AZ Legislature turns back clock, resumes segregation, but this time for gays

[Cassius]

Good, good. To be honest though, how easy is it to tell whether somebody is gay or not. I mean, sure, there's a few out there who set off the old gaydar, but realistically now. 'Tis pretty difficult sometimes.

[Cassius]

Good, good. To be honest though, how easy is it to tell whether somebody is gay or not. I mean, sure, there's a few out there who set off the old gaydar, but realistically now. 'Tis pretty difficult sometimes.

There are few people here who I can honestly say I think would turn America into a quas-Nazi state if they were able to.

You, and others, have misunderstood my comment (albeit understandably, as that comment was poorly clarified under the influence of tiredness). I was simply pointing out that it is a difficult thing to spot homosexuals, as, unlike other groups in society, they posess no defining characteristics that mark them out as different. Therefore, my point is that I don't see this bill, if it becomes law, having that much of an effect. I mean, realistically, who broadcasts their sexuality when they walk into a bar or a shop? Nobody. This bill will have little effect upon individuals, unless, unfortunately, they happen to be known to be gay by a business owner who doesn't want to serve gays. Now, I would have thought that such instances are likely to be, fairly, rare, and thus will not have too much impact. The reason why I am mildy well disposed towards this bill is because it gives business-people, whom, for whatever reasons, have objections to homosexuality, some security and the ability to avoid doing things that they don't feel comfortable doing. You may find this a rather soft, or perhaps 'elitist' attitude to hold, but I don't really feel comfortable having the state stepping in to force people to do business with people that they want nothing to do with. Sorry...

As for the title of this thread, I find it rather misleading. Firstly, it states that the Arizona legislature has 'resumed' segregation for gays (as if it ever existed). Well, according to my reading of the article, it appears only to have passed the House, and thus still requires approval by the Senate, so this bill, as suggested by the word bill, is not even law yet. Secondly, you describe this as 'segregation'. It isn't really segregation. That word represents the separation of people, whereas this bill advocates the idea that businesses should be able to discriminate, under certain circumstances, when it comes to conducting business with gays. There is a difference, and I don't think chucking in the historically charged term of 'segregation' (although, to be fair on you, you certainly aren't the first to do this) is good for anything except muddying the waters surrounding this issue. Thirdly, I think this title implies, somehow, that the government is enforcing discriminatory legislation down on the heads of gays. Again, it isn't, rather, this bill seems to be aimed at enabling individuals to choose whom they want to associate themselves with in business transactions. In the case of this bill, it's up to the individual, not the state. Finally, just a prepared rebuttal to some arguments that I'm sure will be flung at me, the fact is, there are, I believe, over 2,534 restaurants (and that's just restaurants) in Phoenix alone. Am I seriously supposed to believe that all 2,534 of those restaurants, and all the others throughout Arizona, are suddenly going to close their doors to gays. That is not going to happen. Now, I'm no expert and I freely admit that, but I'd guess maybe 1-10 percent might utilise this bill. It's not very many, and there will certainly be plenty of other places for gay people to be allowed to go to. Really, I can only see this legislation causing a fairly minor inconvenience for a small minority of a minority of people. I mean, there are still golf clubs around that won't admit female members. Has this been a cause of devastating harm and heartache to women. Probably not. I don't see anything different in that to this. Also, one further point, since the liberal side is clearly winning on the issue of accepting gays anyway, the likelihood is that most of these business owners won't be around in, I don't know, 10-30 years time. It's not going to have a very long term impact, but it might provide a little succour and comfort to a few people. And again, I see little wrong in that.

As for the use of the term 'gaydar', that was clearly humorous. I mean, does anyone use the term seriously in the 2010's?

[Cassius]

You, and others, have misunderstood my comment (albeit understandably, as that comment was poorly clarified under the influence of tiredness). I was simply pointing out that it is a difficult thing to spot homosexuals, as, unlike other groups in society, they posess no defining characteristics that mark them out as different. Therefore, my point is that I don't see this bill, if it becomes law, having that much of an effect. I mean, realistically, who broadcasts their sexuality when they walk into a bar or a shop? Nobody.

