PDA

View Full Version : New LGBT Protection Law In San Antonio Criminalizes Faith




Miss Annie
09-19-2013, 07:13 PM
I know this is a hot topic right now..... But correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't this about the first amendment rights of free speech?

New LGBT Protection Law In San Antonio Criminalizes Faith
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-new-lgbt-protection-law-san-antonio-criminalizes-faith/
A new law in San Antonio that protects LGBT persons from discrimination criminalizes what it calls ‘bias’ against homosexuality. Christians in San Antonio say they are fully awake now after this assault on their religious liberty and they say they will fight back…


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiEACnxYWgQ&feature=player_embedded#t=19

Smart3
09-19-2013, 08:55 PM
Separation of church and state.

Zippyjuan
09-19-2013, 09:00 PM
How is it denying them religious liberty? (didn't Jesus say to love everybody?) (Judge not lest ye be judged?)

Their faith is criminal?

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 09:05 PM
You don't want separation of church and state. You want abolition of religion.

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 09:06 PM
How is it denying them religious liberty? (didn't Jesus say to love everybody?)

He never said don't disagree with anybody.

LibertyEagle
09-19-2013, 09:07 PM
Separation of church and state.

Is in the Constitution NOWHERE!!

twomp
09-19-2013, 09:08 PM
lol that news segment wasn't bias at all in any way....

Antischism
09-19-2013, 09:10 PM
Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 09:11 PM
lol that news segment wasn't bias at all in any way....

Yes.......?

Anti Federalist
09-19-2013, 09:11 PM
Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?

That would be "bias" as defined by the new law.

Thus, a criminal act took place.

Anti Federalist
09-19-2013, 09:13 PM
Just another day in AmeriKa, where people are more than willing to use whatever means they see fit, to shut other people up.

Antischism
09-19-2013, 09:14 PM
That would be "bias" as defined by the new law.

Thus, a criminal act took place.

So according to this law, if people decide to protest and fly "God Hates ****" signs in public, they would be arrested?

Miss Annie
09-19-2013, 09:18 PM
Just another day in AmeriKa, where people are more than willing to use whatever means they see fit, to shut other people up.

Seems to me like AF nailed it. Why does everyone have to agree on everything? Why do people have to have everyone agree with them. I think the whole country has just become codependent and cares too damn much about what everyone else thinks. It should be none of my business what other people think about me...... and why should I care?

Miss Annie
09-19-2013, 09:20 PM
So according to this law, if people decide to protest and fly "God Hates ****" signs in public, they would be arrested?

What I understood from the video...... was that expressing any kind of disagreement with the lifestyle itself is a misdemeanor and can equal a hefty fine.

Zippyjuan
09-19-2013, 09:22 PM
One description of the law:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/san-antonio-passes-ordinance-extending-protections-to-gays.html/

The ordinance extends protections against denying someone housing, jobs or public accommodations because of their sexual orientation. The ordinance is modeled after provisions already in effect in Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston and Austin.

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 09:24 PM
Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?

Don't you have a computer in front of you?

http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/07/23/%E2%80%98unprecedented%E2%80%99-language-targets-those-with-traditional-values#.UfP8vI2kq2e

https://s3.amazonaws.com/FOCISpecialServices/Special+PDFs/An+Ordinance.pdf

Antischism
09-19-2013, 09:29 PM
Don't you have a computer in front of you?

http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/07/23/%E2%80%98unprecedented%E2%80%99-language-targets-those-with-traditional-values#.UfP8vI2kq2e

https://s3.amazonaws.com/FOCISpecialServices/Special+PDFs/An+Ordinance.pdf

I'm currently working out and quickly browsing the site between sets. Thanks, I'll check those out when I'm done.

