Certainly not my type of music, Owen. I was just interested if there was some equality in the way a person/group was trying to turn away business for religious reasons. It appears there is some inequality, and you said you are not ok with that. I am not either . I also see their actions as discriminatory.

As for it being important if a person was going to use that service for me to have an issue with it is not material. I am not planning on using a wedding cake bakery or wedding florist either.

Geojanes,
Would you say that the choice to not provide flowers for a homosexual wedding is a religious issue to the provider of a service? Is that the same thing you were saying? (I don't want to misconstrue what you are saying...)

All I am saying is either have NO discrimination, or let EVERYONE make the choices on who they serve for themselves.

bbauska wrote:All I am saying is either have NO discrimination, or let EVERYONE make the choices on who they serve for themselves.

Because 'all' and 'nothing' are the only two valid choices. You may live in a reductive binary world, but I do not. If you can't discern the differences between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination, then I would understand your position. But I don't believe you really are that unaware.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:All I am saying is either have NO discrimination, or let EVERYONE make the choices on who they serve for themselves.

Because 'all' and 'nothing' are the only two valid choices. You may live in a reductive binary world, but I do not. If you can't discern the differences between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination, then I would understand your position. But I don't believe you really are that unaware.

Actually, I think I may have figured out why this is not an issue for many. I would lump this in the same block as the NAACP/NAAWP, affirmative action for some, and now this issue.

Apparently it is ok for the dominant portion of culture to be treated at a lower standard in the hope that the non-dominant portion will be raised to a higher level. I do not think that way.

I try everyday to treat everyone equally based upon their actions, not the color, race, gender or sexual orientation. Perhaps our view of equal is different, I can discern the differences between "fair and unfair". I am of the opinion that all should be treated the same, not some better than others.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are just unaware.

danivon wrote:Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are just unaware.

If you are trying to explain what I think and am aware of, you probably are.

You do know what 'maybe' means?

Discrimination is not itself good or bad. Employers will 'discriminate' against unqualified candidates for.jobs. A voter will 'discriminate' against candidates that they disagree with.

Discrimination can be fair, or unfair. When you demonstrate that you can tell the difference between 'discrimination' and 'prejudice', then perhaps we can discuss where the line is and should be.

Danivon,
I am not trying to be belligerent, so calm down.

To me it is the same thing to not allow a person to see a concert because they are a male for religious reasons, as a person not being allowed to buy a cake for a gay wedding from a bakery for religious reasons.

We don't agree. I am not in a tizzy about it. I just wanted to find out what you thought about it. To you it is not a big deal, but your don't approve.

Thank you for your opinion. I apologize that I was trying to find out more about your belief system.

I am perfectly calm.

I believe there is a difference between discrimination and prejudice. I believe your simplistic, all or nothing view is inadequate for the real world.

Noted

As you are in a listening mood, perhaps you could consider whether it is 'discrimination' to avoid a band's output because you don't like their style of music?

I would say it is, but that it is fair discrimination.

And let's query where these exmples compare to the case against Barney of New York, whixh used racial profiling to the disadvantage to customers. Which are the most unfair? Or is racial profilong the same as not liking alt-rock?

When I said noted, it was to your explanation... Nothing more.

In answer to your question:
Barney's is wrong for racial profiling
Bulletproof Stockings are wrong for not allowing a male to attend their concerts (I think you agreed to that)

You can get into the varying shades of grey (I hear there are 50! ), but all I am saying is that both are wrong.

It has nothing to do with the style of music and/or my desire to/not to see them (I think people have choices they can act upon).

If Bulletproof are allowed to choose who they serve their music to, I see that as discriminatory. (Not as much as baking for a gay wedding, but discrimination just the same). All I wanted to see is others thought the same thing.

Apparently I have seen...

It has been my experience people in the law and order field tend to typically see things in terms of black and white, and not see gray areas (or maybe that is not the right description--they may see the gray areas but they don't think that they are significant or are deserving of being exceptions to the rule.) Hard to enforce the law if you start wondering if this person or that person is not really deserving of being punished because of a law. The law is the law. Anyway, there are pluses and minuses to seeing things that way. I disagree with the argument that all forms of discrimination have to be treated equally, but I don't think it would not a huge deal if all forms discrimination because of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. were eliminated, if the black and white crowd got their way. Far more troubling is the idea that the government need not exclude discrimination by private parties, as that would cause a lot of injustice.

Freeman, that is a very astute point you have made. I was did maritime law enforcement for 20 years and I attribute much of my way of thinking to that career. It was not my job to see why something was done. Leave that up to the judge...

All I wanted was to find out how others saw things and if they thought it was similar to the gay marriage wedding cake issue because of a religious basis of the exclusion.