Saturday, July 4, 2015

Apparently Tolerance Only Goes One Way

The comments in this MinnPost article are a gift that just keep giving.  Thoughts? Would you stand up for your beliefs like this gentleman or would you cave to the pressure?
"An East Tennessee hardware store owner decided to express his beliefs following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing same-sex marriage by putting up a sign that reads, "No Gays Allowed." Jeff Amyx, who owns Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies in Grainger County, Tennessee., about an hour outside of Knoxville, added the "No Gays Allowed" sign on Monday, because gay and lesbian couples are against his religion. 
Amyx, who is also a baptist minister, said he realized Monday morning that LGBT people are not afraid to stand for what they believe in. He said it showed him that Christian people should be brave enough to stand for what they believe in. 
"They gladly stand for what they believe in, why can't I? They believe their way is right, I believe it's wrong. But yet I'm going to take more persecution than them because I'm standing for what I believe in," Amyx said. 
On Tuesday, Amyx removed the "No Gays allowed" sign and replaced it with a sign that says: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion."" Jason

"Persecution. It sounds like he did it to raise the issue, not to stop selling shovels to gay people. "They gladly stand for what they believe in, why can't I? They believe their way is right, I believe it's wrong. But yet I'm going to take more persecution than them because I'm standing for what I believe in," Amyx said." 
His point being that the "tolerant" LGBT supporters would persecute him into bankruptcy while demanding that people should have the right to live as they wish. Which is the same point I have been making." G2A 
"That's what it "sounds like" to you? "No gays allowed" is pretty self explanatory. That means don't come in, you're not welcome. He was in no danger of being persecuted into bankruptcy before he put up that sign. All he had to do was to extend goods and services to everyone which is why he went into business in the first place. Now, he just painted a very large target on his back, and I look forward to reading about the closing of his business in the weeks to come. I'm sure that if he has any kids, they'll be very forgiving of the fact that he'll no longer be able to send them to college because he decided that a segment of society was beneath him." Jason


"So do LGBT Supporters see this gentleman as beneath them because he does not wish to associate with people who possibly practice sodomy, oral sex and other behaviors that he finds objectionable.

I guess I don't see disapproving of someone's choices. beliefs and behaviors as seeing them "beneath themselves". Or do PETA folks see farmers as "beneath them"? Do Liberals see Conservatives as "beneath them"? Do Greenpeace folks see timber jacks as "beneath them"?" G2A

67 comments:

John said...

An interesting story...
And Now They Hug

Anonymous said...

I generally oppose economic boycotts. I go to and enjoy Clint Eastwood movies, and my plumber is a Republican.

--Hiram

John said...

All excellent examples of freedom. No one is forcing you to do business with the Republican plumber.

Anonymous said...

I think the question comes, if it does come, when there is an issue of reasonable accommodation. What if the plumber is the only plumber? What if the electric company is the only electric company in town? Does it have the freedom to deny electricity to a gay wedding?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

To answer one of your questions, yes, liberals believe they are intellectually and morally superior to conservatives; it is essential to their worldview.

As for the original story, I find it somewhat amusing. "No gays allowed" in a hardware store makes me wonder HOW on earth the owner would enforce his ruling. Are there things in the store that only gay people would buy, because you cannot tell just by looking at them as you could with those of another race. It's almost a parody on the wedding services problem. Most vendors would happily sell you a cake or flowers, until you tell them it is for a GAY wedding. What is the reasonable accommodation here, and who makes it?

John said...

In our politically correct world I think this is such an over blown argument. I can not imagine there are many business people who would risk alienating more than half their customer base by denying services to LGB crowd. And as I have said before, how would most business owners even know unless the couple is openly flaunting it.

As for transvestites, they are in a tougher spot. Especially those that are obviously in a state of transition. Shelly is one of my local cashiers and he/she causes me to think about this when I am in that gas station. Nice guy/woman though...

John said...

Jerry,
I suppose it is the same challenge faced in the office. As soon as the couple holds hands, puts up a picture of their family, etc, the cats out of the bag.

Then becomes the question of who's rights trump who's.

As I said, I think the guy was just trying to express his frustration that the LGBT supporters are very very intolerant of people who believe and live differently.

Anonymous said...

liberals believe they are intellectually and morally superior to conservatives;

Is that the same thing as thinking we are right? In any event, true as that might be, I have sat through enough speeches and sermons explaining to me in great detail how I am intellectually and morally inferior to know that hubris is not limited to one side.