Zippyjuan
09-19-2013, 09:31 PM
Thanks for the link. Looks like it actually exampts religious groups:

A religious corporation, association, society or educational institution or an
educational organization operated, supervised or controlled in whole or in
substantial part by a religious corporation, association or society does not violate
the non-discrimination policy by limiting employment or giving a preference in
employment to members of the same religion.Sec. 2-

Miss Annie
09-19-2013, 09:33 PM
Sec. 2-552. – Appointed Officials, Boards and Commissions.
(a) Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
When making appointments to boards and commissions, the City shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or handicapdisability.
(b) Prior Discriminatory Acts.
No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person
has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated
a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran
status, age, or handicapdisability.
(c) Discrimination by Appointed Officials – Malfeasance.
(1) No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in
discrimination or demonstrate a bias, by word or deed, against any person,
group of persons, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or
handicapdisability, while serving in such public position.

This is very vague language. To demonstrate bias in word or deed could simply mean to disagree. If someone asks you if your opinion and you give it....... you could be in trouble.


(2) Violation of this standard shall be considered malfeasance in office, and the
City Council shall be authorized to take action as provided by law to remove the
offending person from office.

If I am understanding this correctly, if you hold public office...... and are a Christian and someone asks your opinion on homosexuality, you are not allowed to answer honestly lest you be ousted?????

Cabal
09-19-2013, 09:43 PM
Wait, so it's okay that they're banning discrimination vs. nationality, race, color, religion, age, handicap, gender, and veteran status, but not sexual preference?

How consistent.

The reporting in that vid was terrible, btw.

Christian Liberty
09-19-2013, 09:45 PM
Wait, so it's okay that they're banning discrimination vs. nationality, race, color, religion, age, handicap, gender, and veteran status, but not sexual preference?

How consistent.

The reporting in that vid was terrible, btw.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that they're laughably inconsistent. Statist Christians may have brought this on themselves. Its still wrong.

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 09:46 PM
Thanks for the link. Looks like it actually exampts religious groups:

I read that too. But there is so much mumbo jumbo in front of it it's hard to tell if it means anything.

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 09:47 PM
This is very vague language. To demonstrate bias in word or deed could simply mean to disagree. If someone asks you if your opinion and you give it....... you could be in trouble.



If I am understanding this correctly, if you hold public office...... and are a Christian and someone asks your opinion on homosexuality, you are not allowed to answer honestly lest you be ousted?????

That what it sounds like.

Cabal
09-19-2013, 09:53 PM
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that they're laughably inconsistent. Statist Christians may have brought this on themselves. Its still wrong.

Of course, it's initiation of violence--typical statism.

But the fact that these idiots are only objecting to one ban, as if to suggest this legislation is exclusively targeting their religion, to play the victim card... the whole premise of their complaint is ridiculously laughable. They're just as in the wrong as those passing the legislation--they want the protection the legislation offers them (race, religion, etc), but they don't want the same offered to those they disapprove of (homosexuals). They're basically trying to wield the gun in the room, but they're making it out like they're the ones the gun is being pointed at.

What a bunch of ignorant frauds. I have minimal sympathy for any of them.

Keith and stuff
09-19-2013, 09:57 PM
They don't have TV coverage of city council votes in San An? There are a million people there. I guess there are a million clueless people. That's so sad. What a waste of a population...

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 10:04 PM
They don't have TV coverage of city council votes in San An? There are a million people there. I guess there are a million clueless people. That's so sad. What a waste of a population...

In the video they said they had a 7 % turnout last election.......

Christian Liberty
09-19-2013, 10:05 PM
Of course, it's initiation of violence--typical statism.

But the fact that these idiots are only objecting to one ban, as if to suggest this legislation is exclusively targeting their religion, to play the victim card... the whole premise of their complaint is ridiculously laughable. They're just as in the wrong as those passing the legislation--they want the protection the legislation offers them (race, religion, etc), but they don't want the same offered to those they disapprove of (homosexuals). They're basically trying to wield the gun in the room, but they're making it out like they're the ones the gun is being pointed at.

What a bunch of ignorant frauds. I have minimal sympathy for any of them.

While I don't claim absolute knowledge in this regard, as a Baptist I think I can give you some indication of how conservative Christians think. And I don't think you're being completely fair, even though I sympathize with some of your points.

