking for the same rights and privileges that the rest of our society enjoys. If you were to eliminate that community, (as you seem to indicate that you would like to), I suspect that you would have a terrible time finding a good hairdresser or interior decorator (forgive the stereotypes). Every woman in America has had at least one of these and loved 'em.


One man's perversion is another man's bliss (to coin a phrase). These "perversions" have been around since time immemorial. I consider it a perversion to lie profusely, and to spend $108,000,000 (so far) of taxpayer money to fly to his golf courses. Or isn't it perverse to cozy up to dictators worldwide while alienating all our allies? It is sad indeed.

Probably the only completely true statement that you have included in your post. I agree.

Rose42

Yes there are "buts". The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.



Liberalism isn't alive and flourishing. It's in its death throes along with conservatism. Liberalism has all but disappeared in favor of big government and the squashing of individual liberties in favor of special interests. L*****ts aren't liberals. If there were no republican party or even no democrat party we'd end up a totalitarian state.



I know the answer. The question was rhetorical. If people get offended by something in a forum then they need to take a good look at why they would allow that. People are more weak minded now than they've ever been.



And as usual you are in complete denial of what's going on. They aren't asking for the same rights because they have them. They want special considerations.

I never said I wanted to get rid of them. You make a lot of assumptions. They need help not affirmation. And there are plenty of good hairdressers and interior decorators that aren't effeminate men so that example is quite ridiculous.



Yes these sexual perversions have always been around, they have always been perversions and these people need our help. They sure don't need to be indoctrinating children or teaching them that its okay because it isn't.

You're wasting your time complaining about Trump to me because I don't like the man.



That is your subjective opinion.

Cuda2020

What did they win? The Kleins had to pay a $135,000 judgment to the couple for discriminating against them in violation of a state public accommodations statute. They ended up closing down their bakery.

Rose42

Yes they did after the homosexuals wouldn't simply find another bakery like any rational people would. However the Supreme Court sided with the Kleins even after the L**Tetcetc community targeted them. Even after the ruling the L**Twh**ever community again targeted them. Bravo to the Kleins for standing up for what is right.

Supreme Court sides with Oregon bakery that refused to make cake for same-sex wedding

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-l***q-religious-liberties-oregon/

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Au contraire, mon cher. The Supreme Court did not decide the baker's case. They just threw the case back to the commission that originally brought the discrimination charges because the commission did not consider the baker's religious views in their deliberations. They didn't directly decide that the baker discriminated against the gay couple.


So both political extremes are invalid? You could'a fooled me. If there's not liberalism and no conservatism, what do you call it? And what does it stand for? I'm confused here.


You'll get no argument from me on this one.


<sigh> Then why are there twenty-nine states in which you can be fired from your job for being L***Q? That sounds like a denial of rights to me there. That doesn't sound like asking for special consideration, unless it's on the side of the employer. And that's just one example.
From Lambda Legal:

"May 2, 2019
Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it will soon issue a new final rule protecting health care providers who refuse to treat L**T people and women seeking reproductive health care, solely on the basis of the providers’ religious or moral objections. The proposed rule also shields health care providers even if they refuse to give a referral after denying care, regardless of the consequences to the patient, and in violation of medical and ethical requirements and standards of care. The Rule is scheduled to go into effect 60 days after it is published. "
Now I ask you … is this asking for special treatment?


"… Help not affirmation." Let's see … there's one controversial method (conversion therapy) to "cure" gayness that has been banned in a number of states and countries as being ineffective and does more damage than good. So far there's no "cure" for being L***Q that I know of. If you have one that works, the world awaits.


As for indoctrination, "the best immunization is sunlight." Making kids aware of who and what they are should go a long way towards making mentally healthier adults, rather than suppressing that knowledge or supplanting it with religious dogma that mucks them up for years or lifetimes.


At least we agree on something! Hopefully that means that you won't v**e for him next year.


Hey, that's all any of us have. Every one of us has nothing but opinions based on their own biases, fears and experience. We do the best we can with what we have, however deluded it may be from reality. I'm no exception.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

In the first case last year (From CNN):
"The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.
"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."
From Monday's ruling (CNN):
"Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Monday wiped away a ruling that went against a bakery in Oregon that refused to make a cake to celebrate the wedding for a same-sex couple.
The justices sent back the case pitting religious liberty concerns against L***Q rights to the lower courts for further consideration in light of last term's ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
The move puts off a major case that could have been heard next term during the heart of the p**********l e******n and allows the issue to further percolate in the lower courts."

The actual discrimination issue has not yet been definitively decided by the Supremes.

Cuda2020

That's the point, if you are serving the public you "were" not allowed to interject your own prejudices. This was to prevent conditions arising constantly from peoples prejudices. For example, if I were driving my car in the desert and you were the only gas station for 100 miles, you could not refuse to sell me gas for any reason, not for race, religion, sexual preference or anything, you are to serve the public in its entirety. The present corrupted Supreme Court who v**ed in favor of the bakers have made the supreme error of placing religion ABOVE our own laws, you have no idea of the can of worms they have opened with that judgment. Wait until the Muslims and their religious habits can now be enforced. Thank-you GOP. It is most certainly against our Constitution. I am sure this will be appealed. Hope and pray they uphold our Constitutional laws otherwise this will be the crack in the dam and all will be lost. This is where we are at with this new administration.

Cuda2020

This is a very big deal, it is not just about the rights being denied to the gay couple, it is about the courts favoring one right over the other, which is unconstitutional and why a problem has risen in the first place. The courts are not obeying our own rules of law.

Rose42

Their decision was in his favor nonetheless.



Liberalism and conservatism aren't political extremes. Progressivism and the alt right are. Both parties have been c*********d by extremists. We could use more classic liberals and conservatives. We need them but what we don't need are the extremes.



I have no problem with someone being fired if the behavior is disruptive in the workplace. People can be fired for a lot of things and I've seen people fired for wearing inappropriate clothes, excessive makeup and outlandish hair. If they cause no problem in the workplace then they should not be fired 'just because' and that is wrong. However, there are some jobs they should not be in - such as those involving interacting with children.



How many actually refuse to treat them? How many muslim doctors refuse to treat Jews? How many doctors refuse to treat anyone and what are the grounds for it? One t*********r recently lost a baby because she referred to herself as a man (which she can never be) so they didn't look for pregnancy right away. That is mental illness.

If a doctor had a problem with my faith or my race I wouldn't want to be treated by them nor would I want a referral - why would anyone? But that's me. No doctor should be working in an emergency room or in critical care if they are going to refuse to treat someone. That's grounds for pulling their license. IMO



There's also no "cure" for people with tendencies toward violence and bad tempers. Saying they can't be helped is a cop out. It takes self discipline to change but fewer and fewer people have it. They'd rather make excuses and stay in a destructive lifestyle even more so now that psychologists have been pressured into declassifying it as mental illness.



That "sunlight" has encouraged young children into t*********rs and some have even been paraded as d**g q***ns on television, in bars and in parades. That is child abuse. Young girls used to be tomboys now parents think they are t*********r or confused. Parents and listening to social media are a large part of the problem. Homosexual and t*********r characters have no place in children's cartoons, tv shows or movies. To go after children like that is dead wrong.

There is tremendous freedom in Christ and those who have forsaken the homosexual and t*********r lifestyle can attest to it. People have been granted free will to choose their lifestyle.



LOL! I wrote in a candidate last time and its looking like I will have to do the same again.



We agree on two things.