Boy, you really need to get out more.

All this bill does is make gays feel like they have to hide their sexuality more than they already do.  Perhaps you're okay with that, but encouraging people to feel like outcasts - people who have to conceal their identities to not be refused service - is actually very harmful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it concern you whether these instances are rare or not if you know that people will be hurt by it?  If a law impacts people negatively, it shouldn't be on the books.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bill is awaiting Brewer's signature or veto.  She has the final word on it now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, at least it took more than two pages into the thread before someone decided to nitpick at the title.  That's not bad.  Usually it's much quicker.

But that aside, you acknowledge that this bill allows businesses to discriminate.  That's all that needs to be said.  Semantics games (which, let's face it, is all the anti-gay folks use to build their "case") doesn't change the substance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.  In other words, it allows the people of the state of Arizona to segregate its citizens by sexuality if they so wish.  It allows individuals to isolate other individuals from society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad you see being denied service on account of your sexual orientation as just a "minor inconvenience."  I'm glad we have someone like you on here who can speak on behalf of the gay community.

Again, this is a nonsense argument.  If you don't think this bill is a bad thing, why should it matter to you whether one percent or one hundred percent of businesses decide to utilize it?  Seems to me like a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Yes.

Well, your point on people 'hiding' their sexuality. I mean, I don't really get it. I don't feel the need to 'show off', if you will, the fact that I'm straight, and I'm sure that a lot of gay people don't feel the need to show of their 'gayness' either. I may be wrong, but still, I'm sure that I've encountered plenty of gay people and not known that they were gay.

Your comment saying that laws that negatively impact people shouldn't be on the books I felt was rather weak. There are plenty of laws out there that inconvenience me and most other people; and yet we accept them because there is usually a good reason for them being there, even if they do have a negative impact upon some people. This case is true here, there are a minority of people who don't feel comfortable doing business with homosexuals, and a relatively small minority at that. Now, I don't have any statistics and studies to hand (and I imagine that you don't either), but it seems to me that the relative reduction in choice for gay people in a handful of situations is a price worth paying for giving this other minority some peace of mind.

Going on to your point on the people of Arizona being, theoretically, given the power by the state to isolate certain individuals from society, well, I concede that is theoretically true. But, in practical terms, it just isn't going to happen. I mean, certain individuals like to harp on about how the 'anti-gay' chaps and chapesses are 'on the wrong side' of history and that public opinion is now strongly accepting of homosexuality. Therefore, it seems highly, highly improbable that anything even akin to 'isolation' will happen to gays. When it comes to passing laws, in my view, the practical as well as theoretical implications of the bill in question need to be taken into account (as I'm sure is your view), and in this case, I just don't see it having that sort of 'isolating' effect.

Finally, well, I don't, particularly, give a damn whether I can 'represent' the gay 'community' or not. However, being denied service is, well, a rather minor inconvenience, if you take into account the large numbers of available substitute services that are likely to be offered. Also, you talk of this as a 'nonsense argument' and then ask me why I would care if one or one hundred percent of businesses decide to utilise it. Well, I don't, particularly, care if they do or not. I, if I were an Arizonan, wouldn't be affected, and neither would my family and friends (as far as I'm aware). But, again, I would like to point out that any large-scale use of this legislation is probably fairly unlikely, indeed, if we were living in a society where such a large proportion of businesses would utilise this legislation, then this whole debate would be very different than it is. My point is that, if I were opposed to this bill, I wouldn't get too worked up about it given that it probably won't affect very many people (and again, in my situation, no-one close to me).

[Cassius]

Well, your point on people 'hiding' their sexuality. I mean, I don't really get it. I don't feel the need to 'show off', if you will, the fact that I'm straight, and I'm sure that a lot of gay people don't feel the need to show of their 'gayness' either. I may be wrong, but still, I'm sure that I've encountered plenty of gay people and not known that they were gay.

Once again, go out into the real world sometime.  Tell me how straight people are so adamant about not 'showing off.'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that most laws apply to, and affect, everyone.  There is no good reason to permit discrimination, no matter what your religion teaches you.