I have seen a few radicals, mostly on the internet, who actually do want to criminalize homosexuality. I can respect the theonomic reconstructionists, even though I disagree with them, because at least they are logically consistent, namely, they get their laws from the Bible and they use divine command theory to defend them. I don't agree, but at least they have a (relatively, at any rate) theological basis for what sins they do and do not want to criminalize.

And, if you abstract from the social issues, some theonomists are quite libertarian on fiscal, foreign, and non-moral personal liberty issues. Gary North comes to mind.

I've never met anyone in person who took that position, but I've engaged with some on the internet. There's at least one on here, and several on another forum I frequent.

There are some people who want to recriminalize homosexuality, but are not theonomists. Again, I haven't met any in real life, but there are plenty on the internet (someone from my church MIGHT hold this position, I'm not sure, but its not something he talks about all the time. I'm not even sure what his position is). this is mostly an irrational position based on "ick" factor, IMO.

But the vast majority of Christians, even more conservative Protestants such as Baptists, don't want to recriminalize homosexuality. There's PLENTY to criticize the church for, but this isn't one of them.

Their main issue, in most cases, is the idea of the State condoning, not merely allowing a behavior they find distasteful.

Personally, as an anarchist who thinks government has no right to define marriage at all, I wouldn't even bother to vote one way or another on "Defining marriage as being between a man and woman" type votes. I really don't feel like I have a leg in that fight. Part of me hopes the government will sanction gay marriage, in hopes that it will wake conservative Christians up and help them to realize that government is not their friend. This wouldn't be a particularly rational reason to start opposing statism, but it doesn't really matter anyway.

I'm not the only one even in my church that holds certain parts of the 1964 CRA to be illegitmate. My dad, the pastor, agrees with me, as does at least one other person in the church. I suspect we aren't the only three either, but I don't exactly go around asking people about this either. While politics does occasionally come up, ultimately I go to church to worship God, not to discuss politics.

Now, regarding the hypocrites that you describe, even still, yes there's a lot of hypocricy. But I don't think its as universal as you seem to think. And I think many of them are just ignorant and believing what they were taught, rather than actively and deliberately saying that they want to control other people's rights to discriminate at gunpoint.

Don't get me wrong here, Cabal, you bring up some legitimate issues here. I just don't think its as simple as "They just want to control everybody." If anything, that's more true on the international stage than the domestic, but even then, its not universal and rarely deliberate.

As with all of these things, Laurence Vance is a pretty good antidote:p

Christian Liberty
09-19-2013, 10:08 PM
@Miss Annie-


You really diss Christians alot, especially for being one.. LOL

I was referring to a subset of Christians, not all of them. But even still, I was really only referring to what Cabal brought up first. Cabal was calling them out for being inconsistent. I was simply saying that, yes, many of them are inconsistent, many did bring it on themselves, but its still wrong.

Keith and stuff
09-19-2013, 10:10 PM
In the video they said they had a 7 % turnout last election.......
Some dead guy once said "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It seems they have neither in San Antonio.

Brett85
09-19-2013, 10:12 PM
Wait, so it's okay that they're banning discrimination vs. nationality, race, color, religion, age, handicap, gender, and veteran status, but not sexual preference?

How consistent.

The reporting in that vid was terrible, btw.

It seems like the libertarian, free market position is that since an employer owns his or her company and property, the employer should have the right to not hire an employee for any reason whatsoever, including all of the reasons you listed above.

Origanalist
09-19-2013, 10:14 PM
Some dead guy once said "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It seems they have neither in San Antonio.

Whas that you say?? I can't hear you past all this freedom.

Cabal
09-19-2013, 10:17 PM
But they are trying to seize control--that's their complaint. Their complaint isn't about the gun in the room being used, it's about where it's being pointed. They're acting like it's being pointed at them, which isn't really the case anyway, and that's the only reason they're all up in arms about any of this. They clearly believe that discrimination is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed, unless it's them doing the discriminating against sexual preference--something that is consensual, and none of their business anyway. Now, if they had take a real, reasoned, and principled stand against the entirety of the legislation based on force being used to ambiguously and arbitrarily censor rhetoric and/or behavior, then I'd be applauding them. But they aren't. They want the force to be used, but only in their favor. They want to point the gun at people to ambiguously and arbitrarily censor the rhetoric and/or behavior of others who might not agree with their religion, for instance.

