Is the term "homophobe" subjective?

[psychedelicsoul]

It is what you are saying. You're saying if they want to take their kids shopping with them (as one of my examples), then they are effectively making the choice to "out" themselves and opening themselves up to discrimination. What that means is that they can't actually carry on with their lives as everyone else does but instead must constantly be conscious of the fact that if someone inadvertently finds out their sexual orientation, they may be discriminated against.

Your broad generalizations about the LGBT community not being happy unless they can sue someone is silly and inaccurate.

So... two dudes and a kid walk into a store... you think the owner is gonna be like, "you're a gay couple, get out!!!"
sure... we'll see how long that guy stays in business. That kind of practice would be eliminated by the market.

 

[McBell]

So... two dudes and a kid walk into a store... you think the owner is gonna be like, "you're a gay couple, get out!!!"
sure... we'll see how long that guy stays in business. That kind of practice would be eliminated by the market.

Except for the Chick-fil-a incident where millions of people flocked to chick-fil-a joints in support of just that.
Nice try though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

... the LGBT community isn't satisfied most of the time unless they can sue someone.

Isn't that true of Americans generally?

 

[Mistah Bunneh]

Isn't that true of Americans generally?

That seems to be mainly the North Easterners which I generally cannot stand.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Except for the Chick-fil-a incident where millions of people flocked to chick-fil-a joints in support of just that.
Nice try though.

Chick-fil-a never discriminated against homosexuals though. Literally all that happened was some CEO voiced his opinion.
Rob Halford, a homosexual, supported them to because he supports freedom of speech.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except for the Chick-fil-a incident where millions of people flocked to chick-fil-a joints in support of just that.
Nice try though.

That was just the CEO voicing his opposition to gay marriage. But Chick Fil A does financially support anti-gay causes. And then there was the pizza joint in Indiana that received a ton of money over an incident that began when they said they would refuse to cater a gay marriage.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Chick-fil-a never discriminated against homosexuals though. Literally all that happened was some CEO voiced his opinion.
Rob Halford, a homosexual, supported them to because he supports freedom of speech.

I don't want my money going toward pushing for legislation to discriminate against anyone for an innate quality.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

That was just the CEO voicing his opposition to gay marriage. But Chick Fil A does financially support anti-gay causes. And then there was the pizza joint in Indiana that received a ton of money over an incident that began when they said they would refuse to cater a gay marriage.

Good for Memories Pizza... they did nothing wrong and got support. They shouldn't have to cater a gay wedding.

 

[McBell]

Chick-fil-a never discriminated against homosexuals though. Literally all that happened was some CEO voiced his opinion.
Rob Halford, a homosexual, supported them to because he supports freedom of speech.

I never said they did.
I said that millions of people flocked to chick-fil-a to support their right to discriminate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good for Memories Pizza... they did nothing wrong and got support. They shouldn't have to cater a gay wedding.

They serve the public. We can't refuse to serve someone who is left handed (although it has been discriminated against in the past - up to including death), you can't discriminate against someone who is "ginger," (even though it too has been heavily discriminated against in the past - and there is still today some lingering negativity towards such people), you can't discriminate against age (which happens anyways far too frequently in America), you can't discriminate against sex (but it still happens a lot anyways), you can't discriminate against race (but that too happens a lot), but yet we want to say it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals? Many businesses won't tell drunks to go or call the cops when they have a drunk driver going through drive through, many businesses will not allow their employees to tell belligerent customers to leave, and you don't hear an outrage of people wanting to tell strippers they aren't allowed, but yet we have this backlash against homosexuals. It's not only logically inconsistent, it's bigotry, hypocrisy, and to insist that you be treated as special in order to have the right to discriminate against a certain group when you can't discriminate against other groups, and it's ignoring real problems, such as doing nothing to allow people running a cash register to tell people demeaning them to leave.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

They serve the public. We can't refuse to serve someone who is left handed (although it has been discriminated against in the past - up to including death), you can't discriminate against someone who is "ginger," (even though it too has been heavily discriminated against in the past - and there is still today some lingering negativity towards such people), you can't discriminate against age (which happens anyways far too frequently in America), you can't discriminate against sex (but it still happens a lot anyways), you can't discriminate against race (but that too happens a lot), but yet we want to say it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals? Many businesses won't tell drunks to go or call the cops when they have a drunk driver going through drive through, many businesses will not allow their employees to tell belligerent customers to leave, and you don't hear an outrage of people wanting to tell strippers they aren't allowed, but yet we have this backlash against homosexuals. It's not only logically inconsistent, it's bigotry, hypocrisy, and to insist that you be treated as special in order to have the right to discriminate against a certain group when you can't discriminate against other groups, and it's ignoring real problems, such as doing nothing to allow people running a cash register to tell people demeaning them to leave.

