LGB NewsOut.com: There's a Reported Rise in Discrimination Against same-sex Couples

submitted by Taln_Reich from out.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 9 insightful - 13 fun9 insightful - 12 fun10 insightful - 13 fun -  (1 child)

What about against same gender couples?

[–]usehername 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the problem with redefining words that have established definitions.

[–]davids877Straight Male Man 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As usual, the T 'agenda' works its way in: " LGBTQ+ people are still facing discrimination from some business owners, according to a report from NBC News. Same-sex couples... " what the hell does TQ+ have to do with same sex couples, literally nothing in that article is about TQ or +.

I can sort of understand the cake case where the line between compelled speech and artistic expression comes into play. But a tax preparer, no, he needs to get sued back to the stone age.

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The actual article is about businesses refusing marriage-related services to married gay couples under a claim of religious exemption.

[–]fuck_reddit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I’ll be honest, i think it’s extremely bone-headed to try and force businesses to provide services. It only breeds resentment.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Registered tax return preparers are federally credentialed by the IRS. As with pharmacists and other health-care providers who have to obtain a state license to work in their professions, if they don't want to play fair and provide such basic, necessary services equally to citizens of their state, they should find another line of work, not be a non-viable business for a select, arbitrary subset of their fellow citizens.

https://irs.treasury.gov/rpo/rpo.jsf

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There are a lot of professions which require a license. That doesn’t make them public employees.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's both true and not my point. They benefit from the public trust in licensed professionals. People cannot make up licenses privately that carry the weight of one issued by the state. If you want that privilege, then you shouldn't be discriminating against people while you profit from it.

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Conversely, the state shouldn't license people to do jobs, because it opens up opportunities like this to compel action because they bEnEfIt FrOm ThE pUbLiC TrUsT. The idea that the government is superior in licensing individuals is nonsensical.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Welp, you should tell that to the government then. :-) All of them, everywhere.

And why shouldn't the state compel people performing essential services to comply with a mandate to not arbitrarily discriminate? Have you never been in a group that was subjected to this? (I ask this rhetorically, because I have not kept track of anything you've shared about your background, but you sure do sound like someone who has been insulated from a lot of the types of harm that others here haven't had the luxury of avoiding. Are you seriously cool with the state rubber-stamping self-important nitwits who think they have the prerogative to deny services that all people in a society at some point might require? Because, I'm not cool with that. And I don't know anyone else who is either. So I can't relate to this sentiment.)

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not gonna get into a competition of suffering, however, I support people's right to discriminate economically because half of the source of hatred is a false sense of oppression on the part of the oppressor. Additionally, I don't want to give my money to a homophobe or racist or sexist, so I would like them to be open with their views so I can avoid them like the plague. I don't like people who discriminate, but in the end, I would prefer for them to change their ideas of their own free will, not be forced to conform by a society that they will grow to hate. I'm not saying you have to agree with my sentiment, I'm just saying that in the case of sexuality, it's the law in the US, and I - for my part - desire it to stay that way because of its long-term implications.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, this response makes me think we are talking past each other, but I'm a little too spent at the moment to figure out how. Will try to remember tomorrow.