I'm not saying all Christians share their position on this, I'm only speaking of those, Christian or not, who are.

Anti Federalist
09-19-2013, 10:26 PM
So according to this law, if people decide to protest and fly "God Hates ****" signs in public, they would be arrested?

Yes, but it would not even take doing that.

My reading of it makes no distinction of where and when the alleged bias takes place.

Christian Liberty
09-19-2013, 10:28 PM
But they are trying to seize control--that's their complaint. Their complaint isn't about the gun in the room being used, it's about where it's being pointed. They're acting like it's being pointed at them, which isn't really the case anyway, and that's the only reason they're all up in arms about any of this. They clearly believe that discrimination is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed, unless it's them doing the discriminating against sexual preference--something that is consensual, and none of their business anyway. Now, if they had take a real, reasoned, and principled stand against the entirety of the legislation based on force being used to ambiguously and arbitrarily censor rhetoric and/or behavior, then I'd be applauding them. But they aren't. They want the force to be used, but only in their favor. They want to point the gun at people to ambiguously and arbitrarily censor the rhetoric and/or behavior of others who might not agree with their religion, for instance.

I'm not saying all Christians share their position on this, I'm only speaking of those, Christian or not, who are.

OK, first of all, BOTH sides are "Pointing the gun." I can't honestly think of a single homosexual that's actually in the "gay rights" movement who is also a libertarian. Just look at Justin Raimondo. He's a gay libertarian, and he's not in the gay rights movement. Why do you think that is?

I agree with you that they're inconsistent though.


It seems like the libertarian, free market position is that since an employer owns his or her company and property, the employer should have the right to not hire an employee for any reason whatsoever, including all of the reasons you listed above.

He knows. He agrees. He's criticizing those who do not know or agree.

ThePenguinLibertarian
09-19-2013, 10:28 PM
Separation of church and state.
why are you so fucking happy? Its like you ACTUALLY WANT this fraking law passed

Antischism
09-19-2013, 11:06 PM
I think Cabal nailed most of what I wanted to say after reading the links provided and following the discussion.

The issue with gay rights is that it needs government in order to hold the same equality as other groups. With libertarianism, no group would be afforded these special benefits or protections by government, and private businesses would be free to discriminate on any basis, whether it be anti-gay or anti-Christian.

Now, what do you then do in the meantime? Do you tell people fighting for equal rights to just wait because we might someday eventually do away with everyone else's privileges so they're all on equal footing? That maybe, MAYBE, one day, government will get out of the business of marriage, thus equality? You have to keep in mind that people of religious background like these folks in particular, would be fighting for equal rights just like the LGBT community if the situation were reversed. These are people that want government to protect them or afford them equal treatment, but don't want it for another group.

It's easy to talk that way when you're not part of the group with less protections.

Obviously, it's not libertarian to tell private businesses who they can or can't hire, but then they should be getting rid of everyone's protections, not leaving them in place and denying one group. Either no one has them, or everyone is afforded the same rights under our current system.

Christian Liberty
09-19-2013, 11:10 PM
Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I don't think you agree with Cabal. I think Cabal would still say that he doesn't want anything to do with these anti-discrimination laws, he just doesn't feel bad for the hypocrites. You seem to actually be saying that, if you can't have no anti-discrimination laws, more of them is better than less. Which is ridiculous.

Antischism
09-19-2013, 11:15 PM
Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I don't think you agree with Cabal. I think Cabal would still say that he doesn't want anything to do with these anti-discrimination laws, he just doesn't feel bad for the hypocrites. You seem to actually be saying that, if you can't have no anti-discrimination laws, more of them is better than less. Which is ridiculous.

