FA+
Shop
Saying the truth with love.
10 years ago
I have told the truth, as far as I can, but I did not always do it in love - particularly the deleted journal. I apologize for the anger in which I replied to a snub to my pride. As often as I insist that pride must die, I find myself succumbing to it... I can't undo it, but I can mitigate it.
1If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13, 1-2.
1If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13, 1-2.
You choose to surround yourself with a community that is predominantly accepting of all sexual orientations, and further choose to spread negative commentary toward the very same audience.
I think it's safe to say that the audience has left the building.
The same applies to my '!=' symbol - and while the symbol itself nor what it means is not incorrect, my purpose for the old '!=' symbol, however, is - hence why I changed it to the cross, as it is now.
In myself, I don't have much confidence, no - I, myself, do wrong every day, and need God constantly to do better. But in the things I put my faith - in the truth of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and what He has said is good and true? Oh yes. Those things I will hold to, and put my confidence in.
And on top of all that, you admitted that your previous journal was created with the intent to harm, and you've "apologized" for it, yet you don't think the message itself was incorrect. From my personal reaction to that, the apology you issued becomes void in the very moment that you don't fully commit to the apology itself. Either you're truly sorry for what you've said, or you're just posting the journal as a band-aid for your reputation, while not actually learning anything from how you acted.
As for the journal I deleted, yes - it was intended to harm, though I do believe the contents were true. What, do you think it is impossible to speak the truth in such a way that, though true, the intention behind it is still wrong? Or, to put it another way - is it not true that one can know and speak the truth, but one's heart can be dark while doing it, so as to render the purpose of it evil rather than good? If one were to hear, for instance, that one person was cheating on another, it would not be untrue to say so; it would, however, be an evil thing to wait until the day before their anniversary to bring the evidence forward with the express purpose of hurting their marriage and hurting the cheater. That is what I apologized for; though I still believe I spoke the truth, I did it in a way to hurt rather than help.
Moreover, what does your reaction have to do with making my apology void? And how have I not 'fully committed to the apology'? An apology does not require full capitulation in all ways, and I have apologized for what wrong I realize I have done. If you think there is more wrong I have done that I have not confessed to and apologized for, tell me what standard I have broken. If not, then how can you possibly say that my apology is incomplete if there is nothing left for me to apologize for?
And if you want to get deeper into it, how bout the massive amount of people who use their belief in hatred, even though the original text says nothing about it: hoperemains.webs.com
Guess what: take enough time, you can justifiably accept homosexuality and God at the same time. You can accept scientific facts and still believe in God. You can come to understand sections of the bible were written by random people or simply shoved in because the older church thought it would sound better, and still believe in God.
If you want to really apologize, pull away from talking about this here, and look at your own beliefs with a more open mind. If anything about it is causing you to hate others, then toss just that part out and move on. If you still hold your faith in God in the end and just want to help others, congrats! That's a hell of a lot closer to being like Jesus than hating on gays is.
Moreover, the 'insane amount of denominations both Catholic and Protestant' is by no means a total disagreement; Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and many of those who call themselves Protestant share the same core of faith - which is roughly as follows:
1. Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and part of the Trinity - that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
2. We were created by God in His likeness, not begotten by God - we do not share in the same sort of life that He has, in the same way that a statue does not have the same sort of life as does a son.
3. Our natures are entirely corrupt; there is nothing in us that can make us like the Son of God, and nothing in us that can have the sort of life He has. We are rebels against Him. We are, in short, doomed to death.
4. The Son of God therefore became Man; He, through the miracle of the Cross and His resurrection, defeated death as we could not; and He, through His perfect obedience, was unstained by sin as we are. The exact formula of the 'how' is unimportant, and often debated, but I don't think we'll know the fullness of it on this side of Heaven; but we can still benefit from it, just as one who doesn't know about carbs and fats and proteins and vitamins can still benefit from eating food. And what is this food? To take up our cross and follow Him; to try to fight our sins, to struggle to be like Him.
