kasich wishes lgbt+ people would "just get over" discrimination

[OSR stands with Israel]

Gee, I wonder what people right now would think of a presidential candidate in 1960 - 1964 who says "Blacks need to get over voting rights and segregation. Find another place to live if you're turned away. It'll settle down."

Not supporting discrimination and the willingness to stick up for all Americans who are discriminated against is a non-negotiable requirement for my vote. I am sure as hell not going to just "get over it". If LGBT people decide to just "get over it", then state-sanctioned discrimination policies and general treatment from bigoted people will only get worse for us. The only people it will settle down for is the people who want to discriminate.

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

[Ogre Mage]

So is Kasich the candidate that Log Cabin Republicans are going to get behind?  Are we going to hear more talking points that we gay Democrats are about nothing but identity politics, our party isn't any better for gays (LOL), you're going to change the Republican Party from within.  Yeah, how's that working for you?  If Ted Cruz gets the nomination it will be funny seeing the utter $h**hole you will be in.

The gay Republicans are very solidly behind Trump and have been for quite some time. We will not back down. #LGBTrump #MakeAmericaFabulousAgain

An article I read in Time suggested that the Log Cabins Republicans prefer Kasich.  But of course they are the establishment -- the grassroots may feel differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://time.com/4270540/lgbt-republicans-gay-trump-transgender/

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

If someone doesn't want to serve you because of your orientation, you should have the right to know that so you don't allocate your resources in a way that benefit them. It's to the benefit of both parties.

[Mallow]

Gee, I wonder what people right now would think of a presidential candidate in 1960 - 1964 who says "Blacks need to get over voting rights and segregation. Find another place to live if you're turned away. It'll settle down."

Not supporting discrimination and the willingness to stick up for all Americans who are discriminated against is a non-negotiable requirement for my vote. I am sure as hell not going to just "get over it". If LGBT people decide to just "get over it", then state-sanctioned discrimination policies and general treatment from bigoted people will only get worse for us. The only people it will settle down for is the people who want to discriminate.

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

Try that logic when your daughter is denied service because the guy didn't like that she had Autism. I'm going to get angry when someone treats me with less respect than they give to other humans. And I don't think any reasonable person would have a difficult time understanding that.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Gee, I wonder what people right now would think of a presidential candidate in 1960 - 1964 who says "Blacks need to get over voting rights and segregation. Find another place to live if you're turned away. It'll settle down."

Not supporting discrimination and the willingness to stick up for all Americans who are discriminated against is a non-negotiable requirement for my vote. I am sure as hell not going to just "get over it". If LGBT people decide to just "get over it", then state-sanctioned discrimination policies and general treatment from bigoted people will only get worse for us. The only people it will settle down for is the people who want to discriminate.

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

Try that logic when your daughter is denied service because the guy didn't like that she had Autism. I'm going to get angry when someone treats me with less respect than they give to other humans. And I don't think any reasonable person would have a difficult time understanding that.

Again, why do you want to give money to an intolerant person who has problems with people based on these features?

[Mallow]

Try that logic when your daughter is denied service because the guy didn't like that she had Autism. I'm going to get angry when someone treats me with less respect than they give to other humans. And I don't think any reasonable person would have a difficult time understanding that.

Again, why do you want to give money to an intolerant person who has problems with people based on these features?

How, exactly, is that going to help in, say, rural Alabama? If anything, support for discrimination against gays will HELP their business, not hurt it. They will be rewarded for debasing the value of another human.

Why should it be legal to refuse to serve someone at your public establishment because you don't like that they're black, or that they're gay, or a woman, or Irish, or Chinese, or of Jewish heritage, or that they have Cerebral Palsy, or Epilepsy, or Down Syndrome? Not only is it morally reprehensible, but it should absolutely be (and usually is) illegal to refuse service to someone based on any of the above unless there's a real and imminent danger to life and property introduced by doing so. "I don't agree with them" is not good enough. Neither is "it will fix itself via Capitalism". It demonstrably won't.

Their punishment should not be economic, it should be legal.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

There is no legal punishment if they begrudgingly give you poor service. There is no solace in them only receiving a reward and no punishment when the respect is not present.

[Mallow]

There is no legal punishment if they begrudgingly give you poor service. There is no solace in them only receiving a reward and no punishment when the respect is not present.

A valid point. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I think most would agree with that.

