The idea you can still legally discriminate (in most states) with jobs, housing, etc. seems insane. Come on America get your shit together.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, August 24th, 2015 12:37am PDT - promote requested by original submitter eric3579.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by PlayhousePals.

I have to admit that I'm partially on the "wrong" side of this one.

Housing, not being fired for being gay, that kind of stuff, I'm with John Oliver 100%.

But restaurants, bakers, etc. ... I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Places like Big Earl's in the clip put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". I tend to think that is a right that we should allow private businesses (NOT things that are set up for the public good like utilities, gas stations, govt. agencies, whatever) to have.

That is NOT to say that I approve of the way that these clowns exercise that right. Dude doesn't want to make cakes for same-sex weddings ... fine. You're a retard, passing up potential customers for a really stupid reason, and also possibly discouraging business from other people that empathize with those that you are denying service to, but ... hey, it is your goddamn business. If you don't want to make a cake for people who's name starts with a Q, I'd support your right to make that (equally dumbass) decision.

Kinda the same thing goes for Big Earl's. That might even be one of the cases where the comfort of your standard clientele (redneck bigots) is potentially more important/beneficial to your bottom line than the potential lost business that your discriminating policy causes. In other words, from a purely capitalistic viewpoint, the policy might be a net positive to the business. Maybe.


The one thing that gives me pause on those more private businesses being allowed to "deny service to anyone for any reason" is shifting from LGBT equality to race equality. If that cake maker refused to make cakes for a black wedding, I'd be more accepting that we need some government intervention. I know that my opinion should be the same in both instances, but I can only honestly admit that at the gut level, I have a different reaction to those 2 scenarios.

I sorta think that even the racist cake-maker should be allowed to continue to be racist (so long as we're talking cakes, and not something more *necessary* to public good), because a racist cake maker will probably put themselves out of business without the need for any government intervention. BUT, I'm sure there are places in the US where that wouldn't have been true (and where it wouldn't be true today), and we needed the push of federal mandate to force such people to remove heads from asses. Maybe the same thing is true for LGBT discrimination.

But I do still feel conflicted about it. Even though I know I shouldn't.

@MilkmanDan, I get where you're coming from. I think that people should have a basic right not to implicitly support something they vehemently oppose, i.e. a eco marketing company shouldn't have have to support some climate deniers, or anyone at all shouldn't have to bake a nazi cake.

But as you pointed out with your race example, lines must be drawn somewhere. I don't support anyone getting to decide they won't serve people because of race or gender and for me, sexual orientation falls on the right side of the line? Don't want to bake a cake for a black wedding? Fuck you, if you fell that strongly, be prepared to be sued or imprisoned. And same for a gay wedding.

I think it gets back to the "ick" factor, @MilkmanDan. I think. See if this makes sense to you:

At the lizard brain level, if you are strongly heterosexual, same sex activity is repulsive to you -- triply so if you are a man watching male activity. It is instinctive, the revulsion, because it comes from the core of your non-verbal brain.

Even if you are completely in favor of anti-discrimination, you can still understand that instinctive revulsion and can sympathize.

The thing is -- that strong revulsion is in part due to not being exposed to the thing that repulses you. See it enough, have friends and family who are LGBT, that instinctive response gets muted.

And bottom line -- yeah. Private businesses who are open to the public cannot discriminate based on who you are.

Sidebar -- when I was in my early 20's, I lived in Los Angeles. It was at the beginning of acceptance of gay culture, which included what I can only label as "slumming." It was fashionable for heterosexuals to go to known gay clubs. This was deeply annoying to the gay folks, of course, because they were out to have a nice time on a Saturday night, not be essentially creatures in a zoo for entertainment value.

The clubs had a really clever way of dealing with it. The standard policy was -- no open-toed shoes. If you were truly friends and not gawkers, you would know to wear the right shoes. If you were a tourist -- well, most women out for the evening wore open toed shoes.

I was young and stupid and was one of those tourists. My friends and I were turned away. Everyone else was miffed. I was immediately impressed with the whole concept. Yeah. I SHOULD be turned away, and weren't they brilliant at finding a way to do it.