Actually, as a relativist, I personally don't believe my views are either morally or intellectually superior or inferior; just that they are different from those of others. I am often surprised at what people see as a moral issue. I find it surprising and very odd for example that people perceive a religious and moral dimension to the baking and serving of wedding cakes.

--Hiram

John said...

"that hubris is not limited to one side"

That we can totally agree on. The farther Left or Right the speaker, the worse it gets...

Anonymous said...

I like to think of myself as pretty far left, but I don't think that makes me morally superior to anyone. And I have listened to a lot of centrists explain to me how I have gotten everything wrong.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

This topic is just dumb. The guy will likely lose his business. I wouldn't shop there.

John said...

Laurie,
Excellent !!! That is freedom !!!

You don't agree with his beliefs and behaviors, you don't shop there... That is the freedom of association that people like him want, yet the LGBT supporters do not want to let him have it.

To reverse the situation, how would you like to be forced to shop in his store because otherwise you will be branded a close minded bigot and a group of people will work hard to ruin your life and livelihood.

Sean said...

Do you understand why we have public accommodation laws? We allow individuals to establish corporations -- and give them preferential tax treatment and protection from liability -- because it benefits society. But part of the deal those corporations make in return is not to discriminate.

If you can't handle that deal, then don't open a business that serves the public. It's that simple.

John said...

Same point different day... LGBT folks are not protected by Public Accomodation law in every state yet...

"Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[2][3] The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation."

Wiki Public Accomodation Laws

LGBT Map

Anonymous said...

I do think this criticism of the left as viewing itself as intellectually superior is an example of projection. I don't really view my positions as all that dependent on any intellectual process. And the fact is, people like me are often criticized for that. I often hear on the right wing media how my positions are based on emotion, not reasoned analysis. Right wingers frequently tell me how their positions are based on logic, something I view as just another way of telling me that they are intellectual or smart. My positions aren't particularly logical, indeed I don't have much use for logic, which I view as a very limited analytical tool.

In terms of projection, since the right values intellectualism more than the left, and sees the conflict in that way, it seems logical to them, (there's that concept of logic again), that those who disagree with them, must see themselves as intellectually superior. As sound and as compelling as that logic might be, I don't think it's true.

--Hiram

Sean said...

Again, John, the question becomes, if you allow people to have a religious opt-out on LGBT folks, how do you justify not giving them the same religious opt-out on other classes of folks?

The fact that "this is what the law says" doesn't mean it's right. The law used to say women couldn't vote and that some people counted as 3/5 of a person.

jerrye92002 said...

"...that those who disagree with them [conservatives], must see themselves as intellectually superior." -- Hiram

No, liberals view those who disagree (by reason of logic or otherwise) as MORALLY inferior. Obama has made such statements often, that those who oppose him "just don't understand" or "dislike people not like themselves." He is intellectually and morally superior, make no doubt of it, and millions think like he does. There is such a thing as a principled and logical liberal, of course, and sometimes the weaker horse wins the race, too.

John said...

I keep saying it, but it seems to be something that you are willing to sanction.

It is uncertain at this time if one "is LGBT" or if one "is choosing to live the LGBT life style".

A person's race, sex, nation of origin, age, physical abilities, pregnancy status, military history, etc are all black & white.

Living the LGBT lifestyle is technically a choice no matter what we find out later about the physiology and psychology. LGBT people could choose to stay single or live in a "heterosexual lie".

If one is Black, they can not choose to be White. Somedays I wish I was 40, but that has come and gone. I am sure that people trapped in wheel chairs wish they could walk, and the blind wish they could see.

My point is that until science confirms that LGBT is a physiological condition, it is very different from person's race, sex, nation of origin, age, physical abilities, pregnancy status, military history, etc.

The LGBT supporters want to deny this simple reality because they already believe that one "is LGBT". Which today is something like believing in God given the lack of science behind the belief.

That is why I find it so ironic that the LGBT Supporters and Religious Right are fighting over this and trying to force their will on the other. The whole while accusing the other of trying to limit their freedoms.

Laurie said...

If I owned a business anyone could shop in my store and this is still a dumb topic. Your logic convinces no one but yourself, John.

btw, how old were you when you chose to be straight? Was it a difficult decision?

Anonymous said...

No, liberals view those who disagree (by reason of logic or otherwise) as MORALLY inferior.

If one is prone to seeing conflicts in moral terms, it seems to follow inevitably that those who disagree with that person's views must view that person as morally inferior. It's kind of a tautology and like all tautologies, it's both true and uninteresting. In this case what we have is another instance of projection. As a liberal myself, I have often sat through lectures and sermons the topic of which seems to be what a moral wreck am I.