[Virginiá]

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

I wasn't saying this current debate is directly tied to say, voting rights, or what have you. I used it as an example where the general public and the government was either discriminating directly or enabling it, and asked one to imagine the reaction if you told a black person to "get over it". Frankly, to me, in principle there is little difference between the government sanctioning discrimination and directly discriminating themselves.

He said they should find another business if they are turned away. Where does this end? That statement is a tactic acceptance of discrimination. As a person who has experienced varying degrees of harassment and discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I have zero tolerance for someone who even dances around this subject.

I also wonder what this means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the balance here? We're simply looking to make sure LGBT people are not refused service on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. When someone says they want to find "balance" there, what exactly are they saying? To allow a little "light" discrimination? I honestly don't see what else it means.

I'm sorry, but Kasich is trying to appease bigots and by doing that he turns his back on millions of people who simply want equal treatment.

[Mallow]

...He said they should find another business if they are turned away. Where does this end? That statement is a tactic acceptance of discrimination. As a person who has experienced varying degrees of harassment and discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I have zero tolerance for someone who even dances around this subject...

This, exactly. There are plenty of very rural areas where there are only one or a handful of options nearby. If all of them refuse you, what are you to do? It presents an unreasonable economic (and psychological) burden, and is based purely on discrimination.

[pbrower2a]

A Small Business should have the right to decline service to anybody they want.

So we again will need publications like this to know where and where my type or your type is welcome or not?

I'd be perfectly fine with that. If they don't want to serve me, their economy can gladly continue to suffer

agreed if a small business declines to serve you what you want, dont shop there and tell your friends and family not to.

How, exactly, is that going to help in, say, rural Alabama? If anything, support for discrimination against gays will HELP their business, not hurt it. They will be rewarded for debasing the value of another human.

Why should it be legal to refuse to serve someone at your public establishment because you don't like that they're black, or that they're gay, or a woman, or Irish, or Chinese, or of Jewish heritage, or that they have Cerebral Palsy, or Epilepsy, or Down Syndrome? Not only is it morally reprehensible, but it should absolutely be (and usually is) illegal to refuse service to someone based on any of the above unless there's a real and imminent danger to life and property introduced by doing so. "I don't agree with them" is not good enough. Neither is "it will fix itself via Capitalism". It demonstrably won't.

The point. People do not choose to have epilepsy, Down's syndrome, or cerebral palsy. Neither do people choose mental retardation. I did not choose to create the impression that I am a gay male in the presence of people who think it acceptable to bash gays.

With few exceptions (most notably people black solely in accordance with the one-drop rule) practically nobody chooses to be black. Chinese? One would have to be born Chinese to be Chinese. The language is just too difficult to toy with.

It all comes down to empathy, something lacking among bigots.

Should blacks 'get over' racism? Not until racism is itself gone.  

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

I wasn't saying this current debate is directly tied to say, voting rights, or what have you. I used it as an example where the general public and the government was either discriminating directly or enabling it, and asked one to imagine the reaction if you told a black person to "get over it". Frankly, to me, in principle there is little difference between the government sanctioning discrimination and directly discriminating themselves.

He said they should find another business if they are turned away. Where does this end? That statement is a tactic acceptance of discrimination. As a person who has experienced varying degrees of harassment and discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I have zero tolerance for someone who even dances around this subject.

I also wonder what this means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the balance here? We're simply looking to make sure LGBT people are not refused service on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. When someone says they want to find "balance" there, what exactly are they saying? To allow a little "light" discrimination? I honestly don't see what else it means.

I'm sorry, but Kasich is trying to appease bigots and by doing that he turns his back on millions of people who simply want equal treatment.

If Kasich came out full pro-lgbt it really wouldn't do much for him. Yeah he might gain a few soft democrats but it would also make some R's stay home or vote constitution party.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Gee, I wonder what people right now would think of a presidential candidate in 1960 - 1964 who says "Blacks need to get over voting rights and segregation. Find another place to live if you're turned away. It'll settle down."

Not supporting discrimination and the willingness to stick up for all Americans who are discriminated against is a non-negotiable requirement for my vote. I am sure as hell not going to just "get over it". If LGBT people decide to just "get over it", then state-sanctioned discrimination policies and general treatment from bigoted people will only get worse for us. The only people it will settle down for is the people who want to discriminate.

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

Try that logic when your daughter is denied service because the guy didn't like that she had Autism. I'm going to get angry when someone treats me with less respect than they give to other humans. And I don't think any reasonable person would have a difficult time understanding that.

