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:
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).
There is actually a big difference between a big business and small business refusal. For one, if lets say Wal Mart were to enact a discriminatory policy, it would have a large scale effect but a small business doesn't serve as many people so would not be as broad in causing damage. Also, a large business could have multiple locations across the country so a big business discriminating could literally hurt people form Bangor, Maine to Barrow, Alaska to McAllen, Texas, however a small business or small chain would only have a local effect. Also, I would argue that the smaller the business, the more autonomy the owner should have. The owner of a large corporation is going to be very far removed from any transaction but the owner of a small business might be very interlaced with every transaction that takes place. you may say that both small and large businesses can't discriminate (I disagree) but it is foolish to say there is no difference between Raley's vs Masterpiece Cake shop denying a gay wedding cake.
