Wouldn’t it be so great if the new president of UNC practiced her some good old fashioned civil disobedience? Not likely though. Though she says she doesn’t like the law, she has in the past used the word “lifestyle.”
Ugh, I hate how people call it “the gay lifestyle.” You’d never hear a member of my school’s GSA complain about “the straight lifestyle,” at least not seriously. Of the people I know, the so-called “gay lifestyle” ranges from Pokémon and anime to sculpture and advanced physics.
These laws were passed because of situations like the cake baker who was fined and put out of business for following personal religious beliefs. They are designed to prevent coercion ; e.g. tyranny of the minority by government overreach. IMO it would be best if people/institutions worked it out on their own without another government apparatus.
Passing laws about which bathroom you can go in has nothing to do with the baker situation. Not a darn thing.
As for the baker situation, I’m really just not ok with sanctioned discrimination of any kind. But let’s not kid ourselves. These laws are about hatred and bigotry pure and simple. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have come in a wave right after the SCOTUS ruling.
The “bathroom laws” came about in large part due to trans children in public schools. Since the other students (and families) know the situation, there is often (uninformed) outcry about which restroom the trans child should use. Some schools forced kids into restrooms based on gender at birth, others segregated trans children to gender-neutral restrooms (which may not have been convenient). So municipalities such as Charlotte passed legislation to protect the rights of those children to use the appropriate bathroom based on how they present.
State leadership couldn’t deal with this, so they warped it into laws allowing sexual predators to disguise themselves. Nothings whatsoever to do with the local ordinances that were passed. It’s already illegal to assault people, regardless of how one is dressed or whether one is in a bathroom or any other location. The state law is more narrow-minded reaction from elected officials who can’t accept the world is changing. The bill doesn’t even include any enforcement provisions or punishments. It’s just grandstanding.
@TooOld4School What religion is it that forbids cake-baking for gay people? Because I’m not finding that in my Bible.
@LasMa , turn the tables. Should a black baker be forced to bake for a KKK party? A Jewish baker for an Hamas party? Why should anyone be forced to provide a customized service under threat of penalty or sanction? Better that that baker just goes out of business if the community decides that they do not like the way they operate. Each time government gets involved it is an abrogation of our freedoms. That is what the laws are addressing. Next you will have the government deciding what is and isn’t a religion.
There’s obviously a disagreement about why separate bathroom / lockerrooms exist.
I think it’s clear the discriminating people are on the wrong side of history on this. That said, I do think things have moved pretty quickly in this area, and it is not surprising that there is some pushback. I think it is a lot for some people to process to say “people with a penis can go in the women’s restroom” and I think it goes further with “14 year olds (or 26 year olds) with a penis should shower next to 14 year olds without a penis”
Compare where we were 20 years ago? 10 years ago? even 5 years ago…
There will be some steps back, but there will be many more steps forward.
Maybe all bathrooms should be gender neutral? Just let any person go in the bathroom with only stalls, or the bathroom with stalls and urinals, based on whatever they want (people waiting in line, etc). Is that what we want? Is there any purpose to having split facilities?
edit: “the bathroom wars” sounds like it could be a star wars movie
@TooOld4School those are hate groups, so one can legally refuse service from them. I don’t see how the LGBT community is a hate group.
It was the case that student IDs couldn’t be used for government paperwork (employment) because the student ID’s did not have an expiration date. Now driver’s licenses in most states require so much more to get the ‘star’ (compliance with Real ID laws). We had to prove citizenship status in California and Florida with certified birth certificates or passports. The California license took 13 weeks to issue because it had all kinds of bells and whistles, holograms, two photos, special optics. Let me tell you how much fun it was to explain too TSA every time that the reason I was using an OOS license with a hole punched through it and a paper California license is because there was a back up with the new and improved licenses. Thirteen weeks. Then, two years later they started issuing them to non documented people but I think they look different. Florida was very strict and we used passports to get those but that star (red? yellow?) was very important.
There are a number of states not in compliance with Real ID, and are on notice that their driver’s licenses will not be accepted at TSA after a certain date. I know Illinois is one. Don’t give up a ‘good’ state ID for one that won’t be accepted at TSA…
So now you’re equating being LGBT with being a member of the KKK or a terrorist organization? Really?
How about you try replacing “KKK” and “Hamas” with “Muslim” and “Black” and see if your argument still makes sense to you.
@annana , what gave you that idea? Just because you don’t like a particular group does not mean you can refuse service to them under the same logic.
@anomander , I’m not sure how you made that connection. Obviously LGBT people are no more likely to be terrorists than the general population. My point was that no one should be compelled to perform an action against their religious beliefs. Do you mean 'Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake for a Jewish party?
My point is that coercive power is a double edged sword which you don’t want to grant government even for the most noble of purposes because it may be used against you someday.
Why would a Muslim baker object to baking something for a Jewish customer?
That may not have been your intent, but it was very clearly the obvious interpretation of what you wrote. Your analogy is no less innapropriate than the senator that said gay marriage would pave the way for people to marry their pets.