Some may disagree on exactly how His death and resurrection works; some disagree on the mode of baptism; some disagree on the way that the Church should be organized; but we agree on these fundamentals - and there is a world of difference between those who are Christian and follow these basic principles, and those who do not. Granted, some may call themselves Christian and not believe these things, but I'm afraid they are only fooling themselves. Moreover, they also tend to agree that homosexual behavior is indeed a sin - and with firm foundation in the Scripture. Believe me - if I could honestly believe that the Bible did not condemn homosexual behavior, I would... But, I can't - more on that later, but for now please bear with me.
It is also true that some people use passages from the Bible as a justification for hatred - though I disagree that they are a 'massive number', but that's besides the point. I'm not sure what you're getting at here; surely you're aware that there is nothing so good that evil people can't twist it to say what anything they want? If I wished, I could take various things Obama has said and argue that he's a free-market economist; likewise, people can take pieces of the Bible and cobble together some justification to hate their fellow man. That doesn't make them right; it merely makes their corruption that much worse. What I'm concerned with - and what I hope you're concerned with - is what is true.
Now, regarding that website you linked; this is the same sort of twisting that the hateful ones preach, though rather than being on the schismatic side of the line, it is on the side that loses any sense of right and wrong at all. For instance;
Lev 18:22; Their argument does not hold water. If 18:22 ties into 18:21, and is a continuation of the idolatry theme, why would it specify men sleeping with men? Wouldn't men sleeping with women in this pagan temple also be a perversion against God? And if it is not a continuation, but rather a blanket statement about man sleeping with man in a woman's bed, why would it also not apply to having sex with one's wife on another woman's bed (without the other woman present, presumably, so it would not be counted as adultery)? Wouldn't that likewise be an abomination, if a woman's bed is sacred in the manner they argue? The interpretation is far too specific, and would be oddly silent about other things that would likewise be prohibited if homosexual sex was morally equivalent to heterosexual sex. Moreover, the reference to a bed is *to sleep with*, NOT a literal woman's bed.
Lev 20:13; They ignore the entire context of the verses around it to arrive at the conclusion that they did. For one thing, every other verse around it is clearly about the thing one is having sex with, be it an aunt or an animal or whatever. Yet, in this case, rather than accepting that the description used is to convey a concept of something detestable for which they had no word (as is the case with , and thus had to describe it... They take it to mean simply the place where one has sex? Sorry, but that's cherry-picking.
Before I spend more time picking this apart, however, I want to know - do you genuinely accept the Word of God as expressed in the Bible as the rightful authority in your life, or are you of this sort:
“I don’t see the Bible as the Word of God. I see the Word of God as that which I hear through the words of the Bible. There’s a very big difference.”
If you do see the Bible as the rightful authority in your life, I will gladly continue to pick this apart with you, and seek the truth with you. If you are the latter sort, however, then you have put yourself over the Bible, and you have put yourself in the place of God - and the danger and ruin associated with such a mindset notwithstanding, I won't be drawn into such a discussion when there can be no profit.
Now, as for what you said next;
"Guess what: take enough time, you can justifiably accept homosexuality and God at the same time. You can accept scientific facts and still believe in God. You can come to understand sections of the bible were written by random people or simply shoved in because the older church thought it would sound better, and still believe in God."
I totally agree that one could take the Bible and use it to bolster one's views, regardless of what the Bible actually says. In that case, however, where does one's faith truly lie - in the Bible, or in oneself? Believe me, I don't want my homosexual desires to be a perversion of my nature; I would prefer it if they were natural and healthy and could be expressed in a way in which God could approve and give His blessing. But God has given us His word, and I must accept it as it is - even if it means I must give up some things I'd rather keep. Can you say the same of yourself? Can you say that you are actually submitting to what the Bible says, or are you using it as a way to justify what you already believe? Or, and I suspect this is more likely, do you simply not believe in it, and are using the fact that it can be twisted to say whatever one wants as proof that it is false? If the latter, I'm sorry - but, as I said previously, one can twist what someone else says to mean whatever one wants, if one's clever enough. It is no proof that the thing being twisted is false.
