I've always been conflicted about anti-discrimination legislation when it comes to private businesses... I believe that certain private businesses (like, for a famous example, a bakery/cake shop) should have the right to deny service to anybody for any reason...could be because they're gay, could be because they're a Philadelphia Eagles fan. But hospitals? Government employees being able to refuse to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples? People being denied employment because of their sexual orientation, or admittance into a university because of their sexual orientation? That's all ridiculous. This is some backwards-ass shit.

(November 17, 2016 at 5:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, they -already- complain about that sort of shit.  You don't even have to discriminate, just disagree, or fail to kowtow.

Yeah, like with red cups at starbucks.  I imagine they'd really lose it if someone put up a sign at their place of business reading "No Christians"

I know I'll probably suffer the backlash but has anyone actually read the bill? I've read the summary.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-cong...-bill/2802

You can get the full test from the site.

(November 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I know I'll probably suffer the backlash but has anyone actually read the bill? I've read the summary.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-cong...-bill/2802

You can get the full test from the site.

Yes. My understanding is that contrary to what someone else said earlier in the thread, that it wouldn't extend to denying Christians or Blacks under religious grounds.  

How much it can do to protect people who have religious beliefs that don't condone homosexuality isn't something I'm immediately aware of.  

It seems to imply that Public and Private sectors are protected.

No matter how you slice it, it seems pretty shitty though.

No denying things based on religion or race, but sexual orientation and marital status, which still means nearly everyone.

So, if a doctor hates Muslims, for example, they can deny an unmarried Muslim man HIV treatment, citing this law. Just say it's about having premarital sex, not his religion, and bam.
Basically, only straight married monogamous people will be protected from discrimination. Everyone else is up for grabs, since we know most people do have premarital sex. And if you are stepping out on a spouse, it opens you up to discrimination action as well.

Let me know if I'm getting this wrong, but that is how it appears.

P.s. hillary haters please tell me again how she would have been equally bad??

(November 17, 2016 at 4:49 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: ..Nobody's saying you have to love gay people Drich, you just don't get to refuse to serve them for being gay.  You very obviously do not love gay people.

Dripshit only loves himself.  Miserable prick.

Civil Rights Act 1964. Don't think the proposed legislation will over ride. Title VI might be impacted some what. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Where is our resident attorney?

(November 17, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Aroura Wrote: No denying things based on religion or race, but sexual orientation and marital status, which still means nearly everyone.

So, if a doctor hates  Muslims, for example, they can deny an unmarried Muslim man HIV treatment, citing this law. Just say it's about having premarital sex, not his religion, and bam.
Basically, only straight married monogamous people will be protected from discrimination. Everyone else is up for grabs, since we know most people do have premarital sex. And if you are stepping out on a spouse, it opens you up to discrimination action as well.

Let me know if I'm getting this wrong, but that is how it appears.

P.s. hillary haters please tell me again how she would have been equally bad??

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."  --FADA

I'm not sure.  I'm also not a legal scholar!
But, it seems pretty undeniable that the bill eschews the rights that the LGBT community, and I, would argue they have.  
That last part "that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage" sounds to me like you are right about denying health care for HIV that is transmitted outside of a heterosexual marriage./Other similar circumstances

(November 17, 2016 at 5:50 pm)A Theist Wrote: How about this. Yeah, man. Now check out Luther Perkins on the Telecaster. The '50s were the greatest.

That's an Esquire, not a Telecaster. Notice the lack of a neck pickup. Granted, the picture quality in this clip is poor enough that a potential neck pickup could have blended into the pickguard, but, having seen what I think was this same guitar in the Ash at the Johnny Cash Museum in Nashville in 2014, and knowing that one gear site pointedly states he never used a proper Tele, and a higher quality picture of the same guitar clearly shows no pickup, I feel safe saying it's an Esquire.



That said, there's nothing wrong with the Esquire. Syd Barrett, Jeff Beck, Bruce Springsteen (technically, he had his modded with an added neck pickup), and to a lesser extent Paul McCartney and David Gilmour all used them, and, thanks to that, given the choice between a Telecaster and Esquire, I'd personally pick the Esquire in a heartbeat. Of course, that's just me.

Also, Rockabilly is a bad example of why the 1950s were great (at least from your perspective), not because it's not great (I love it), but because it was treated as a threat to the status quo (or, at least, what the Powers That Be wanted the status quo to be,) in no small part due to the relatively brazen sexuality that was so shocking that Elvis could only be filmed above the waist on the Ed Sullivan Show, and because of its heavy influence from the Black blues performers of the area, to the extent that the thing that led Sam Phillips to sign Elvis was that he sounded a lot blacker than most white singers of the day (and even a few of the black singers, see The Ink Spots, Johnny Mathis, and Nat King Cole,) and if he became famous, it would normalise the very much "other" Black culture.

Quote:"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."  --FADA

Poor uptight jesus freak motherfuckers.  Such despicable pieces of shit.