Trump

Annasopra

And so it begins with the LGBT persecution in America now

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/sources-report-trump-executive-order-lgbtq-community-coming-soon/

Like what happens if any of us decide to visit there? if we attempt to travel to the US could immigration officials could refuse to let us in, for example?

Anyone thinking of going to the protest on Thursday

https://www.facebook.com/events/1887866391457090/

donkeykong5

He is the president of usa. Get over it. !

learn_more

The report you linked to reads like fake news to me so I'd hold off any comment about it till something actually happens.

Annasopra

learn_more wrote: »

The report you linked to reads like fake news to me so I'd hold off any comment about it till something actually happens.

Haha - that's the American presidential response to truth now - "its fake news"

Annasopra

donkeykong5 wrote: »

He is the president of usa. Get over it. !

Thanks but no thanks. I wont be getting over it when the politics of hate seeks to persecute human beings and destroy human rights.

Nomis21

The article itself says that it is only rumour that Trump will overturn anti LGBT legislation.

There are now 20 openly gay senators and congressmen (at the last count).

There are no Muslim Senators or Congress members, so muslims were a much easier target.

Annasopra

In the 1930s the Nazi party came to power with the promises that they would make Germany great. They spread hatred and encouraged hate crimes against the Jewish people. (This part is already alive and well in the USA against Muslim people). Then they made Jewish people wear a symbol so they could be singled out. (I just wonder what "extreme vetting" will look like). Then Jewish people were shipped to ghettos - before being transported - with the rest of Germany looking on and joining the Nazi party - to death camps where they, along with people with disabilities, gypsies and gay people were murdered in the millions.

That's what happening - while Congress sits with duct tape over their mouths and do nothing! First take healthcare off the sick, old and disabled and sooner or later they will die. Then single out Muslims and Mexicans and sit back while they are discriminated against. Then move onto the next group (LGBT). And while your at it silence any dissent in the media (the crowds were big, alternative facts...)

robyntmorton

I was in a long distance relationship with an American woman for 5 years. I always felt safe and welcome around the people I know over there.

But it is not the people I know I am nervous about. It is the people I don't know. Unfortunately the possible repeal and amendment of anti discrimination policies worries me (though it is just speculation at this stage) as it may be seen as carte blanche for some groups to go to far. As a trans* woman, I'll be honest - I am not sure if I could feel safe in the USA if things get any worse.

donkeykong5

Nomis21 wrote: »

The article itself says that it is only rumour that Trump will overturn anti LGBT legislation.

There are now 20 openly gay senators and congressmen (at the last count).

There are no Muslim Senators or Congress members, so muslims were a much easier target.

Sadly there are so so many organisations just itching to jump on the bandwagon. .

Nomis21

I see similarities between Trump and Hitler, but Hitler was not up for re-election after 4 years.

Trump WILL be up for re-election. If that ever changes, I'll start worrying then.

learn_more

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Haha - that's the American presidential response to truth now - "its fake news"

Quote from the article:

Several sources spoke with LGBTQ Nation on the condition of anonymity...

I stopped reading after that part.

Annasopra

See the bit I said about silencing dissent above. He just sacked his attorney general cause she said his muslim ban is illegal.

learn_more

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

See the bit I said about silencing dissent above. He just sacked his attorney general cause she said his muslim ban is illegal.

Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

As per above, she was Acting Attorney General appointed by Obama. Point being she knew she was going soon anyway. Now she leaves in a blaze of glory to her supporters. I'm sure she knew perfectly well she would be sacked which is perfectly right. The USA as it stands is still a democracy but democracy doesn't extend to going against presidential legal orders. Any president would have done the same.

As for my point about the anonymous sources, reporting something is hardly dissent.

Christy42

learn_more wrote: »

As per above, she was Acting Attorney General appointed by Obama. Point being she knew she was going soon anyway. Now she leaves in a blaze of glory to her supporters. I'm sure she knew perfectly well she would be sacked which is perfectly right. The USA as it stands is still a democracy but democracy doesn't extend to going against presidential legal orders. Any president would have done the same.

As for my point about the anonymous sources, reporting something is hardly dissent.

They really wouldn't have done the same. In fact she was asked in her confirmation hearing if she would stand up to a president. I sincerely doubt Obama would have fired her for it. Her oath was to the constitution-not to the president.

