Faith rally over gay rights law.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It sounds like you want to allow someone to arbitrarily refuse lodging to another on any grounds.  Sorry, you can't stay here because you're black or Christian or gay or not elderly or a child.  Sorry, that is ridiculous.

I edited your post to provide consistency to your argument

[Wakie]

So your argument is that children do not have a higher tendency to be noisy?  Or is it that said noise is not an imposition on others?

I realize you are just arguing in an attempt to justify anti-gay bigotry, but there hits a point where you cross into the ridiculous.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I realize you are just arguing in an attempt to justify anti-gay bigotry, but there hits a point where you cross into the ridiculous.

And I realize you are too stupid to realize such a comment only proves your own bigotry, but you’ve crossed that line long ago.

---

So your argument is that children do not have a higher tendency to be noisy?  Or is it that said noise is not an imposition on others?
 

no, I just have a hard time balancing the following:
1) the right of those not-having kids to create communities banning kids
2) the right of the elderly to create communities banning the non-elderly
...with...
3) the lack of rights of other groups to create communities to their liking

Probably, a more equitable and just solution would not allow anyone to discriminate regarding access to essential goods and services (housing, food, clothing, medical care, etc).

I would still allow for private clubs.  And I would still allow businesses not dealing with essential goods and services to pick and choose their clientele.

On the hotel sex question I mentioned earlier, I would think sex in a rented room is covered under the right to privacy, even though it occurs on someone else’s private property.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Probably, a more equitable and just solution would not allow anyone to discriminate regarding access to essential goods and services (housing, food, clothing, medical care, etc).

even this solution creates problems...

does this mean a sole proprietor running a one man catering service doesn't have the right to refuse to enter into a contract for any and every reason?

does this mean restaurants can't insist on a level of decorum (e.g. “no shoes, no service”)?

[afleitch]

This thread is in danger of veering off topic. The thread was really in relation to the challenge to the law in the UK and whether or not there was a inconsitency in the law which affords the religious (and this is a loose definition, as such it could be interpreted to protect people from Scientologists to Satanists), since 1998 the very same protection under the law that is to be extended to homosexuals. It would be preferable if this was kept in mind.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This thread is in danger of veering off topic. The thread was really in relation to the challenge to the law in the UK and whether or not there was a inconsitency in the law which affords the religious (and this is a loose definition, as such it could be interpreted to protect people from Scientologists to Satanists), since 1998 the very same protection under the law that is to be extended to homosexuals. It would be preferable if this was kept in mind.

Well, your initial thread did bring up services in general and specifically the topics of hotel policies as you appealed for uniformity in the cause of Civil Rights:

If a ticked off gay man who ran a hotel chose to ban Christian customers because it was somehow 'against my conscience' he would, rightly be pulled up for doing so as it is illegal. But could they legally ban him in return? Yes. You either have comprehensive anti discrimination laws or none at all- not a patchwork.

In regard to both the “hotel” situation and “comprehensive anti-discrimination laws”, I don’t know how you can claim this thread has veered off topic.

[Wakie]

I realize you are just arguing in an attempt to justify anti-gay bigotry, but there hits a point where you cross into the ridiculous.

And I realize you are too stupid to realize such a comment only proves your own bigotry, but you’ve crossed that line long ago.

Ok, sure ... I'm a bigot because I disagree with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever heard the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child"?  There is a lot of truth behind it.  Although parents and family members are the primary people who raise children, having a child in your community puts a burden on all members of that community.  Or have you never had a child run in front of your car?  Have you never heard someone else's child screaming and crying uncontrollably?  Children put a burden on others and because of this I have no problem creating a community excluding them.

As for the elderly they are a specific exception similar to the sick.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I realize you are just arguing in an attempt to justify anti-gay bigotry, but there hits a point where you cross into the ridiculous.

And I realize you are too stupid to realize such a comment only proves your own bigotry, but you’ve crossed that line long ago.

Ok, sure ... I'm a bigot because I disagree with you.

no, you're both stupid and a bigot because you can't realize that I am attempting to weigh the rights of all without creating favoritism which leads to reverse discrimination.

---

As for the elderly they are a specific exception similar to the sick.

Only if they are in ill health.  I have a big problem with a healthy and vigorous 65 year old claiming special rights.  The elderly may be worthy of greater respect, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to exclude others from their community.

---

Have you ever heard the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child"?  There is a lot of truth behind it.  Although parents and family members are the primary people who raise children, having a child in your community puts a burden on all members of that community.

God help the random Joe Blow of my community that comes up to me and states that the mere existence of my children within the community is creating a burden on Joe Blow.

When a society views children as burdens to avoid, such a society will not replenish itself.

---

Or have you never had a child run in front of your car?  Have you never heard someone else's child screaming and crying uncontrollably?  Children put a burden on others and because of this I have no problem creating a community excluding them. 

And I have also had squirrels, rabbits, and deer run in front of my car on an almost daily basis.  And at least once a week, I am disturbed from my sleep by the screams of a rabbit as it is being ripped apart by coyotes.  These animals place burdens on me.  I think I’ll go out tonight and run every one of them off my 7 acre homestead, that way I can live in a sterile environment free of having to be burdened by living in relative proximity to the cycle of life.

[Wakie]

no, you're both stupid and a bigot because you can't realize that I am attempting to weigh the rights of all without creating favoritism which leads to reverse discrimination.