But liberals are also criticized for being relativists, which among other things, suggests that liberals don't tend to see issues in absolute moral terms, and are therefore disinclined to see issues in purely moral terms. During the sermons and lectures that go into such detail about my own moral faults, I am not sitting there thinking the guy making them is somehow immoral for believing what he does. More often than not, his views are quite valid. I just happen to disagree or in many cases simply don't share them.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"My point is that until science confirms that LGBT is a physiological condition, it is very different from person's race, sex, nation of origin, age, physical abilities, pregnancy status, military history, etc."

To you, it is. But there is nothing in the law that requires us to only recognize physical characteristics -- and in fact, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, we protect many other things that are choices (like a few things you have in your list above).

Why should we as a society tolerate the sort of discrimination that LGBT people have faced over hundreds of years? Why should a person's sexual orientation prevent them from renting an apartment or holding a job? Do you really believe that forcing a hardware store owner to sell lumber to a gay person is a worse indignity than what LGBT people have faced?

John said...

See... You did it again...

"discrimination that LGBT people have faced"

You are an absolute convert to the LGBT religion... You truly believe they are "LGBT People", not just people who "choose to have relationships and creative sex with people of their own sex". Alleluia Brother !!!

Societies have/will always determined what are acceptable behaviors within their boundaries. Ours is in the process of deeming same sex relationships and their creative sexual behaviors as normal and socially acceptable. Of course some folks are still going to think of sodomy and oral sex as deviant and unhealthy for our society.

Just as you balk at the idea of polygamy being normal and socially acceptable. Our society's norms and values are changing, that is always hard.

John said...

An interesting spin...

Why should we as a society tolerate the sort of discrimination that polygamists have faced over hundreds of years? Why should a person's personal relationships and behaviors prevent them from renting an apartment or holding a job? Do you really believe that forcing a hardware store owner to sell lumber to a polygamist is a worse indignity than what polygamists have faced?

Sean said...

"Of course some folks are still going to think of sodomy and oral sex as deviant and unhealthy for our society."

Some people still think that African-Americans and women are inferior and that Jews are the source of most evil in the world. But we don't tolerate that sort of nonsense.

Sean said...

"Why should we as a society tolerate the sort of discrimination that polygamists have faced over hundreds of years? Why should a person's personal relationships and behaviors prevent them from renting an apartment or holding a job? Do you really believe that forcing a hardware store owner to sell lumber to a polygamist is a worse indignity than what polygamists have faced?"

1.) Do you have evidence that polygamists have faced this sort of discrimination?
2.) Do you have evidence that polygamy does not create social harm?

John said...

By the way, my answers to your questions are:
- In certain cases.
- To honor the religious and association freedom of the landlord / business owner. My parents used to be very hesitant to rent to unmarried couples because it meant they were supporting them "living in sin".
- Not worse but similar. And selling lumber is not the problem, since the business owner would not know who is gay... It is the wedding services and personal services when people are forced to interact closely with people and activities that they are religiously opposed to.

John said...

1) Polygamists can not get legally married and can not publically celebrate their LOVE. Same problems LGBT people had.

2) No idea. We have not tried it in our society, with our legal protections, etc. Can't be much worse than all of the single parent families that we have raising kids in poverty with limited parental involvement.

Social Harm?

Sean said...

So is it your suggestion that same-sex marriage will increase promiscuity among the LGBT community? Or are you just expressing your own homophobia?

John said...

Now that is desperate, slipping back into name calling.

I am just pointing out that homosexual LOVE may not be as harmless to our society as the converted preach. But with freedom come risks, so I am ok with it.

It is typically a Liberal desire to try to protect everyone from everything while sacrificing personal freedoms and efforts/rewards with an excessive amount of laws, regulations, oversight, bureaucrats, welfare, etc.

Sean said...

"I am just pointing out that homosexual LOVE may not be as harmless to our society as the converted preach. "

There's nothing about HIV, as a disease, that makes homosexuals more susceptible to it. That's why I made the comment that I did.

John said...

Argue it with the CDC.

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. Read more about prevention challenges for MSM and what CDC is doing to address them in HIV Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men."

Sean said...

Again, there's nothing about HIV, as a disease, that makes homosexuals more susceptible to it. There's a higher rate of incidence in homosexual communities, which is different. Just like there's a higher rate of gonorrhea in African-American communities, and American Indian communities have higher rates of hepatitis.

jerrye92002 said...

"Again, there's nothing about HIV, as a disease, that makes homosexuals more susceptible to it."