Then tell her to go to a different store and tell all my friends and family to not shop there and spread the word.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

I wasn't saying this current debate is directly tied to say, voting rights, or what have you. I used it as an example where the general public and the government was either discriminating directly or enabling it, and asked one to imagine the reaction if you told a black person to "get over it". Frankly, to me, in principle there is little difference between the government sanctioning discrimination and directly discriminating themselves.

He said they should find another business if they are turned away. Where does this end? That statement is a tactic acceptance of discrimination. As a person who has experienced varying degrees of harassment and discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I have zero tolerance for someone who even dances around this subject.

I also wonder what this means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the balance here? We're simply looking to make sure LGBT people are not refused service on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. When someone says they want to find "balance" there, what exactly are they saying? To allow a little "light" discrimination? I honestly don't see what else it means.

I'm sorry, but Kasich is trying to appease bigots and by doing that he turns his back on millions of people who simply want equal treatment.

Again he has also told business they should give service to everyone. And this mainly applies to small businesses not big business, so people should just get their services from big businesses .

[Virginiá]

If Kasich came out full pro-lgbt it really wouldn't do much for him. Yeah he might gain a few soft democrats but it would also make some R's stay home or vote constitution party.

Look, I get that politicians have to pander to groups of voters and take up issues they might not want to otherwise, but this is too much. This is about discrimination of a large group of people. No politician should be siding with people trying to enable such despicable actions.

I'd be downright embarassed if this country elected a person who, for any reason, let alone for purposes of getting elected, took the side of bigots and tactically endorsed (either directly or indirectly) policies that discriminate against other Americans.

Again he has also told business they should give service to everyone. And this mainly applies to small businesses not big business, so people should just get their services from big businesses .

This is a quote from one of the debates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A reasonable assumption is that his logic applies to all types of businesses, and he's asking people to be tolerant of other people's discrimination against them and to go somewhere else. I'm guessing he is telling businesses to serve everyone, then telling customers who are refused service to "be tolerant" and go somewhere else. He's playing both sides, which in this context, is sick and weak of him.

I don't even think I care anymore whether or not he changes his position (again?). I think I understand that he will play to whichever side helps his presidential prospects more. So if he is straddling the line on this subject for partisan purposes, then he is just disgusting.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Again he has also told business they should give service to everyone. And this mainly applies to small businesses not big business, so people should just get their services from big businesses .

This is a quote from one of the debates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A reasonable assumption is that his logic applies to all types of businesses, and he's asking people to be tolerant of other people's discrimination against them and to go somewhere else. I'm guessing he is telling businesses to serve everyone, then telling customers who are refused service to "be tolerant" and go somewhere else. He's playing both sides, which in this context, is sick and weak of him.

I don't even think I care anymore whether or not he changes his position (again?). I think I understand that he will play to whichever side helps his presidential prospects more. So if he is straddling the line on this subject for partisan purposes, then he is just disgusting.

I don't think this is him playing both sides or trying to get elected at all. He knows he's got no chance. I think he is saying how he really thinks it should be and most Republicans would agree with him.

[Lyin' Steve]

Enough with the Kasich hit pieces already.  This is the third one of these.

Kasich's position is basically that he thinks people should use their extremely limited social skills to work these situations out on their own and that we shouldn't proactively legislate around every possible situation of someone being an asshole.  It's not an unreasonable position, nor one that is particularly hard to understand.  Please stop wringing your hands and pretending to be so oppressed and shocked by Kasich's oh-so-hateful bigotry.  It's nauseating.

[Virginiá]

I don't think this is him playing both sides or trying to get elected at all. He knows he's got no chance. I think he is saying how he really thinks it should be and most Republicans would agree with him.

I do believe that he thinks he has a remote chance to steal the nomination by presenting himself as a viable, "moderate" alternative so that when the convention erupts, he can ride in, snatch the nomination, get the girl and go sail off into the sunset (towards the White House).

That said, when I mentioned him being malleable towards whatever side of the issue helps him best, I meant "helps him best" in November. However, whether he really believes it or choosing sides based on perceived political gain, it's still pathetic regardless of the true motive.

I'd just like to throw in that he has already switched positions on other issue(s) to help his campaign - Such as him gleefully signing seriously rigged maps in 2011 to help his Republican buddies in Ohio, then all of a sudden coming out as against gerrymandering when he runs for president. He has no spine, so while you may be right, I think there is cause to believe otherwise as well.