Never said it was right. Rather, it's incredibly hypocritical to afford privileges to all groups yet deny one, just because. I don't think any private business should be told who they can and can't hire, but that's not the case now in this country. So supposing we never repeal that part of the CRA, should people just accept and live with the fact that their sexuality is the reason why they're viewed as lesser people and can be discriminated against, while others are protected?

Christian Liberty
09-19-2013, 11:18 PM
Never said it was right. Rather, it's incredibly hypocritical to afford privileges to all groups yet deny one, just because. I don't think any private business should be told who they can and can't hire, but that's not the case now in this country. So supposing we never repeal that part of the CRA, should people just accept and live with the fact that their sexuality is the reason why they're viewed as lesser people and can be discriminated against, while others are protected?

Yes, or any other reason.

That's like saying "If we're going to have laws banning discrimination against race, we should obviously ban discrimination against people who wear orange shirts too." Or "If we're going to tax the top 1% half their income, we should obviously tax everyone half their income."

This is a stupid argument in so many ways. Once again, two wrongs don't make a right. It is better to have a hypocritical law that, while imperfect, respects the NAP more than the alternative, as opposed to a law that is more consistently wrong.

Antischism
09-19-2013, 11:32 PM
Yes, or any other reason.

That's like saying "If we're going to have laws banning discrimination against race, we should obviously ban discrimination against people who wear orange shirts too." Or "If we're going to tax the top 1% half their income, we should obviously tax everyone half their income."

This is a stupid argument in so many ways. Once again, two wrongs don't make a right. It is better to have a hypocritical law that, while imperfect, respects the NAP more than the alternative, as opposed to a law that is more consistently wrong.

Sorry, I don't hold all issues equally. I think with our current system as is, the LGBT community would be FAR worse off than the private business owner who now can't discriminate based on sexual preference (even still, the business owner can lie in order to refuse hiring someone based on any reason). There are no winners. There is no right or wrong answer, as you're trying to portray it. In such an instance, you have to weigh who it will affect more, and for what reasons. Don't even try to change the issue, because this is about LGBT rights, not taxation or an orange shirt.

I'm not going to sit there with a straight face and say, "Welp, too bad. Sorry about your sexuality. Maybe in another life you'll be born with the right sexuality which will give you all the right privileges."

The Free Hornet
09-19-2013, 11:52 PM
Sorry, I don't hold all issues equally. I think with our current system as is, the LGBT community would be FAR worse off than the private business owner who now can't discriminate based on sexual preference (even still, the business owner can lie in order to refuse hiring someone based on any reason).

Many in the LGBT community will work in a 'private business' and thus they too suffer under ever more burdensome regulations. The odds that this helps anybody is low and possibly lower than the odds it negatively affects LGBT owners/employees in a private business (or one that never opens because of this).

I.e., I reject the premise that the state can help the LGBT community just as I reject the premise that they can help a racial group (via affirmative action, special protections).

JustinTime
09-20-2013, 07:21 AM
It's easy to talk that way when you're not part of the group with less protections.

I dont see anyone making offending Christians against the law, so which group has less protections?

Jesus, Ill trade my marriage license for the right not to be disagreed with any day of the week.

tod evans
09-20-2013, 07:25 AM
Ill trade my marriage license for the right not to be disagreed with any day of the week.

It's called divorce court.....

Origanalist
09-20-2013, 07:33 AM
It's called divorce court.....

Is that show still on? :D

tod evans
09-20-2013, 07:38 AM
Is that show still on? :D

Show?

Beorn
09-20-2013, 07:47 AM
I wonder if I could apply to work in a gay club and then sue when they don't hire me because I'm straight.

Origanalist
09-20-2013, 07:54 AM
I wonder if I could apply to work in a gay club and then sue when they don't hire me because I'm straight.

Nope, you will lose.

Origanalist
09-20-2013, 07:54 AM
Show?

You don't remember the tv show???

tod evans
09-20-2013, 08:00 AM
You don't remember the tv show???