PMFBI, but that formulation is backwards. There is Something about homosexuals that make them more susceptible to this particular disease. The disease doesn't care who it infects, but apparently finds more opportunity in some groups than others.

jerrye92002 said...

As for polygamists, they were and are discriminated against. Utah was not allowed into the Union until they outlawed it, and there have been recent prosecutions.

jerrye92002 said...

And I'm tired of all of this demand for tolerance. One of the things that holds a society together is a thing called "social norming," where those who choose not to abide by society's "norms" are, at minimum, looked at askance and sometimes partly ostracized. That is "discrimination" in the good sense of the word, and to demand that society tolerate something it does not (yet) tolerate is-- pick a word-- I'll say fascism. It's tearing us apart.

John said...

FOX News Same Sex vs Religious Freedom

John said...

We are at a tipping point.

"those who choose not to abide by society's "norms" are, at minimum, looked at askance and sometimes partly ostracized."

Before it was the LGBT folks who were ostracized, now it is becoming the religious right business owners. Will you be okay with these new norms?

John said...

Sean,
" There's a higher rate of incidence in homosexual communities, which is different."

If there is a higher rate due to specific behaviors within a community due to their high risk behaviors. Encouraging more of the behavior will put an additional cost on society.

It is not right or wrong, it is just a factual trade off.

Just like your belief that making polygamy socially acceptable would have negative consequences.

jerrye92002 said...

I am curious. Now that gay marriage has been legalized, and for some time in a number of states, what percentage of gay "couples" are getting married, compared to straight couples? Perhaps the outrageous few pushing this "new normal" only want to make noise? Is it like the theory of legalizing marijuana, where the "forbidden fruit" loses its appeal when it is no longer forbidden? If you can't outrage "polite society," then what is the point?

Sean said...

"If there is a higher rate due to specific behaviors within a community due to their high risk behaviors. Encouraging more of the behavior will put an additional cost on society."

Does same sex marriage encourage or discourage promiscuous behavior?

Sean said...

"Before it was the LGBT folks who were ostracized, now it is becoming the religious right business owners. Will you be okay with these new norms?"

The only folks being ostracized are people who are refusing to serve the public. There's a very real difference between saying "I disagree with your lifestyle because I think it is a sin" and "No gays allowed".

jerrye92002 said...

We seem to have vastly different perspectives on the issue at hand. First of all, the extreme example of the hardware store owner who posted the "no gays allowed" sign has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It was a momentary and facetious slap at the recent SCOTUS ruling, which found a heretofore unknown and completely unwritten "right" that trumps the clear commonsense and Constitutional rights of free expression and free association. And the "public accommodation" laws can be seen as an attempt to enforce some authoritarian version of morality, when the natural consequences of cutting off some segment of your customer base should be sufficient, especially given changing cultural norms, to serve the same purpose by mutual agreement and understanding. Apparently a simple victory isn't enough, the rest of the population must be FORCED to buckle under and "get their mind right."

John said...

"Does same sex marriage encourage or discourage promiscuous behavior?"

I think making the GLBT life style socially acceptable will likely increase the number of people participating in the life style. (ie more players, more risk)

Since the choice to be monogamous has nothing to do with being legally married, I think it will have minimal to no effect on promiscuous behavior. It will be interesting to see what the stats on LGBT marriage/divorce show after a few years.

John said...

I always find it interesting when the "public accomodation" argument comes up, since it does not apply to LGBT folks yet in most States.

Public Accomodation Map

Sean said...

"I think making the GLBT life style socially acceptable will likely increase the number of people participating in the life style. (ie more players, more risk)"

If same-sex attraction will be proven to have a biological component, as you've said you think will happen eventually, why would this be the case in any significant amount?

Sean said...

"I always find it interesting when the "public accomodation" argument comes up, since it does not apply to LGBT folks yet in most States."

So what? It used to not apply to race or gender, either. If we took your logic, nothing would ever change because that's just the way it is.

John said...

I only mentioned the societal risk/cost because you were saying that main streaming LGBT had no societal cost, and that main streaming polygamy had a higher cost. Not a big issue to me either way, since I am a motorcycle rider who once in awhile neglects to wear my helmut when tooling around close to home.

With Freedom comes Risk. I have no desire to try to legislate away all risk and societal cost.

John said...

"So what"

Whenever an LGBT Supporter brings up the Public Accomodation laws, they talk like it is already the law of the land all over the USA. The reality is that the citizens of the USA are still struggling with how to best balance the LGBT and Religious Freedoms. I simply think that it is wrong to ignore the will of the citizens in each State just because the LGBT Supporters believe their view is morally superior.

Sean said...