Now, as for the last part about me casting aside things that cause me to hate others - yes, I am trying to do that. That is why I got rid of my old avatar and chose one that I hoped would glorify God, and apologized for my earlier actions, and am trying to act out of love rather than to 'do you down'. But I can only do this by holding to the Gospel more firmly, not by casting it aside. It is my pride that brings division - pride in believing I'm better than others, that I am more holy and more deserving of God. It is this sort of diabolical pride that is infinitely more dangerous than any sort of mere sin of fleshly desire, corrupt though it is. I must fight against both of those things, but I must never use the sin of pride to fight my sexual sin, and certainly must never act out in pride while condemning the merely sexual sins of others.
"Are they trying to stick their dick into you? No? Shut the fuck up then."
Someone who refuses you service, as you put it, is not trying to 'stick their dick into you'; therefore, at the very least we ought not bring legal force against them.
I don't like whistling or tongue clicking but I would have to put up with it especially if I were to be running a service because at the end of the day, those people too are just human people wanting to get something done.
This is wrong. You argue that it is wrong for them to discriminate; I argue that it is far, far worse to bring governmental force against them for discriminating. If you'd like to see exactly why I take umbrage with this, flip it to the other extreme; let's look at the countries where it's outright illegal to have gay sex. Well, lots of people think gay sex is wrong; I agree with that notion. However, it is far worse for government to punish people with the force of law for having gay sex. That is what is happening here - people see some people being dickish but not harmful, and bring the force of law down on those people simply because they don't like 'em. It's tyranny, just in the opposite direction of what it used to be.
Now, let's ignore the law for a moment and focus on the general moral charge - that is, the insistence that it's wrong for them to refuse service to gay couples. There are, however, plenty of places and reasons where that is a valid concern. For instance;
Florists, bakers, photographers, etc, when being asked to perform for a 'gay marriage' ceremony; they definitely have a reasonable desire to NOT offer these services to gay couples, as they would be participating in the ceremony to some extent.
Also, Bed and Breakfast places - if a gay couple wants to stay the night, well... It is reasonable to accept straight sex in what amounts to your house, but not gay sex.
There are probably others, but you get the point. As a side note, the bills passed/being pushed in Georgia and Mississippi are designed to protect exactly these kind of choices, while still prohibiting discrimination in most other cases...
Of course not. The only things that can be rightfully made illegal are those things which cause clear harm to another's life, liberty, or property.
With that out of the way, I have some commentary on the (presumed) topic of your previous journal. You stated above that you find that from a moral perspective, it is worse to bring governmental force against a person for discriminating than it is for that person to discriminate. I (to an extent) agree. Individuals do not have the burden of ensuring they remain free of all discriminatory beliefs and behaviors. We are all limited in some way in who we accept and embrace, and I believe we have a fundamental, human right to free association that cannot morally be bound by government - Including a right todisassociation.
However, I do not believe that it is unreasonable for the government to require that companies provide service to all. Why? Because as a company, you are no longer operating as an individual. The company is rather itself a different, fundamental unit of society, with different rights and requirements from people. It is fundamentally something that must be regulated in ways that individual human behaviors are not both for economic and social reasons, because the collective responsibility for its actions rests on more shoulders, and because the potential negative outcomes of misbehavior are far more wide-reaching. How much this is true depends on the size of the company, but some things are true regardless of how big it is. I think that one of those things is that the moment you open a public storefront (1), you are making a commitment to serve the general public regardless of your personal beliefs and opinions. Without this requirement, the economic system becomes untenable for those living in places not accepting of them. Gays and lesbians have this problem in far smaller form than, say, those of varying skin colors (or other visible minority markers), but it still exists and it is still vital both for the rights of those individuals as members of society and for the sound functioning of the economy.(2)
Let's consider each half of my reasoning for this in turn. First, fairness towards individuals.