If I ever saw it it's now lost in the black hole that was once my mind...:o

Acala
09-20-2013, 08:41 AM
That would be "bias" as defined by the new law.

Thus, a criminal act took place.

No, it would not.

The law prohibits certain discriminatory ACTS relating to housing. A private individual would still be free to speak and publicize their opposition to homosexuality just as before. If they were a member of a local legislative body, they may lose their job. That part is a little vague.

I am not supporting the law, just getting the facts straight.

JustinTime
09-20-2013, 09:42 AM
It's called divorce court.....

I know you're attempting to be funny, but divorce grants no such right. In fact, it only gets worse. You will still be disagreed as much as ever, but now you do it with lawyers.

tod evans
09-20-2013, 09:47 AM
I know you're attempting to be funny, but divorce grants no such right. In fact, it only gets worse. You will still be disagreed as much as ever, but now you do it with lawyers.

Believe me I know!:o

Acala
09-20-2013, 11:01 AM
Yes, but it would not even take doing that.

My reading of it makes no distinction of where and when the alleged bias takes place.

Please cite the provision in the ordinance that would make it illegal for a private citizen to speak out against homosexuality.

familydog
09-20-2013, 11:04 AM
This is what happens with the state. Group A is routinely denied the same basic property rights as Group B using state violence. Group A finally turns the tables and uses state violence to deny basic property rights to Group B. Now, Group B is motivated to use even more state violence against Group A. It's a never ending cycle of violence and madness.

PaulConventionWV
09-20-2013, 11:05 AM
Can someone detail this law for me? I'm not entirely sure what it's proposing. In what way are people being denied the freedom to express their religious opposition for homosexuality?

That's the problem. It outlaws "discrimination" while not defining what discrimination is, meaning people could be prosecuted for just about anything that a gay person finds offensive.

Acala
09-20-2013, 11:09 AM
That's the problem. It outlaws "discrimination" while not defining what discrimination is, meaning people could be prosecuted for just about anything that a gay person finds offensive.

Please cite the provision in the ordinance that outlaws undefined discrimination by a private citizen. I skimmed it, so I might have missed something, but all I see affecting private citizens is a prohibition on discriminatory conduct in housing.

Edit:I have now gone over it more carefully.

In 2-592 it prohibits discrimination against the specified classes in providing public accomodations.

In 2-625 through 2-632 it prohibits discrimination against the specified classes in a wide variety of real estate sales and lease transactions.

That's all there is that applies to private citizens. Nothing whatsoever that prohibits a private citizen from speaking their mind freely about any of the protected classes.

Athan
09-20-2013, 11:23 AM
How is it denying them religious liberty? (didn't Jesus say to love everybody?) (Judge not lest ye be judged?)

Their faith is criminal?

See the video. The video says that that speaking out can get them criminal charges.

Brett85
09-20-2013, 11:25 AM
Never said it was right. Rather, it's incredibly hypocritical to afford privileges to all groups yet deny one, just because. I don't think any private business should be told who they can and can't hire, but that's not the case now in this country. So supposing we never repeal that part of the CRA, should people just accept and live with the fact that their sexuality is the reason why they're viewed as lesser people and can be discriminated against, while others are protected?

There should be no anti discrimination laws when it comes to private businesses, but sexual orientation is not the same as race. One is a behavior, and one is a genetic trait.

TonySutton
09-20-2013, 11:27 AM
From reading the Draft linked earlier in the thread this protection also extends to heterosexuals :)

Acala
09-20-2013, 11:28 AM
See the video. The video says that that speaking out can get them criminal charges.

They are wrong.

Cabal
09-20-2013, 11:29 AM
See the video. The video says that that speaking out can get them criminal charges.

The video is terrible reporting. They didn't even present any of the text from the legislation in question, among many other failings. Do you believe everything the news media tells you?

TonySutton
09-20-2013, 11:32 AM
There should be no anti discrimination laws when it comes to private businesses, but sexual orientation is not the same as race. One is a behavior, and one is a genetic trait.