Choosing not to take part in a function isn't the same as denying service to people... Memories Pizza serves gay people.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Many businesses won't tell drunks to go or call the cops when they have a drunk driver going through drive through, many businesses will not allow their employees to tell belligerent customers to leave, and you don't hear an outrage of people wanting to tell strippers they aren't allowed, but yet we have this backlash against homosexuals.

That's their choice. They have the right to do that, if they choose not to it's their business. If they want loud, obnoxious customers running a muck that's on them.
And if they deny gay people for any reason whatsoever, rather than having a justified one (like not taking part in a ceremony they disagree with) their business will suffer.

Memories Pizza only got support because they voiced an opinion that they should not be forced to do a ceremony they don't like and that you have free association rights
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-christian-bakers-be-forced-to-bake-cakes-for-gay-weddings
And that's not an unpopular opinion.
Nobody is ever like, "Christians should be forced to make 666 cakes for satanic couples or white power cakes for KKK members"
Comparing refusing a function or a service to refusing a person is stupid. No business would get support for flat out denying people on the basis of sexuality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Chick-fil-a never discriminated against homosexuals though. Literally all that happened was some CEO voiced his opinion.
Rob Halford, a homosexual, supported them to because he supports freedom of speech.

I think you missed the point.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I think you missed the point.

I'm just saying that christians defending a Chik Fil A or Memories Pizza is irrelevant to whether they'd defend a place that flat out said, "no gays allowed". That business would fail and nobody would try to help it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's their choice. They have the right to do that, if they choose not to it's their business. If they want loud, obnoxious customers running a muck that's on them.
And if they deny gay people for any reason whatsoever, rather than having a justified one (like not taking part in a ceremony they disagree with) their business will suffer.

Memories Pizza only got support because they voiced an opinion that they should not be forced to do a ceremony they don't like and that you have free association rights
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-christian-bakers-be-forced-to-bake-cakes-for-gay-weddings
And that's not an unpopular opinion.
Nobody is ever like, "Christians should be forced to make 666 cakes for satanic couples or white power cakes for KKK members"
Comparing refusing a function or a service to refusing a person is stupid. No business would get support for flat out denying people on the basis of sexuality.

Except that somebody just gave you 2 examples of businesses flourishing as a result of people supporting their "right" to discriminate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Memories Pizza only got support because they voiced an opinion that they should not be forced to do a ceremony they don't like and that you have free association rights

When you serve the public, you don't get to pick and choose who you will serve. I can think of several groups--some of who are breaking the law--that businesses are not pushing to not serve. Beligerent customers-can't get rid of them, drunk patrons-don't get rid of them, but yet they want to deny services to homosexuals. You do privately hold free association rights, but, by default, you give up some rights and privacy when you serve the public. You can freely associate with the KKK or any other white supremacist group, but you can't refuse to serve people who aren't white. The law must be made consistent, which means eliminating special privileges for things like getting to choose what groups you are going to discriminate against.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Except that somebody just gave you 2 examples of businesses flourishing as a result of people supporting their "right" to discriminate.

Chick Fil A never discriminated, and Memories Pizza serves homosexuals, they just wouldn't cater a ceremony.

you have no right to services they don't offer. A gay wedding is a seperate ceremony and nobody should be forced to be involved in any way with a ceremony they disagree with.

 

[McBell]

That business would fail and nobody would try to help it.

Which I showed to be purse bull ****.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Which I showed to be purse bull ****.

Give me an example where a business refused to serve gay people (not them refusing a ceremony but them refusing a person) and christians financially supported them in mass?

 

[McBell]

Chick Fil A never discriminated, and Memories Pizza serves homosexuals, they just wouldn't cater a ceremony.

you have no right to services they don't offer. A gay wedding is a seperate ceremony and nobody should be forced to be involved in any way with a ceremony they disagree with.

Are you really that dense or are you feigning ignorance?