We know that there is (was?) substantial movement against small businesses being allowed to serve gays and lesbians in certain areas of the country. Let's imagine a hypothetical, improbable-but-not-impossible scenario for a moment: A small city in a nondescript, conservative locale. It's a relatively poor city in a remote area, some hours drive from the nearest major urban agglomeration and with something less than a hundred thousand residents. This town is very religious, and of the half-dozen-or-so locations providing each necessary service for a wedding (food, venue, decor, clothing, etc. etc. etc.), each independently decides to not provide service to the local gay and lesbian couples. Some of these couples may wish to have a traditional wedding. What are they to do? Given that the city is relatively poor and remote, they likely do not have the resources to access such services in They are being denied fundamental participation in an economic and social activity that others are not. I find this fundamentally unfair, and furthermore believe that, in this context, the collective of the companies denying service are acting as a regulatory body and regulating the individual lives and behaviors of people wishing to engage in certain economic and social activities. This is despite the fact that they each act individually, as the end result is the same as if they had come together and collectively agreed as such (which I would actually term a full-blown mini-government in many ways).
Again, this degenerate case is rather unlikely for gays and lesbians in particular, but is far MORE likely (and, indeed, was the case for a long time for blacks in the South of the US) of a scenario for visible minorities. Even less-egregious cases where only a portion of the local businesses deny service have negative social impacts in terms of personal choice and freedom -- Which brings us to my second point...
Public-access regulation is needed not just to ensure equity and full freedom of participation for individuals, but to ensure the collective health of the economy. This one, I think, requires less discussion. It's quite clearly the case that the economy functions maximally efficiently when as many people as possible are involved, and when commerce is limited to the least extent possible. By opening an economic business, the individuals running wedding shops are participating in the economy as companies rather than individuals. Companies are not personal entities and do not have all of the rights of individual persons, and unlike individuals should lie subservient to the needs of the economy and society as a whole. Thus, they should be required to not limit commerce based off of the arbitrary personal reasoning of the proprietors.
Above, you put forward that "The only things that can be rightfully made illegal are those things which cause clear harm to another's life, liberty, or property". I agree, and I find that denying business service selectively based off of one's "strong feelings" is tantamount to illegalizing it in the microcosmic context of your shop. Furthermore, I find that doing as such is itself harmful to the liberty of other individuals, and furthermore harmful to the collective property of society as a damper on legitimate, mutually beneficial economic activity.
I would love to hear any commentary you might have on the above statements.
(1): Note that this doesn't have to be a physical storefront, but could be online, via phone, a catalog, etc. - So plumbers and stuff count here too
(2): As a side note here, I should mention that I don't believe members of a company are required to give service in a particular way, or otherwise violate their rights to freedom of expression. So, for instance, while a bakery would be required to bake and decorate cake for a gay couple just as they might for a straight couple, they need not decorate it in ways that might express support for gay marriage (or whatever other institution (the local Nazi party?) that might request the cake, for that matter).
In the case of Sole Proprietorships, you are; in the case of partnerships, you are acting as with one or more partners, and policy is decided by the partners involved. In a corporation, you are operating as stockholders, and decide policy in that manner. However, even if the ownership and decisions thereof are distributed, it is still owned by individuals when all is said and done. Nothing in what you posted even addressed the fundamental concept of ownership and the rights thereof; you simply posted some ridiculous, unfounded notions about companies being a different unit of society, and arbitrarily assigned responsibilities based on some sort of socialist concepts of public ownership - which, I remind you, does not exist when it comes to privately owned companies.
Now, in regards to your hypothetical, unlikely, ridiculous scenario, they can't get caterers or florists or whatever to serve for their wedding. There are several problems with this analogy, however;
1. By your own admission, this scenario is unlikely to exist; as such, it is utterly ridiculous to make a law for everyone to prevent a scenario that is unlikely to ever exist.
2. You are treating a person's right to have a florist, baker, etc, for your wedding as something sacrosanct - as if it trumped the rights of people to decide how they will work and the right to their own property. In short, you are advocating enslaving another person (albeit for a limited time) for what amounts to a frivolity. In the wise words of Ronald Weasley, "[You] need to sort out your priorities!"