Yes, a Muslim baker should be required to bake a cake for a Jewish party. And in fact they are required by law to do so. The Jewish deli owner is required by law to make a sandwich for a Muslim customer. That is right in my eyes. It is also right in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
A baker of any persuasion is not required to serve a member of the KKK. Because members of the KKK are not a protected class. Neither is Hamas.
The religious argument was also widely made in support of racism. Today we don’t view laws against racial discrimination as coercion. And neither should we view such laws against discrimination of members of the LGBT community.
Did anyone see the 60 Minute’s story about the Harvard swimmer?
Unfortunately, because the Masters was on just before it, that portion of 60 Minutes did not tape. But I definitely want to see it.
For those of us who didn’t see it, can you summarize the points you remember ?
You guys are conflating two different things with the bakery scenario.
Let’s say I have a bakery. I bake my cookies and pies and I set them out and offer them at such-and-such price. I am legally required to sell them to anyone who walks in the door. I cannot sell this cookie to a white person but then refuse to sell the same cookie to a black person (or substitute religion, sexual orientation, etc.). This is why a restaurant cannot refuse to serve black people. This is why a bakery has to allow a gay person to buy the cookie just like a straight person, no discrimination.
However, the line becomes blurrier when you are “commissioned” for your work - when what you are doing requires customization and is your “artwork” for lack of a better term. If I have a bakery and people commission me to make custom cakes, I am not obligated to take all comers. I can decide that I want to take off Sunday, May 7 (or that I’m already fully booked for that day) and therefore I won’t accept a cake order that requires me to bake on that day. I can decide that my specialty will be wedding cakes and therefore I won’t accept orders for children’s birthday party cakes. I can decide that I only want to offer vanilla cake and not offer chocolate cake. No one can force me to “use my artistry” (so to speak) in ways I don’t want; if I’m willing to lose a customer because she wants chocolate cake and I only make vanilla, that’s my problem, not the government’s.
With that in mind, it is a slippery slope if I’m the Jewish baker asked to make a “Heil Hitler” or “You Go Hamas” cake, or a black baker asked to make a “KKK Forever” cake. I don’t believe I am obligated to take those on.
Look at it this way – I was a marketing consultant, but I was not forced to take all comers. If a gun manufacturer or a tobacco manufacturer or the National Right To Life coalition were to come to me and desire my services, I am perfectly within my right to say no, go find another agency. (And indeed we did so with certain clients that we were not comfortable serving.) The government has no business to “force” me to take them on as clients, when what I offer is a personal expression of my values. And that’s the argument being advanced by the bakers when it comes to CUSTOM work. They are not arguing that they should be permitted to not-sell the cookie to the gay couple. They are arguing that they shouldn’t be forced to commission work for the gay couple.
So guys, stop conflating the two things, OK?
[QUOTE]
Maybe all bathrooms should be gender neutral? Just let any person go in the bathroom with only stalls, or the bathroom with stalls and urinals, based on whatever they want (people waiting in line, etc). Is that what we want? Is there any purpose to having split facilities?
[QUOTE]
This strikes me as the ultimate result of this uproar. Eventually all public restrooms will become gender neutral because businesses just don’t want to deal with the legal/PR hassle. As a result a very small number of predators (and almost certainly not trans individuals) will find restrooms an effective hunting grounds. So large restrooms will default to all stalls increasing the waiting times for men especially since urinals are much more efficient. Many businesses will do two single person bathrooms instead of two small bathrooms with 2 or 3 stalls/urinals.
So net result eventually will be less bathroom availability/more waiting time and slightly higher risk of assault than if we just let everyone use the bathroom that matches their own gender identification.
Side note: I have come to love DC’s law that all single occupant bathrooms be gender neutral. It means much less waiting overall for me as a female.
I’m honestly confused about one issue.
How do we know if someone identifies as one gender or another, or with neither gender or both genders?
Do we have to take their word for it?
I am 100% comfortable using a men’s public restroom. I don’t identify as male, honestly I don’t identify as female either, I’m just a human. Yes, I am female by chromosomes.
Can I avoid arrest in a state that allows transgender people to use the bathroom associated with the gender they identify with, based on my beliefs about myself? Do I need some sort of professional to sign off on my beliefs?
As for the bakery thing, yes, I agree that commissioned work is different than standard fare. For example, you can’t force a restaurant to remake a dish gluten free, either they have a gluten free variation or they don’t. You can’t sue them because they have wheat products in all their breads. Yet celiac is technically a disability. But the accommodation, redoing their recipes to be gluten free, is not reasonable.
I can see how a religious person can say it is not a reasonable accommodation for them to work on a custom wedding cake for a same sex couple. That it infringes on their rights, not the right to practice their religion freely per se, but the right to offer reasonable accommodations, but NOT unreasonable accommodations. The law is reasonable accommodations for disabilities, I cannot see how anyone in the LGBTQA community can think they are entitled to MORE accommodations than a disabled person.
I would be completely for an ADA type bill that covers LGBTQA people. The key is reasonable, and certain things are always reasonable, like making sure the workplace is not hostile in terms of employer and fellow employee behavior, and other things cannot be reasonable, like having third bathrooms for people without gender identities if you are a small business that rents their space.