Should we allow states to vote on equal rights based on race or gender or religion? If not, why not?

jerrye92002 said...

That is three different things. Two are constitutionally ordained rights. The third was proposed but never ratified, thankfully. And marriage has nothing to do with any of them.

John said...

No.

Bill of Rights and Amendments

Sean said...

John, what in the Constitution -- specifically -- supports your view of race or gender or religion versus LGBT civil rights?

John said...

Sean,
Race, Gender and Religion are specifically mentioned in many places, not so for LGBT.

Now if the LGBT supporters could get an amendment passed, that would be a true sign that our society is fully ready to accept a change in our social norms. Do you think that could happen today like it did for women and racial equality?

Unrelated... MSN CO Cake Case

Sean said...

Race and gender are only specifically mentioned in the amendments that gave them the right to vote. The basis for their protection under anti-discrimination law is based in the 14th Amendment, which doesn't specify protected classes.

John said...

Then how about we get the Federal Public Accomodation Laws updated. Surely their is enough societal norm support to get them improved. Yes / No?

Sean said...

Polling has showed support for such a provision, but the party currently controlling Congress has no interest in passing such a change.

John said...

When our society is ready, Congress will be ready. It is coming in time.

Sean said...

It's easy for you to be sanguine about it -- it's not your ox being gored.

John said...

Yes. Thankfully I do not have a dog in this fight.

One of my core beliefs is that we can influence our happiness and satisfaction by what we focus our attention on.

For example, my wife and I have serious differences in a couple of areas... So I could focus on that ~5% of our relationship and be miserable, or I can focus on the ~95% where we are strongly aligned and just accept the differences and her as she is. (ie unconditional love...)

For ~215 years LGBT people in America had to live in fear, during the past ~24 years they appear in sitcoms, are in fashion, have the right to marry and are protected in almost half the states.

I guess I would advise you spend more time focusing on the celebration while continuing to apply slow steady pressure.

jerrye92002 said...

We seem to be reducing "discrimination against LGBT" to the single notion of legal marriage for gays. Bisexuals can already get married, so that doesn't matter. One assumes a legal name change for a fully-"T" could also get married. Gay couples right now can find any number of churches willing to conduct a ceremony for them, and a lawyer can grant them almost everything else, EXCEPT society's approval and government benefits. So, what's this really about? Most folks I know were willing to live and let live, but trying to cram acceptance down their throats makes them less accepting, not more. Like the title says, tolerance needs to be a two-way street or traffic jams up.

jerrye92002 said...

Let's put it this way: my LGBT friends are entitled to exactly all of the tolerance I am willing to give them, and no more.

John said...

Just curious.

Playing the Devil's advocate, would you be okay if business owners refused to hire you, cater your event, rent you an apartment because you are a "Homophobic, Anti-Government Services, Anti-Environmental Protection, etc Conservative"?

Thoughts?

John said...

By the way, you will now tolerate gay marriage...

It is now the law of the land...

John said...

By the way, just to make sure I did not hurt your feelings. I put those nasty labels in quotes to imply that that is how a far Left business owner would likely see you.

Just as many of the far Religious Right see LGBT people as "Sinners" who are not to be associated with or aided in the unnatural behaviors.

jerrye92002 said...

"... would you be okay if ..." Wildly assuming that you meant that comment in my direction, I would say I would have to be "OK" with it because that is the way liberals treat "my kind" today, when they think they can get away with it. It's certainly not unheard of to be ostracized by one's "betters" when your conservative proclivities become known. Surprisingly, I don't know many [committed] liberals in business, so the "wedding cake" scenario doesn't seem to play out in reverse.

John said...

Of course I was talking to you, my other Conservative commenters got scared off by that big mean Laurie. :-)

So you wouldn't be tempted to sue or ask for legal protections if you got fired for having a small picture of Reagan on your desk at work? You would just accept that that is the cost of living a openly Conservative lifestyle. Now that is a stoic personality...

As Sean has mentioned LGBT folks have been fired for doing nothing worse than putting a small photo of their significant other at their desk. Which personally I think is wrong and needs to be stopped in most cases.

jerrye92002 said...

I would EXPECT to be fired for a Reagan picture, or a Trump T-shirt, if I worked for the Hillary campaign or for Al Franken's office. On the other hand, I wouldn't think it right to be fired from, oh, say, Mozilla Corp. Oh, wait...

As far as a lawsuit goes, conservatives suffer from rather rigid ideas of right and wrong, while liberals are allowed to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them, regardless of who is "right" on the issue and regardless of whether or not such destruction is morally wrong.