3. You call it 'unfair' - sorry, that word has so little meaning and value it simply does not stack up against what is fundamentally right and wrong. Moreover, if it was acceptable to take away a person's right their labor and the fruits thereof over things that are 'unfair', the world would be in ruins within days. It is 'unfair' that you were born into a wealthy society and have enjoyed the fruits thereof, and are more wealthy than most of the rest of the world; it would be 'fair' for your assets to be liquidated and distributed until you have an equal amount of wealth for your labor, and to continue garnishing your wages until you are getting the same amount of value for your labor as everyone in the third world countries. Of course, such a policy would be a gross violation of your right to self-determination.
4. There are plenty of alternatives that don't require you to deny a person their right to their labor. For instance, the gay couple can bake their own cake; they can collect wildflowers; they can play digital music rather than hiring a band; they can do all of these things on their own, and while it may not be as glamorous, well... Sorry, but infringing upon another person's right to self-determination simply isn't appropriate when all you're getting is a nicer wedding ceremony.
As for the hypothetical being more likely when it comes to race and such - sorry, no, it really isn't. A lot more people look down on discrimination by race than they do discrimination by sexual orientation. Moreover, point 4 still stands; unless the entire town is unwilling to serve them in any manner (in which case, why the hell do they live there???), there are always alternatives.
Now, what really takes the cake...
"Above, you put forward that "The only things that can be rightfully made illegal are those things which cause clear harm to another's life, liberty, or property". I agree, and I find that denying business service selectively based off of one's "strong feelings" is tantamount to illegalizing it in the microcosmic context of your shop. Furthermore, I find that doing as such is itself harmful to the liberty of other individuals, and furthermore harmful to the collective property of society as a damper on legitimate, mutually beneficial economic activity."
Cool! I'm gonna come into your house and sleep there. After all, I'm not *harming* you by sleeping there. And if you say I can't, why, you're microcosmically illegalizing my right to be there. Oh, hang on - I don't have the right to be there?
Nor does anyone have the right to be in a shop.
The simple fact is, no one has the right to be on anyone else's property - not me in your house, not a gay couple in a business. It was never 'legal' in the first place; it was a privilege, one that can be denied by the owner at any time. There is no 'illegalizing' of a right if the right does not exist in the first place - as is the case of the 'right' to be on another person's property.
Now, that's in regards to private businesses - that's all I've been referring to in this post so far. As far as government - alright, I can accept greater self-regulation for government to act in a neutral manner. However, this regulation should be done in such a way that it causes the least amount of disruption feasible; for instance, the case where the county clerk refused to sign gay marriage certificates because it was against her religious beliefs. She took the job prior to the change in law, and it changed while she was still serving her term. It should not have gone as far as it did, with people out for her blood, demanding she be *punished* for daring not to sign the documents. There was a simple enough solution, yet that was not what people went to; they insisted on punishment. See, that was not a case where gay people simply wanted the to live and let live, to get on with their marriages in peace. They wanted to *punish* the person who *dared* to not give them the full support of their marriages. We see this elsewhere, of course, where gay couples seek out Christian companies to ruin, so you'll pardon me for not taking the movement at their word.
I believe people would have a lot more sympathy towards governmental non-discrimination policies if they weren't so frequently enforced in ways designed to hurt anyone who doesn't give their full support to gays and gay marriage. Until that time, however, there will always be significant push-back.
I think both of these are reasonable views of the reality, and both have elements of truth. In some sense every economic interaction is a personal interaction, and yet those interactions can at times be wildly impersonal, especially on the macro scale -- The stock market might be an extreme example. I choose to operate and focus more on the first interpretation as a matter of pragmatism, seeking to ensure optimal conditions for as many people as possible.
The one key rub to your responses about property really lies in this divide of perspective. I believe that property (real estate for the most part) that you run as a public-access (i.e. not by appointment or membership) business is fundamentally different from property that is run for the purposes of a private purpose. I do believe that you have a responsibility to allow individuals onto your property, provided that they do not violate behavioral policies while on it. I don't think it's permissible to ban people from your grocery because they are black, gay, republican, or Serbian.