Yes she was leaving the job but the white house statement was very clear. She was fired for dissent. They couldn't wait to get their own guy nominated which was the plan. She was right, she did her job. That should not be a sack able offense. There is a big question over how legal those orders were (which is the entire point).

Woodville56

learn_more wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

See the bit I said about silencing dissent above. He just sacked his attorney general cause she said his muslim ban is illegal.

Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

As per above, she was Acting Attorney General appointed by Obama. Point being she knew she was going soon anyway. Now she leaves in a blaze of glory to her supporters. I'm sure she knew perfectly well she would be sacked which is perfectly right. The USA as it stands is still a democracy but democracy doesn't extend to going against presidential legal orders. Any president would have done the same.

As for my point about the anonymous sources, reporting something is hardly dissent.

So you agree with Trump's EO to exclude refugees and others based on their nationality ? Thats unconstitutional here , but you prefer the "more enlightened " Trump style of doing things ?
I was always of the understanding that the Judiciary was independent of the Executive in its rulings etc ? But wait - we're talking about making America great - Trump's going to sort out the independence of the judiciary too by planting his own stooges there . The acting AG was dismissed not because she wasn't doing her job in upholding the law under the constitution but because she dared to challenge Trump's Executive Order ? Now who'se being unconstitutional ?

Annasopra

learn_more wrote: »

The USA as it stands is still a democracy but democracy doesn't extend to going against presidential legal orders. Any president would have done the same.

It does. If the Presidents orders are unconstitutional. That is democracy. Thats the whole point of having a court system so that there can be checks and balances on the political system.

Bonavox

Is there any real source for this? Other than rumours.

Christy42

Bonavox wrote: »

Is there any real source for this? Other than rumours.

Either no or they backtracked on it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/white-house-considers-reversing-lgbt-protections-for-federal-workers/2017/01/30/06160150-e736-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?client=ms-android-h3g-ie

(Url is misleading, the title and story have been changed since a statement from the whitehouse came out though it seems at least some people were discussing it, how far up I don't know).

Looks like LGBT rights are safe......for now, at least. If Mike Pence had his way, I'm sure any protections whatsoever for LGBT people would be gone for good.

With that said, the prospect of an ultra-conservative judge being appointed to the Supreme Court is very worrying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-protections-lgbt-workers.html

WASHINGTON — The White House said on Monday that President Trump would leave in place a 2014 Obama administration order that created new workplace protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

In a statement issued in response to growing questions about whether Mr. Trump would reverse the Obama order, the White House said the president was proud to embrace gay rights.

“President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of L.G.B.T.Q. rights, just as he was throughout the election,” the statement said. “The president is proud to have been the first ever G.O.P. nominee to mention the L.G.B.T.Q. community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression.”

The decision to keep the order, the statement added, was Mr. Trump’s. It uses stronger language than any Republican president has before in favor of equal legal protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, though that is not likely to quiet Mr. Trump’s critics on the left.

The move could also anger conservatives who had hoped a Republican president would end some socially liberal policies.

While Mr. Trump remains opposed to the right of same-sex couples to marry, he has been more open to it than many in his party. But there could be another political cost to his decision: On the eve of the announcement of his pick to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, it could reopen the divisive debate over same-sex marriage and transgender rights, and subject his nominee to more scrutiny over his or her views on those issues.

The Obama order banned companies that do federal work from discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. It was the first time the government explicitly protected federal workers from discrimination based on gender identity.

Leaving those protections, of course, does not preclude another executive order that would roll back gay rights in other areas. Mr. Trump could, for example, still enshrine a religious freedom provision in federal policy.

Gay rights advocates seemed unimpressed. Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Mr. Trump was setting a low bar by claiming credit for not overturning the actions of his predecessor.

“L.G.B.T.Q. refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women are scared today, and with good reason,” Mr. Griffin said. “Donald Trump has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House.”

Fleawuss

The problem of Trump/Pence is the coalition of loons that support them: neo cons, alt right, tea party, religious fundamentalists. Bannon is determined to promote a Judaeo Christian culture and the religious right is a cess pit of Stone Age beliefs. One way to begin dismantling that coalition that really has to be started is the examination of religious beliefs. They cannot stand up to rational scrutiny and the US needs freedom from it.

lawred2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And so it begins with the LGBT persecution in America now

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/sources-report-trump-executive-order-lgbtq-community-coming-soon/

Like what happens if any of us decide to visit there? if we attempt to travel to the US could immigration officials could refuse to let us in, for example?