You do understand there are 2 types of behaviors; innate (inborn/natural) and learned.

Acala
09-20-2013, 11:33 AM
See the video. The video says that that speaking out can get them criminal charges.

Read the ordinance. Ignore the ranting of the emotionally entangled.

Athan
10-04-2013, 02:05 PM
Touche.

FrankRep
10-04-2013, 02:09 PM
Separation of church and state.

Doesn't exist in law or the Constitution.

Acala
10-04-2013, 02:38 PM
Doesn't exist in law or the Constitution.

It does in the Arizona Constitution, and other States also.

Christian Liberty
10-04-2013, 02:53 PM
Sorry, I don't hold all issues equally.

Neither do I. I don't see where you are gathering the idea that I "hold all issues equally." Of course I don't "Hold all issues equally." Obviously some issues are more important than others. I would not say, for instance, that intellectual property and war are equally serious issues (I don't honestly know what my stance on IP is either, but even if I did, it wouldn't matter.) I would not say that speeding laws and gun control laws are equally oppressive. I would not say that taxation is just as bad as chattel slavery.

So I don't know where you're getting this from at all.

What I do hold is that right is ALWAYS right. What is wrong is ALWAYS wrong. Saying two wrongs don't make a right is not "saying that all the issues are equal."


I think with our current system as is, the LGBT community

I don't give a crap about "The LGBT community." And I'm willing to bet Justin Raimondo doesn't either. "The LGBT Community" is not a special group that should have special rights. Individuals are individuals, period.

Most of the gay rights movement is anti-liberty, but that's neither here nor there either.


would be FAR worse off than the private business owner who now can't discriminate based on sexual preference

So what? Its my property, screw off. This isn't about what solution will make the most people the best off, this is a clear right and wrong issue.


(even still, the business owner can lie in order to refuse hiring someone based on any reason). There are no winners. There is no right or wrong answer, as you're trying to portray it. In such an instance, you have to weigh who it will affect more,

For such a dilemma to exist, there would have to be such a thing as competing rights. Such a thing is clearly, logically impossible. Rights cannot conflict with each other, otherwise there wouldn't be any rights. This issue is really as simple as, do you support property rights or not? It is clear that you do not. You're also violating the site TOS with this ridiculous argument, and as such, do not belong here.

(And before anyone inevitably asks, I'm not asking the mods to ban you. I'm calling out your ridiculous argument for what it is, namely, anti-property, and anti everything that Ron Paul stands for.)


and for what reasons. Don't even try to change the issue, because this is about LGBT rights, not taxation or an orange shirt.


Its the same argument. Fair's fair, right? No, wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. I demonstrated it, and you couldn't discredit me, so you threw my argument aside and created a legal fiction where "The LGBT Community" has some kind of special positive rights that self-evidently don't exist, defended on the grounds that other people are given these fictional rights by legal fiat.



I'm not going to sit there with a straight face and say, "Welp, too bad. Sorry about your sexuality. Maybe in another life you'll be born with the right sexuality which will give you all the right privileges."

I'm not going to sit there with a straight face and bow to statist utilitarianism.


There should be no anti discrimination laws when it comes to private businesses, but sexual orientation is not the same as race. One is a behavior, and one is a genetic trait.

I kind of agree with you here, depending on whether you define "sexual orientation" as behavioral or based on who is attracted to who) but legally there's no good reason for any distinction. Although, being consistently statist isn't any better, in fact, it is worse. Antischism seems to think that consistent statism is better than inconsistent statism, even if the consistent statism is more oppressive. This shows that he has no place in this movement whatsoever.


From reading the Draft linked earlier in the thread this protection also extends to heterosexuals :)

So what? They shouldn't apply to anyone.

ThePenguinLibertarian
10-04-2013, 03:06 PM
One description of the law:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/san-antonio-passes-ordinance-extending-protections-to-gays.html/
Its still a pretty bad law. Business should have the right to discriminate. Otherwise iot would be a violation of property rights. As for public housing, its sensible but unneeded.