I also take significant issue with your assertion that 'because it is improbable, we don't need to consider it', both because it's not nearly so improbable that it could never happen and because building a system with such substantially negative outcomes is itself a suspect task. I refer you to the former "Sundown Towns" of the American South, where discrimination against blacks was, if not coded into law, so widespread that persons of color could not even remain in town past sundown, as no hotel would serve blacks, no property would be sold to them, and curfews banned travel. This isn't a fully hypothetical scenario because much worse scenarios have, in matter of fact, happened.
I also believe that this line:
"Cool! I'm gonna come into your house and sleep there. After all, I'm not *harming* you by sleeping there. And if you say I can't, why, you're microcosmically illegalizing my right to be there. Oh, hang on - I don't have the right to be there?"
Is a particularly egregious strawman argument. Never did I argue in any case that entering another person's private place of residence was acceptable (although there are some interesting arguments as to being allowed on remote outdoor portions of a person's property -- See Sweden's 'Right to Forage', where unused wilderness/outdoor property a sufficient distance from occupied structures is open for anyone to forage in). I don't feel the need to address this particular response further.
You do put forward a somewhat interesting response in the 'reasonable alternatives' statement, but I find it lacking. It seems a farce to pretend that two individuals should be able to reproduce every service provided by our society by their own two hands. What about healthcare? Do you argue that private hospitals should be able to refuse to serve same-sex married couples because they can just bandage themselves up? What about grocery stores? Clothing stores? Saying 'Oh, but only a few stores will ban them!' isn't an excuse for creating a system where people can be systematically excluded based off of factors external to that system. (Also, in response to the 'why don't they move if nobody will serve them' question, they're presumably poor given that the city isn't that well-off, and it's terribly hard to get anywhere when the gas stations won't even let you fuel up your car.)
So yes, I do believe that people have the right to be in a publicly accessible shop, provided that they don't violate behavior policy in said shop. I believe that the fundamental purpose of a business is to facilitate the differential adjustment of rights necessary for economic function to perpetuate: You give up certain rights when operating as a representative of that business, in exchange for other rights, protections, and guarantees (i.e. the isolation of business assets from your own, reduced and/or different types of tax burden, etc. etc.).
In regards to your last few paragraphs, that Kentucky clerk was a bit of an interesting case. I do agree that she got attacked perhaps more than she should have, but on the other hand she accepted a job as a paid representative of the government. When governmental policy changes, so do her responsibilities. Just like an employee of a company, if they refuse to follow the policies and requirements of the company -- even when they change -- the choices are to either quit or be fired. She had a responsibility to enact the law, and she failed.
In response to the general sense of LGBT activists searching out businesses, I agree that that's somewhat unfortunate -- but I take umbrage with your painting the whole movement based off of that. It's not appropriate to generalize the actions of individuals or small groups to the character of groups at large. Tread carefully here, for I think it's not to hard to see that far more Christian groups have brought far more harm in the opposite direction, and that's not very defensible or humane territory to make a stand on. (Uganda, anyone?)
First, you are creating an entirely imaginary distinction between 'personal activity' and 'economic activity' in regards to what rights we have. People have the right to their property; the same right to your real-estate that allows you to eject people from your house is the one owners have for their place of business. The same right to choose who you sell your bike to is the same one that sellers of bikes have. Do you have any less right to who may and may not come into your home when you open it to a neighborhood block party? Of course not. Does a business owner lose any of the rights to their property if they open it to the general public? Of course not. You keep on trying to make up rights based on feelings, but these are not rights; these are wrongful privileges to what other people have. You, for instance, have every right to choose who you do and do not work for; if you do not wish to work for someone who's black, you have every right to leave that job - shoot, you can even say it's because your boss is black, and they can't do a thing about it. You can also choose to buy or not buy from someone for entirely racial reasons as well, and no one can stop you. You can, in short, buy and sell in the economic market with impunity, and no one could stop you if you're racist or sexist or homophobic. So, let's not pretend that there's some mystical division between the fundamental rights of people who operate a business and people in their homes; their property is their property, whether it is in their living room or their storefront.