And it's plainly obvious that you prioritize the happiness of bigots over the equal treatment of homosexuals simply because you are a bigot yourself.  If someone doesn't want to have to deal with homosexuals, then they're free to isolate themselves from society and live in their own sheltered little world - kind of like you do right now.  I'm willing to bet that there are far many openly gay people than openly bigoted people right now.  So going by your logic, if a few bigots are faced with the 'minor inconvenience' of serving people they don't like, what's the big deal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm not concerned about the widespread effects it will have on gays.  I am concerned about the effects it will have on gay people who are affected by discrimination.  The people who are the victims of this law.  The people who your kind has disenfranchised.

Unlike you, I don't care about how many people this will affect.  I care that it will affect people at all, and I would be jut as opposed to this law if we were living in a less tolerant society.  I must say, your reasoning here is quite bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except you have nothing to worry about.  You're not the one who has to consciously worry about hiding your own identity to get what other people enjoy some sheltered, spoiled, snotty, privileged little brat's input on 'minor inconveniences,' into consideration.

I think you've revealed a lot about yourself throughout this conversation, or at least reaffirmed how others think of you.  You've basically admitted that you don't care if anyone's rights are being infringed upon unless it's your own or the rights of someone you know.  For consistency sake, would you support allowing restaurants owned by homosexuals to deny service to straight people?  Y'know, for religious reasons.

Well, fair enough. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. And all that. You are well within your rights not to take my views into consideration (although, with your almost dutiful insistence on rebutting the vast majority of the points that I put across, I do wonder). As am I to reject yours. I know, well, nothing of your background, so I'll decline to comment upon it. However, I will say that there's probably something in it that makes you the way you are. The same is true with me. I am, and I'll be the first to admit it, a child of privilege in the grand scheme of things. I've never gone hungry, I've gone to good schools, I've been showered with love by a pair of wonderful parents. They never 'spoiled' me, I will say, if only to defend them. They taught, have taught me to be honest, upstanding, grateful, polite etcetera. I do my best to act upon these principles, which I believe to be good ones. Now, how does this monologue fit in with my point. Well, I guess, its because I can only make decisions based upon my background and present situation. Sure, I can 'put myself in the shoes' of people who are, perhaps, not like me, with very different backgrounds, and I can sympathise with their struggles and their plight and all the rest of the daily drudgery that is their existence. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because, like it or not, rebel or not (which I don't) I am not one of them, and I have very different interests and values to them. More to the point, I have certain friends whose interests, I feel, should trump those of these 'downtrodden' people. An anecdote; I have a very good friend whose dad is a Church of England vicar, of a rather conservative bent. As far as I've been made aware, he opposed strongly the idea of consecrating female Bishops, a process that is now bound to go ahead. Whatever the merits of the case for having women Bishops (a case I'm not convinced of myself) this man, a good man whose son I'm friendly with and a man whom I've come to respect, I wanted his side to win out (apparently he's now thinking of leaving the CofE, not so much over this issue alone, but apparently it was the straw that broke the camel's back). And, perhaps, if he'd been on the other side, I would have been more amenable to the idea of women Bishops. But, to me, bonds of friendship, of family, of group, are far more important than whatever qualms one might have about the treatment a bunch of people whom you've never even met. I'm sure one could make the same argument for a group of, shall we say, less well-off people, who get hacked off when the politicians talk about 'economic efficiency' and 'balanced budgets'. They might well think 'sure, fine, but what's in it for me and my people'. And the answer to that question could well be nothing, and, in the grand scheme of things, the potential upset brought about by those actions might not matter very much. But it matters to individuals, who, in their own small strip of reality, have their own priorities. So, feel free to denigrate me as an evil, callous child of privilege. But just remember, in some people's eyes you could well be seen by others as a stuck up and self-righteous person who is unable to fathom why certain groups in society think in a way that you find offensive (this charge is often levelled against me on this forum, and, whilst they are certainly to an extent correct, I do feel that I have a working understanding of the basic fact that most people disagree with me ). Now, I'm sure that you are none of those things, but when you use slights like some of the bolded (the spoiled, snotty and brat bits) you do come across as all of those things and, you know, it really doesn't generate any sympathy on my part for your argument (some of which I find to be a reasonable critique, even if I stick by my support for freedom of association). So, Scott, let's just accept that we have an inverse view of the world (although, I don't know, yours may be informed by more experience than my own, after all, you could be twice my age for all I know), and not resort to pretty, well, silly, insults.