Kasich's position is basically that he thinks people should use their extremely limited social skills to work these situations out on their own and that we shouldn't proactively legislate around every possible situation of someone being an asshole.  It's not an unreasonable position, nor one that is particularly hard to understand.  Please stop wringing your hands and pretending to be so oppressed and shocked by Kasich's oh-so-hateful bigotry.  It's nauseating.

So they get to pass bills sanctioning (and then indirectly encouraging) discrimination, and then we should work this out on our own? Like, we're the ones being unreasonable when they are the ones singling us out because they are (acting like) intolerant bigots?

How f!cking convenient for Kasich and his Republican friends.

[afleitch]

At least Kasich is trying. The GOP has forgotten how to talk moderate never mind think it. If it's making rosary clutchers like TJ vote Cruz he must be pushing the right buttons.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

I wasn't saying this current debate is directly tied to say, voting rights, or what have you. I used it as an example where the general public and the government was either discriminating directly or enabling it, and asked one to imagine the reaction if you told a black person to "get over it". Frankly, to me, in principle there is little difference between the government sanctioning discrimination and directly discriminating themselves.

He said they should find another business if they are turned away. Where does this end? That statement is a tactic acceptance of discrimination. As a person who has experienced varying degrees of harassment and discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I have zero tolerance for someone who even dances around this subject.

I also wonder what this means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the balance here? We're simply looking to make sure LGBT people are not refused service on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. When someone says they want to find "balance" there, what exactly are they saying? To allow a little "light" discrimination? I honestly don't see what else it means.

I'm sorry, but Kasich is trying to appease bigots and by doing that he turns his back on millions of people who simply want equal treatment.

It means not all situations are the same.  Serving someone a sandwich at a restaurant or letting them stay in a hotel isn't the same as catering an event or contracting to do a job for someone for some specialized service. Originally the concept of "public accommodations" involved an understanding of this difference, as can be seen in the wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.   You want to force someone to invest time and effort into something they believe is wrong?  Whatever hatred you feel for such a person, what you are demanding runs afoul of the idea that being in someone's employ should be a voluntary condition.

[Virginiá]

You want to force someone to invest time and effort into something they believe is wrong?  Whatever hatred you feel for such a person, what you are demanding runs afoul of the idea that being in someone's employ should be a voluntary condition.

See, that's very subjective. I'm sure lots of racist Southerners in the Jim Crow days thought having to deal with/serve African Americans was just wrong, as they should be slaves and not free citizens. Or how about allowing women to vote? I'm sure lots thought it was just wrong because it wasn't their place and they wouldn't even know what to do (I'm aware this deals with govt and not business). I mean I can go on and on here.

If we can disallow discrimination based on race, we can also do it based on sexual orientation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You want to force someone to invest time and effort into something they believe is wrong?  Whatever hatred you feel for such a person, what you are demanding runs afoul of the idea that being in someone's employ should be a voluntary condition.

See, that's very subjective. I'm sure lots of racist Southerners in the Jim Crow days thought having to deal with/serve African Americans was just wrong, as they should be slaves and not free citizens. Or how about allowing women to vote? I'm sure lots thought it was just wrong because it wasn't their place and they wouldn't even know what to do (I'm aware this deals with govt and not business). I mean I can go on and on here.

If we can disallow discrimination based on race, we can also do it based on sexual orientation.

Does a person have a right to refuse an offer of employment, for whatever reason they choose?  That is essentially what a contract for services entails. It would seem to me that they would, unless they were providing such a basic necessity that whoever came to them and was denied it could suffer material hardship.  Medical care, a meal, lodging, basic utilities, qualifies.   An art commission, a shoeshine, a floral arrangement, does not.

[ProudModerate2]

Segregation and denying voting rights were done by governments. Kasich never said gay people shouldnt have the right to vote or get married, he said they should not get super angry if one business denies a service. In fact he believes that conservatives should also get over gay marriage. His position on this is to the left of me

I wasn't saying this current debate is directly tied to say, voting rights, or what have you. I used it as an example where the general public and the government was either discriminating directly or enabling it, and asked one to imagine the reaction if you told a black person to "get over it". Frankly, to me, in principle there is little difference between the government sanctioning discrimination and directly discriminating themselves.

He said they should find another business if they are turned away. Where does this end? That statement is a tactic acceptance of discrimination. As a person who has experienced varying degrees of harassment and discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I have zero tolerance for someone who even dances around this subject.

I also wonder what this means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the balance here? We're simply looking to make sure LGBT people are not refused service on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. When someone says they want to find "balance" there, what exactly are they saying? To allow a little "light" discrimination? I honestly don't see what else it means.