Second, your mention of 'Sundown Towns' - if you're comparing the struggles of blacks during the segregation era to the current struggle of gay rights activists, please throw yourself down the stairs until you learn your lesson. The worst that people were legally doing was *refusing to serve in gay weddings*. In most cases, they even offered pre-made cakes and/or referrals to other businesses who WOULD take the job. That is a far cry from the systematic, pervasive, and legally sanctioned discrimination that occurred in 'sunset towns'.
Third, I'm not 'building a system with such suspect results'. It is not economically feasible to discriminate based on things that don't actually hurt your business; you're just driving people away, both customers and suppliers. If, for instance, it were possible to hire women for 75 cents on the dollar that men make, why the FUCK would I hire anything but women when I could save 25% on payroll? No, I'm leaving people free to decide what they will do with their own things; YOU are the one trying to force a moral agenda on others, one with dubious results at best.
Fourth, you are being quite frankly insane and fear-mongering when you insist it's such a great trauma. Face the facts; it is social suicide to be blatantly and unreasonably discriminatory towards homosexuals, and to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc, is even MORE taboo. Most bakers will serve gay weddings, but a few won't; yet you're insisting that this is tantamount to them never being able to get a wedding cake for their ceremony. And that's just a wedding ceremony! It's hardly an essential part of life, and it wouldn't cause them any harm if they had to instead bake a cake themselves! But, sure; let's talk about hospitals. How many cases have you heard of about gays being refused into hospitals because they're gay? What about for basic necessities - not luxuries like having a specific florist or baker or photographer, but a gay person being refused *food* at a *grocery store*? None. The only time illegal discrimination has happened is when people refuse to take part in a gay wedding ceremony (as a baker, florist, photographer, etc) - I haven't once heard of a gay person being refused basic essentials simply for being gay. Yet for your argument to have any merit, it requires not just something that hasn't happened before to happen regularly and chronically, but to happen almost UNIVERSALLY.
This is madness.
You cannot use the argument of "but what if EVERYONE does it!" if there is no sane way that could ever happen. I won't say that there won't be a few that will do it; however, in order for it to be a problem, it will have to be an almost universal trend - ie, effectively impossible.
Now, fifth; "So yes, I do believe that people have the right to be in a publicly accessible shop, provided that they don't violate behavior policy in said shop." - does that mean you don't believe in free speech? After all, you asserted that merely being disallowed in a shop is "illegalizing it in the microcosmic context of your shop", then not allowing someone in because they want to protest in front of your meat aisle would in turn be "illegalizing speech in the microcosmic context of your shop" - you can't have it both ways. What about gun rights? People have the right to own and bear guns, after all - based on your arguments, however, it would be tantamount to making guns illegal!
Sixth:
"I believe that the fundamental purpose of a business is to facilitate the differential adjustment of rights necessary for economic function to perpetuate:" - sorry, you are not the owner. You do not get to determine the owner's purpose for their own shop. They bought/rented the building in which they reside; they bought the merchandise which is on display; they paid their workers for their time to do the work necessary to keep it functioning. In what profane and depraved manner do you claim ANY right in determining how they will use THEIR property, or the overarching purpose of their business?
Seventh - I agree, to an extent, but there was an easy solution available; simply have someone else sign them in absentee, until she was up for re-election. That was, after all, a perfectly reasonable religious reason for not wanting to sign those marriage certificates, and that was not an issue when she was initially hired. Now, if the gay rights activists asked for her to simply be replaced, alright, that would be a reasonable response. That is not, however, what happened; they demanded blood. They wanted her prosecuted to the full extent of the law for DARING to not give them her full support.
And Eighth - that is what I have seen of the group *at large*. That is what I have seen from the major LGBTBBQWTF organizations. That is what I have seen talking to them personally. So, if I can't judge a group's behavior on the general trends I see in individual interactions, in the official groups, and in the aggregate groups... What the hell SHOULD I use to judge them? The sane fringe? Ridiculous. You should have 'tread carefully' before insisting I 'tread carefully' within my own journal. Goodbye.
*looks at his other journal*
Ummm... 9 comments were made by other people here, and there are nearly 400 comments on my other journal; it seems a good number of people *do* care, they just disagree. Big difference.