Anyone thinking of going to the protest on Thursday

https://www.facebook.com/events/1887866391457090/

That article says on grounds of religious belief (obviously repugnant) so how is this a LGBT issue?

Annasopra

lawred2 wrote: »

That article days on grounds of religious belief (obviously repugnant) so how is this a LGBT issue?

Because some religious people want to be allowed to legally discriminate against LGBT people :rolleyes:

lawred2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Because some religious people want to be allowed to legally discriminate against LGBT people :rolleyes:

Oh lord, I misread that entirely. Not sure what I thought I read now looking back.

More of the same from Trump then.

My apologies.

I read that the article says that it's currently not on white house agenda. One would wonder about that. It would be entirely consistent.

Annasopra

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh lord, I misread that entirely. Not sure what I thought I read now looking back.

More of the same from Trump then.

My apologies.

I read that the article says that it's currently not on white house agenda. One would wonder about that. It would be entirely consistent.

It seems that he is pushing this at the moment but we shall see - I would half expect some anti LGBT laws

DredFX

I'm not even going to bother rebutting that article or OP's rhetoric because I only had to scroll my mouse wheel twice to find a Nazi comparison, so forget that.

My only question is about the FADA bill that Trump mentioned a while back. What exactly does that entail? Its definition appears to be fairly nebulous, if not equivocal.

If it allows churches to refuse solemnising homosexual marriages or bakers to refuse baking cakes with messages that contravene their beliefs, power to them. Clergy and businessmen should have a prerogative to decline the provision of a service if it makes them uncomfortable.

However, if we're talking a company refusing to hire someone because of their orientation, then that's a whole different kind of horseplay. Saying 'no' to a mundane commodity that they could easily get elsewhere is much different than refusing them the opportunity to work or live.

donkeykong5

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh lord, I misread that entirely. Not sure what I thought I read now looking back.

More of the same from Trump then.

My apologies.

I read that the article says that it's currently not on white house agenda. One would wonder about that. It would be entirely consistent.

It seems that he is pushing this at the moment but we shall see - I would half expect some anti LGBT laws

I think with the amount of work donald has promised his voters to do that he hasn't really time at the moment to be interested in lgbtwxyz and their on going agendas.

baby and crumble

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I think with the amount of work donald has promised his voters to do that he hasn't really time at the moment to be interested in lgbtwxyz and their on going agendas.

Less of the sarcasm and belittling tone please.

Peregrinus

DredFX wrote: »

However, if we're talking a company refusing to hire someone because of their orientation, then that's a whole different kind of horseplay. Saying 'no' to a mundane commodity that they could easily get elsewhere is much different than refusing them the opportunity to work or live.

Remember the civil rights movement started with protests against, e.g, restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks, or required them to sit in a segregated area in order to get served. And as a result of that it has long been settled in the US that non-discrimination is more than about "refusing someone the opportunity to work or live". A business can't refuse to provide service to a customer on the grounds of race.

(And this is also the law in Ireland.)

So, the question is, should gay people enjoy less protection than black people? Should a business be allowed to refuse service to gay people if it would be unlawful for them to refuse the same service to black people?

donkeykong5

Peregrinus wrote: »

DredFX wrote: »

However, if we're talking a company refusing to hire someone because of their orientation, then that's a whole different kind of horseplay. Saying 'no' to a mundane commodity that they could easily get elsewhere is much different than refusing them the opportunity to work or live.

Remember the civil rights movement started with protests against, e.g, restaurants that wouldn't serve blacks, or required them to sit in a segregated area in order to get served. And as a result of that it has long been settled in the US that non-discrimination is more than about "refusing someone the opportunity to work or live". A business can't refuse to provide service to a customer on the grounds of race.

(And this is also the law in Ireland.)

So, the question is, should gay people enjoy less protection than black people? Should a business be allowed to refuse service to gay people if it would be unlawful for them to refuse the same service to black people?

To be honest I think it's based on how the people behave. If said group are in your face or acting inappropriately then yes business should most certainly be allowed to refuse service. Makes sense.