[Cassius]

Well, I guess, its because I can only make decisions based upon my background and present situation. Sure, I can 'put myself in the shoes' of people who are, perhaps, not like me, with very different backgrounds, and I can sympathise with their struggles and their plight and all the rest of the daily drudgery that is their existence. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because, like it or not, rebel or not (which I don't) I am not one of them, and I have very different interests and values to them.

No, most people are able to feel empathy for other people.  That's being a normal human being.  You may have a psychological disorder. 

I pretty much described empathy in the second sentence. Of course I can feel empathy, even for people whom I disagree with. But, that doesn't mean one should act upon every empathetic emotion that comes their way. Sometimes you can empathise with someone and think 'they're wrong' and do something contrary to their interests. For instance, and this is a rather extreme example, but one that anyway, illustrates my point in this post rather well. Suppose you are a judge, and you hand down a sentence of life imprisonment to a convicted criminal. If I were that judge, I would certainly empathise with the criminal in question, the remainder of whose life, probably, won't be particularly jolly. However, I wouldn't (and you wouldn't, probably) say 'oh hang it, let him go free'. That would be a case of over empathising, as it would lead you into making a stupid decision just because of an overactive heart. Alternatively, I could, in a fit of extreme empathy, give all of the money away to the poor. And then I'd be poor. I guess my point is that empathy is a valuable tool, but it shouldn't govern your brain. I mean, I suspect that you don't, fully, let it do so either. In fact, few people do. However, I am simply pointing out that, to me, the most important criteria when it comes to important decision making are how something will affect me, and the people around me.

[Cassius]

No, what I mean is than you can't impose your ideas on other people. You can think homosexuality is a sin, but you can't impose it on your customers or your students.

In another situation, I'm a social democrat, but I can't decide to only hire social democrats or open a school and force people to agree with a code of condct saying they must be social democrats.

You seem to confuse political or religious groups with schools and businesses. A business isn't a religious group.

Let's take a person. Let's suppose he can't enter a jewelry without stealing it. The logical consequence to protect the jeweller is than the person shouldn't enter the jewelry.

Let's take another person. Let's suppose he can't manage a business without forcing down its religious values on its employees. The logical consequence to protect the employees is than the person shouldn't create a business.

This case isn't about imposing one's ideas upon others, it is about having the freedom to not have to associate with certain people in society if one so wishes. Now, you might counter that point by saying 'well they run a business and therefore should expect to have to do so'. Now, I understand that position, but, you see, in my view, the primary purpose of running a business is simply to make money (there may be other purposes, other perfectly valid ones, but, to me, that is the central point), not to 'serve the community' as a first priority (I would argue that that is the purpose of setting up a charity or other volunteer group, and even then only within certain boundaries). Thus, I would say that the business owner should be allowed to run his business in whatever way he sees fit (as long as it is legal) and that the only people who should be allowed to have any veto power over this are his or her shareholders. Now, of course, it is illegal to discriminate. But I believe such laws designed to prevent discrimination are, in certain circumstances, wrong. I believe it is wrong to force people together if one or both parties object to such dealings (incidentally, why would a gay person actually want to make use of the services provided by such an openly homophobic businessman?). Now, there is a crucial difference, to my mind, between discrimination in the private sphere and the public sphere. In the public sphere I believe that it should be banned regardless of private beliefs because, at the end of the day, we all have a stake in the workings of the state, through the taxes we (and our families) pay to it in order to ensure that it's basic functions run. The private sphere is different, because not everyone has a stake in a particular business/club/church etcetera. In my opinion, I believe that discrimination should be permissible as long as the stakeholders of a particular organisation are decided firmly in favour of it.