I can still see the sneer on the face of the bouncer. He did NOT like us. That was 40 years ago and I still admire him and that business for protecting themselves from us gawkers.

IF a mom and pop restaurant, cake maker or landlord desires to not server you that is their right.

I am sure that there are many other cake makers and restaurants to choose from.

Take you business where is is welcome and give them you business.

Should you be fired for being gay. No not unless it interferes with you job duties.

Well put bob. Well put.

Not torn at all here. They utilize the resources of a stable society then they have to provide their services to all their members without basis of discrimination. The other way of looking at it is this. Do gays and lesbians have the option to avoid paying taxes on this business owner's benefits? Ie., he probably went to public school, his water bills are artificially low, the roads that are serviced so people can get to his place, the police provided to protect and prevent crime in his area, etc.

If gays and lesbians can opt out of paying taxes for anyone who could potentially deny them services (ie, as of right now everyone) then they wouldn't have a problem.

Gonna say Oliver wasn't very witty here. He kind of just used the "equality is a no-brainer you assholes!!!" mantra and went with it. And while that might be true, the problem with his model of effect is that the subject makes him look like just another "argurer" for lack of a better word.

Meaning others have said what he has said just as good as how he has said it. And that means he isn't saying it in any special kind of way--like he normally does.

And if you replace gay with black? (or Latino? or Irish? or Chinese?)

Still ok with it?

What if you live in a small town and there ARE no other places to live or shop?

Yeah, allowing anybody to discriminate against gay people is the same as allowing them to discriminate against black people. It's just shifting society by 50 years or so. The exact same arguments were made regarding racial discrimination back then.

Hmmmm.
So if I read this right, you're saying the way to resolve the issue of some people being denied full inclusion in society is for them to be allowed to remove themselves FARTHER from the rest of society?!?
If I'm reading you right, I think you miss the point completely.

That I suppose too depends, just like the gays,

I would suppose if the blacks, Latino or Irish came in looking all thug like or the gays came in flaming gay then I would be probable to deny service.

If these groups came in dressed civilized and showed manners that the community is accustomed to then why would you not serve them.

Surly there is a town down the road.

Then act appropriately according to the societal norms of that town.

You're avoiding the question.

No-one is saying you can't deny an individual service if they are being abusive.

I'm talking about a perfectly polite gay couple who want a cake for their wedding. If you believe that it's ok to deny them service based purely on their sexuality, then you must agree that it's fine to deny a black couple based purely on their race.

So you're either a racist or a hypocrite.... which is it?

Likely because race discrimination is something that lost acceptance generally a long time ago, and LGBTetc discrimination is still quasi-acceptable. I'd say that anyone who lives through a period of acceptance of the previously unacceptable experiences the dissonance between the old way of thinking vs the new.

Think about the reaction to a white guy calling someone a nigger in public vs a faggot (depending on where they do it of course). One would get a much stronger reaction than the other despite the fact they they are both offensive.

And I do tend to agree with the general cut of your post, I'd guess that most people would see discrimination against race as black and white (no pun intended), ie. it's not allowed under any circumstances, whereas discrimination re: sexuality is more of a grey (or rainbow) area.

Ultimately though, it's not like refusing to serve a disorderly customer, or refusing to employ a convicted felon. Those people are judged by the choices they make, not by who they are in the core of their being.

I really hate big government and PC bullshit, but I'm a huge fan of equality for all in the hopes of getting to a place where you don't need to legislate acceptance of people for who they are, it's just a default setting. But since that's usually a generational change, if a government is going to have anti-discrimination legislation that means anything, it should actually be across the board.

The idea here is not to take people out. Straights would never "allow" this. It is like saying we need to petition to go back in time to unelect Obama before he got into office! Spend as much time and money as necessary! You get the point. It is a facetious argument.

Hell, "if" it did happen (Which it can't) every billionaire would file for a gay-cemption immediately. The Koch brothers would be claiming dick-mouth exemptions immediately.

In fact I passed this before a few conservative "thinkers" and they were pretty defeated. "Oh wait, you'll take gay dollars and put them in the government to support baking cakes but you won't take their dollars to make a cake directly?"