Peregrinus

So if a black person "gets in your face" or "acts inappropriately" then you're allowed to refuse service to black people?

donkeykong5

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if a black person "gets in your face" or "acts inappropriately" then you're allowed to refuse service to black people?

What do you think. What point are you trying to make. Seriously!

Peregrinus

The point I'm trying to make, donkeykong, is that if you refuse service to someone who gets in your face or acts inappropriate, that has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation. You can certainly refuse service to someone who has behaved inappropriately. But you can't refuse service to someone else because they happen to be of the same race or sexual orientation as someone who has behaved inappropriately.

My question was whether, in circumstances where discrimination on the basis of race is forbidden, should we permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is what DredFX seems to be saying. I don't know what you think inappropriate behaviour has to do with the answer to that question, and I don't know why you brought it up.

baby and crumble

donkeykong5 wrote: »

To be honest I think it's based on how the people behave. If said group are in your face or acting inappropriately then yes business should most certainly be allowed to refuse service. Makes sense.

What exactly constitutes being "in your face"? Holding hands? Kissing? Wanting to stay in your hotel together or maybe buy invitations to their wedding? You mean all those things that straight people do and nobody bats an eyelid?

DredFX

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, the question is, should gay people enjoy less protection than black people? Should a business be allowed to refuse service to gay people if it would be unlawful for them to refuse the same service to black people?

No, that's not okay. Refusing service because of a person's intrinsic quality is discrimination. However, the type of service requested should be grounds for legal refusal. You can't expect a Catholic priest to be all right with marrying a gay couple or a baker to accept baking a cake with a message that discomforts them.

That's my query. Will FADA allow people to refuse a service if it contravenes their beliefs and ethics, or will it go that extra sinister line and allow them to outright decline the provision of any service because of the patron's orientation?

Annasopra

DredFX wrote: »

No, that's not okay. Refusing service because of a person's intrinsic quality is discrimination. However, the type of service requested should be grounds for legal refusal. You can't expect a Catholic priest to be all right with marrying a gay couple or a baker to accept baking a cake with a message that discomforts them.

That's my query. Will FADA allow people to refuse a service if it contravenes their beliefs and ethics, or will it go that extra sinister line and allow them to outright decline the provision of any service because of the patron's orientation?

That just makes no sense. On the one hand you say no you shouldnt be able to discriminate. On the other hand you say yes you should.

donkeykong5

baby and crumble wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

To be honest I think it's based on how the people behave. If said group are in your face or acting inappropriately then yes business should most certainly be allowed to refuse service. Makes sense.

What exactly constitutes being "in your face"? Holding hands? Kissing? Wanting to stay in your hotel together or maybe buy invitations to their wedding? You mean all those things that straight people do and nobody bats an eyelid?

I suppose in your face imo would be a gay couple booking into a Christian run bb where they know it would be rubbing the patrons up the wrong way. Especially as the area is littered with other hotels where this is accepted. Maybe targeting a Christian family bakery or a Christian family printers. When the areas surrounding same premises have numerous other bakeries printers etc.

Christy42

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I suppose in your face imo would be a gay couple booking into a Christian run bb where they know it would be rubbing the patrons up the wrong way. Especially as the area is littered with other hotels where this is accepted. Maybe targeting a Christian family bakery or a Christian family printers. When the areas surrounding same premises have numerous other bakeries printers etc.

If the bakers did not believe in mixed marriage should they be allowed refuse a wedding cake with models of a black man and white woman on the top (or vice versa)?

donkeykong5

Christy42 wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I suppose in your face imo would be a gay couple booking into a Christian run bb where they know it would be rubbing the patrons up the wrong way. Especially as the area is littered with other hotels where this is accepted. Maybe targeting a Christian family bakery or a Christian family printers. When the areas surrounding same premises have numerous other bakeries printers etc.

If the bakers did not believe in mixed marriage should they be allowed refuse a wedding cake with models of a black man and white woman on the top (or vice versa)?

Christy42 wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I suppose in your face imo would be a gay couple booking into a Christian run bb where they know it would be rubbing the patrons up the wrong way. Especially as the area is littered with other hotels where this is accepted. Maybe targeting a Christian family bakery or a Christian family printers. When the areas surrounding same premises have numerous other bakeries printers etc.