Yep, insults, always a way to make a point.  Well done.  Creating exemptions for age ranges is reverse discrimination?  Darn, I guess you favor allowing 3 year olds to vote and eliminating protections for the elderly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trying to move into a retirement community and being rejected?  Is this a frequent problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've never stayed in a hotel room next to one which contains a screaming and crying infant?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can move to a community that is animal-free.  And if your community decides to spend the money to remove rodents and pests then so be it.  Many communities have invested in limiting the deer, squirrels, and rabbits in the area because they are disturbing or destructive.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, you're both stupid and a bigot because you can't realize that I am attempting to weigh the rights of all without creating favoritism which leads to reverse discrimination.

Yep, insults, always a way to make a point.  Well done. 

Do you know how to order insults chronologically?  If so, working backward in time along the string of insults, you’ll end up with the following insult that set everything into motion:

I realize you are just arguing in an attempt to justify anti-gay bigotry, but there hits a point where you cross into the ridiculous.

After you realize that you yourself were the source of initial insult, then maybe you’ll be able to follow my argument.

---

I am attempting to weigh the rights of all without creating favoritism which leads to reverse discrimination.

Darn, I guess you favor allowing 3 year olds to vote and eliminating protections for the elderly.

No, it is discriminating against the 3 year old by discriminating against the parents

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trying to move into a retirement community and being rejected?  Is this a frequent problem?

I have never tried to move into a retirement community, nor do I know of any who have tried.  But I am sure many applicants don’t bother applying when they see the sign “65 and older”.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've never stayed in a hotel room next to one which contains a screaming and crying infant?

Yes I have, but that is better than forcing the infant and his family to sleep under a bridge simply because the infant’s crying is a “nuisance” to others.

---

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can move to a community that is animal-free and child-free.

But I enjoy watching life in action and I believe life is worth putting up with… but, hey, you’re not a Republican, so you probably wouldn’t understand.

[Wakie]

Do you know how to order insults chronologically?  If so, working backward in time along the string of insults, you’ll end up with the following insult that set everything into motion:

Please do take your own advice and you will find your inflammatory comment stating something along the lines of "I edited your post to make your argument consistent" directly before my comment. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How are parents discriminated against?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet during the Civil Rights Movement African-Americans protesting exclusionary clauses were willing to attempt to be served in "whites only" areas.  Something tells me that the reason that you don't see any cases of massive protests against senior living facilities is because younger people don't WANT to live in them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I have, but that is better than forcing the infant and his family to sleep under a bridge simply because the infant’s crying is a “nuisance” to others.
[/quote]

Who is forcing them under a bridge?  Never in the history of all civilization has there ever been the fear of mass discrimination against those with children.  However there HAS been mass discrimination against certain races, religions, and/or sexual orientations.

Your argument supposes that this mass discrimination could or would happen and that is silly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are complaining about it keeping you awake?  You claimed that wildlife, like children, can be disturbing.  I said that one can live in a wildlife free environment.  It is your choice.

BTW, only Republicans believe "life is worth putting up with"?  Funny.  Don't go hunting w/ Dick Cheney.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Please do take your own advice and you will find your inflammatory comment stating something along the lines of "I edited your post to make your argument consistent" directly before my comment. 

well, it is inconsistent to say that any group has the right to create a exclusive society which deprives others access to basic human needs such as housing.

I do not believe the rights of party-a should take from the rights of party-b.  That’s favoritism.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How are parents discriminated against?

Because the age of the parents don’t allow them to qualify for housing, just like the color of a black person’s skin wouldn’t allow them to qualify for a “whites only” neighborhood.

Something tells me that the reason that you don't see any cases of massive protests against senior living facilities is because younger people don't WANT to live in them.

…or, because seniors have so much political clout, the effort would be futile.  Heck, an exemption for discrimination by senior towards non-seniors was even made in the Fair Housing Act of 1988

---

Who is forcing them under a bridge?  Never in the history of all civilization has there ever been the fear of mass discrimination against those with children.    However there HAS been mass discrimination against certain races, religions, and/or sexual orientations.

Your argument supposes that this mass discrimination could or would happen and that is silly.
 

Look, you’re about 20 years too late.  Laws forbidding access to housing for parents with children was offered as an amendment to the Civil Rights Acts of 1968 and signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1988.

It’s a done deal.

So, as a member of society, you are going to have to up with future generations.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are complaining about it keeping you awake?  You claimed that wildlife, like children, can be disturbing.  I said that one can live in a wildlife free environment.  It is your choice.
[

I was being sarcastic.  I find it a joy watching wildlife.

---

BTW, only Republicans believe "life is worth putting up with"?  Funny.  Don't go hunting w/ Dick Cheney.

He doesn’t eat the wildlife he shoots?

---

Bringing this argument full circle:

I don’t believe in discrimination involving basic services.  Every Amercian deserves the right to pursue and acquire the basics amenities of life.

But, I have trouble balancing that with my belief that owners of businesses should be allowed to choose their clientele. 

Should a black owner of a flooring business be forced to accept the business of a potential customer who openly flaunts his membership in the KKK?  I think not.

Should a female decorator be forced to accept the business of any and every male, forcing her to go to the home of unfamiliar males?  I think not.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Just get the state out of defining marriages and have everyone get civil unions. End of story.

[JSojourner]

so, does this mean a hotel can't deny service to those intending to use a room for orgies?  Let's say four heterosexual adults from "Orgies R Us" ask for two adjacent rooms for the purpose of having orgies, does not the hotel have the right to say, "Sorry, we don't allow such activity in our rooms."?

Yes.

But the government (state or federal) does not have the right to forbid serial adulterers who happen to be heterosexual the right to marry.  Or work.

[afleitch]

Just get the state out of defining marriages and have everyone get civil unions. End of story.

Straha, this law has nothing to do with marriage/civil unions :/