Not trying to avoid. Being black and being gay are different. One is a choice and a sin, religiously speaking. . The other is just being.

From a mom and pop business point of views:
The gay cake guy decision is based on Religious grounds. That like demanding a Muslim to serve you a pork sandwich and a beer. Denying on these grounds is acceptable. His house his rules.

The black couple can"t change their color ( unless you are a Jackson) . I do not believe there is discrimination / sin for being a different color in the Bible.

To say some are born gay I do not buy. I do agree to a point that some men are born less manly and lean into the gay lifestyle. Same for women.

From a GOD point why would GOD allow this? I do not know. All he does is provide you a choice to accept and follow or reject. WE all get judged.

Can I stand here and say I am better than a gay or a gay couple. No I can not. I sin like everyone else, I just call sin for being sin. I just don't try to change the standard ( the Bible) to suit my lifestyle.


Why should you be forced to serve someone who represents the opposite for which you stand? That would be like hiring an MSNBC who writes pro liberal articles for hire and then asking to hire Chris Hayes , Al Sharpton to write a pro Conservative piece. Then sue when they refuse. That is what is being done to cake makers and such who refuse gays.

I'm going to skip all the "gay is a choice" bollocks (hint: it's not, and when did you decide to be straight?) and focus on this.

Simple answer: because you're allowed to stand against this anymore in a civilised society.

Aww, is your freedom to be a bigoted homophobe being taken away? Too fucking bad.

This is 2015. You don't get to stand against homosexuality anymore, just like you don't get to dispute women having the vote or black people being allowed to ride the bus.

It's over. You lost. Deal with it.

You'd be right at home in North Korea.

Civilized societies don't go around letting people stick dick up each other asses.

Funny thing about you liberals is that you are all tolerant towards other views unless its is different. And in this case all you got is slandering homophobe. What a pile of trash.

People like you are a minority and gays are even less. If you want to be gay, play gay, preach gay go ahead but don't expect real people to capitulate to your errors in thought.

Apparently the game is not over, not even close. This depate will go on for decades, just like the abortion debate.

Yeah, they do.

And funnily enough, no, I'm not tolerant of your homophobic, racist nonsense.

In case you missed it, the fucking Supreme Court told you to get over it. For fucks sake, Ireland (previous winner of the "most catholic place on the planet" 70 years running) legalised gay marriage.

So yeah, the game is over, your team lost (in fact, they got utterly spanked). You're just the spoilt kids throwing a temper tantrum on the field while the rest of the civilised world has gone to the bar.

Eventually, it'll start to rain, and (like you did with slavery and women's rights) you'll come to the bar and feel embarrassed that you made such a dick out of yourselves in the first place. Luckily for you, by that time, we'll be drunk and in a good mood, so we'll forgive you.

All men must choose and you choose purgatory.

As a gay man, I would like to not feel like a second-class citizen by being turfed out of a restaurant because the owner doesn't like my sexuality. But at the same time, if I were a baker who was asked to bake a cake for a KKK rally, I would like to be able to refuse. I genuinely don't know which one of those rights is more important to me.

Oh no!!

Will Santa Claus still visit me there? Or the Easter Bunny?

Maybe the loch ness monster will be there! Or a republican presidential candidate with an IQ above 50....

I would have said it's pretty simple.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age or sexual orientation. End of story.

Political ideologies, ethics, etc. are fair game.

When you close your eyes for the last time you will indeed find the answers as will each of us.

Hedging you bets cost so little and returns so much.

Are you sure you don't want to hedge your bets or will you become the betting fool who lost everything?

Ahh, Pascals Wager, eh?

The ultimate in moral cowardice: don't live your life as a good person for it's own sake. Do it because scary sky father says so.

No thanks. I'll continue to treat people as decent humans regardless of who they love.

And on the off chance I end up in front of your god when I die, I will ask him who the hell he thinks he is to judge me.

Every knee will bow, Every tongue will confess.
Philippians 2:10

You wont have the balls to challenge GOD. You will be weeping pleading for mercy.

Oh, go away and take your imaginary friend with you.

Pride before the fall.