If the bakers did not believe in mixed marriage should they be allowed refuse a wedding cake with models of a black man and white woman on the top (or vice versa)?

Many Christians are in mixed race marriages. What is your point ?. Or are you " nit picking ". ?

Annasopra

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Many Christians are in mixed race marriages. What is your point ?. Or are you " nit picking ". ?

I think this is more than nit picking. It's highlighting a hypocrytical viewpoint that some people "deserve" equality but others don't

Annasopra

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I suppose in your face imo would be a gay couple booking into a Christian run bb where they know it would be rubbing the patrons up the wrong way. Especially as the area is littered with other hotels where this is accepted. Maybe targeting a Christian family bakery or a Christian family printers. When the areas surrounding same premises have numerous other bakeries printers etc.

Completely unworkable from a legal viewpoint.

"They are discriminating"
"No they're not because they are rubbing their gayness in Christians faces"

Maybe heterosexuals should stop booking hotels and b and bs in case they rub their heterosexualiy in the owners faces.

donkeykong5

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I suppose in your face imo would be a gay couple booking into a Christian run bb where they know it would be rubbing the patrons up the wrong way. Especially as the area is littered with other hotels where this is accepted. Maybe targeting a Christian family bakery or a Christian family printers. When the areas surrounding same premises have numerous other bakeries printers etc.

Completely unworkable from a legal viewpoint.

"They are discriminating"
"No they're not because they are rubbing their gayness in Christians faces"

Maybe heterosexuals should stop booking hotels and b and bs in case they rub their heterosexualiy in the owners faces.

The elderly couple who owned the bb in uk and printers in ireland and bakery in North ireland were all targeted by bullying individuals trying to firstly make a name for themselves and secondly exhort cash from same companies. Disgraceful carry on imo.

Annasopra

donkeykong5 wrote: »

The elderly couple who owned the bb in uk and printers in ireland and bakery in North ireland were all targeted by bullying individuals trying to firstly make a name for themselves and secondly exhort cash from same companies. Disgraceful carry on imo.

If you have evidence of "bullying" behaviour and unknown people trying to make a name for themselves and "exhorting cash" please produce it.

Christy42

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Many Christians are in mixed race marriages. What is your point ?. Or are you " nit picking ". ?

Answer the question. Should the baker be allowed refuse the service if mixed marriages go against their religious beliefs?

It is the same situation exactly except the gay couple has been switched for a mixes race one.

I am aware many christians are in mixed marriages. That is besides the point. I am not accusing christians of being racist. Merely wondering how the discrimination laws can be consistent amongst minorities.

baby and crumble

Mod warning: Can we get back on topic please? There's no point bringing the Ni cases back up again, they're not relevant to the thread.

Donkeykong, please have a read of the charter if you're going to post here. Your posts in this thread are verging on soapboxing. Any more of it and I'll be handing out infractions.

DredFX

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That just makes no sense. On the one hand you say no you shouldnt be able to discriminate. On the other hand you say yes you should.

You misunderstood me.

Discriminating based on an intrinsic quality ("Sorry, we don't serve homosexuals here') is wrong.

Discriminating, if you can call it that in such a scenario, because the service they want contravenes your beliefs or ethics ("Sorry, I'm not comfortable baking a cake with that imagery on it") is not wrong.

That's what I'm wondering about with Trump's bill. Will it allow the first scenario in addition to the second?

jobbridge4life

DredFX wrote: »

You misunderstood me.

Discriminating based on an intrinsic quality ("Sorry, we don't serve homosexuals here') is wrong.

Discriminating, if you can call it that in such a scenario, because the service they want contravenes your beliefs or ethics ("Sorry, I'm not comfortable baking a cake with that imagery on it") is not wrong.

That's what I'm wondering about with Trump's bill. Will it allow the first scenario in addition to the second?

That distinction sounds better on paper than it is in reality. Take a wedding catering business, arguing that they aren't discriminating against gay people because they'd serve them if that gay couple were marrying women is patently absurd. It is not dissimilar to the argument trotted out by opponents of marriage equality who argue(d) that the laws were not discriminatory because of course gay people could always marry someone of the opposite sex.