I'm sorry, but Kasich is trying to appease bigots and by doing that he turns his back on millions of people who simply want equal treatment.

It means not all situations are the same.  Serving someone a sandwich at a restaurant or letting them stay in a hotel isn't the same as catering an event or contracting to do a job for someone for some specialized service. Originally the concept of "public accommodations" involved an understanding of this difference, as can be seen in the wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.   You want to force someone to invest time and effort into something they believe is wrong?  Whatever hatred you feel for such a person, what you are demanding runs afoul of the idea that being in someone's employ should be a voluntary condition.

Trying to distinguish what services (or selling of goods) that are acceptable to refuse others is nuts. Who are we as a modern society and a "leader of the free world," to say that it is OK to discriminate ? How foolish would we look ?
Others here argue that there is a difference between acceptable refusal when it comes from "small" businesses versus larger ones. Really ?

In the 50's, there were many stories about how African-Americans were refused fuel at gas stations. Is fuel for a vehicle a necessity ? Or what about needing to use the restroom ? I ask this, because it was also widely known that some gas stations did allow people of color to purchase and pump fuel for their car, but then if they asked to use the restroom, they were refused to use this aspect of the business (so these bigoted gas station owners would take their money for fuel, but the hell of they would allow these "others" to use a restroom).

[Virginiá]

Does a person have a right to refuse an offer of employment, for whatever reason they choose?  That is essentially what a contract for services entails. It would seem to me that they would, unless they were providing such a basic necessity that whoever came to them and was denied it could suffer material hardship.  Medical care, a meal, lodging, basic utilities, qualifies.   An art commission, a shoeshine, a floral arrangement, does not.

This isn't just about cakes and weddings though. If a bakery can do it, so can a hotel, so can Best Buy, so can the gas station down the street, so can PetSmart, and so on. In this context, people shouldn't be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation anymore than they can on race, in regards to providing services and employment. Further, if Kasich/others is/are complaining about legislating over every little issue, then I would think trying to create some sort of official "which businesses can discriminate" would be even more silly to them.

We already have rules for business and employment in this country, so it's not like we are asking for something drastic and unprecedented here.

[pbrower2a]

You want to force someone to invest time and effort into something they believe is wrong?  Whatever hatred you feel for such a person, what you are demanding runs afoul of the idea that being in someone's employ should be a voluntary condition.

See, that's very subjective. I'm sure lots of racist Southerners in the Jim Crow days thought having to deal with/serve African Americans was just wrong, as they should be slaves and not free citizens. Or how about allowing women to vote? I'm sure lots thought it was just wrong because it wasn't their place and they wouldn't even know what to do (I'm aware this deals with govt and not business). I mean I can go on and on here.

If we can disallow discrimination based on race, we can also do it based on sexual orientation.

Does a person have a right to refuse an offer of employment, for whatever reason they choose?  That is essentially what a contract for services entails. It would seem to me that they would, unless they were providing such a basic necessity that whoever came to them and was denied it could suffer material hardship.  Medical care, a meal, lodging, basic utilities, qualifies.   An art commission, a shoeshine, a floral arrangement, does not.

An offer of employment and no choice of rejecting it is an act of bondage. An unemployed person really is a free agent. An unemployed engineer might have better things to do with his life than be a checker-cashier in a convenience store. It's not only money. If I am a carpenter I might find myself ill suited to be an electrician.

An artist's commission? What if I have family who perished under Stalin's tyranny and I am expected to paint a laudatory picture of Josef Stalin? I might be appalled! I would suggest that the potential customer find some other artist or ask for some other object of admiration.  

As an employee of a business one has responsibilities to the ownership and management. Thus if I am employed as a front-desk clerk and the management says that I may not rent out a room by the hour (a deed often associated with prostitution) I had better not offer to lease a room for an hour to some straight couple. Or if there is a "no pets" rule I had better not lease a room to someone traveling with a cat. I may like to consort with whores or I may like cats -- but such is not my judgment to make on the policy of allowing customers to use the motel for purposes that my employer does not authorize.

On the other side, suppose that I were a bigot and the people seeking are a mixed-race couple -- a black man with a pretty white wife and children who remind me of why I abhor interracial marriages. The motel ownership may not like the potential guests, but federal laws prohibit discrimination based upon race. If I refuse I may be violating state or federal laws.

Employment choice is one thing.  Choice of clients is assumed only so long as there is some bona fide criterion for rejecting a customer.