The argument about ethics/beliefs also tend to obscure the potential for real damage to individuals, particularly when framed about issues as comparatively trivial as a cake. Take a landlord, should people be entitled to discriminate against gay couples and deny them access to accommodation on the basis that they have an ethical problem with someone gets up to (or doesn't) in the bedroom? What about having an ethical problem with mixed race couples?

And to answer your question Trump's leaked executive order (not bill, an important distinction) would have attempted to permit discrimination in virtually all scenarios.

Annasopra

DredFX wrote: »

You misunderstood me.

Discriminating based on an intrinsic quality ("Sorry, we don't serve homosexuals here') is wrong.

Discriminating, if you can call it that in such a scenario, because the service they want contravenes your beliefs or ethics ("Sorry, I'm not comfortable baking a cake with that imagery on it") is not wrong.

That's what I'm wondering about with Trump's bill. Will it allow the first scenario in addition to the second?

No

I'm not misunderstanding anything at all. Discrimination is discrimination and discrimination based on the beliefs or seller of the good or service is still discrimination.

DredFX

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The argument about ethics/beliefs also tend to obscure the potential for real damage to individuals, particularly when framed about issues as comparatively trivial as a cake. Take a landlord, should people be entitled to discriminate against gay couples and deny them access to accommodation on the basis that they have an ethical problem with someone gets up to (or doesn't) in the bedroom? What about having an ethical problem with mixed race couples?

Which is why I found the FADA rather ill-defined. Allowing people the prerogative to refuse a service that makes them uncomfortable should be okay, but obviously services and the impacts the refusals can have differ.

You're right in the case of landlords, accommodation, and sex. Different lines have to be drawn, and it can be hard to do that without legal precedents and loopholes getting in the way. It's a difficult conundrum, ensuring that people have convenient access to services that they need to live comfortably, while also making sure that businesses reserve the right to say 'no' without having their intentions twisted into something that could see them in a court of law.

I think it's fair to say that, no matter what order is made or what clauses are written, some innocent people on either side of the argument are going to get the short end of a very hard stick.

EDIT:

I'm not misunderstanding anything at all. Discrimination is discrimination and discrimination based on the beliefs or seller of the good or service is still discrimination.

That should be punished in a court of law, no matter the circumstances?

jobbridge4life

DredFX wrote: »

Which is why I found the FADA rather ill-defined. Allowing people the prerogative to refuse a service that makes them uncomfortable should be okay, but obviously services and the impacts the refusals can have differ.

Should it? What if black people make me feel uncomfortable? Or Christians? Should I be entitled to refuse to serve them because they make me uncomfortable.

DredFX wrote: »

You're right in the case of landlords, accommodation, and sex. Different lines have to be drawn, and it can be hard to do that without legal precedents and loopholes getting in the way. It's a difficult conundrum, ensuring that people have convenient access to services that they need to live comfortably, while also making sure that businesses reserve the right to say 'no' without having their intentions twisted into something that could see them in a court of law.

If the intention is to deny people service because they make you uncomfortable I really don't see how that is being twisted.

DredFX wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that, no matter what order is made or what clauses are written, some innocent people on either side of the argument are going to get the short end of a very hard stick.

You are drawing a false equivalence. One side is a business owner denying service to someone because they don't like them, on the other you have people who just want to go about their lives.

DredFX

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If the intention is to deny people service because they make you uncomfortable I really don't see how that is being twisted.

The service requested would make them uncomfortable. Not those requesting.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You are drawing a false equivalence. One side is a business owner denying service to someone because they don't like them, on the other you have people who just want to go about their lives.

Well then you would be generalising. One side could be have people who have problems providing a service they are uncomfortable with, which is a whole world of difference than refusing a service because they by default dislike the demographic patronising their business.

That's the point I've been getting at since arriving in this thread.

jobbridge4life

DredFX wrote: »

Well then you would be generalising. One side could be have people who have problems providing a service they are uncomfortable with, which is a whole world of difference than refusing a service because they by default dislike the demographic patronising their business.

That's the point I've been getting since arriving in this thread.

You've been trying but it isn't sticking.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is discrimination. Now we can all engage in some jesuitical sophistry but as I said those distinctions only really work on paper. If I refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding, if refuse to host an interracial marriage at my function centre, or host an interracial couple in my hotel I am discriminating against that couple and no amount of hollow protestations acclaiming my love of black people will ever mask that or the place from which it stems.