Dana Rohrabacher says its OK not to sell homes to gays - Polidicks

Text doesn't carry inflection.

I'd like to give you an earnest response. I understand that you're saying gay people might be better off living in areas where they're accepted instead of discriminated against by their neighbors. However, "separate but equal" discriminatory segregation does not work. The US has a long history with segregation of communities, which only reinforced existing prejudice. Civil rights for any group only improve when they are vocal in their communities and their right to be a part of them.

Isn't he just doing that to piss off westboro baptist church?

It does oh so many times with the exact same ammount of words.

I mean probably yea, but I don't think that matters. I think the message here is, "If you wanna fight you're gunna have to do some pretty un-Christian stuff now that we're literal neighbors." Like, anything the WBC does but ignore them would only make themselves look like the bad guys so it's sort of proving that you can coexist. Fighting fire with honey if you will.

There's a reason why people use /s. If ya haven't noticed, FP has had its fair share of stupidity. So you better damn well use /s

Haha of fucking course he's from Orange County

The back pedaling excuse is the shitiest thing I've ever heard of when people don't get a post.

Its owner's property, owner's call. Why is it a problem that you don't need to sell home to someone you don't want to

...

Part of living in civilized society is sharing equal rights with everyone else who contributes to that society. These behaviors extend further than the impact of a single individual's home sale; this discrimination would, in some communities, see common HOA policies make it impossible for affected individuals to find employment compatible with decent living conditions. Your right to a hateful worldview does not morally override a gay person's right to buy land in a town of their choosing.

its such a tough time being a corporate person these days. on the one hand, you want the republicans because they'll give you tax breaks like a golden shower, and never ever regulate you so long as you obey their sharia law, on the other hand you don't want to piss off everybody else by supporting those xenophobic religious nuts

What really should matter in the end is the buyer's ability to pay. "Pecunia non olet" and all that

And what if nobody wanted to sell you a house in the town you had a job in just because you were a Pole? Or a Jew? This is why it isn't the property owner's decision.

Why would the tennant need to disclose their sexual preferences?

Conversely, as a gay person, should you be able to decline your services to a member of the WBC for example? I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue to be honest. On one hand I find discrimination against LGBT or other minorities reprehensible, but on the other hand, I can understand why you'd want to, for example, refuse to make a cake that says "Heil Hitler/Gay people go to hell" or whatever, and I honestly have a hard time coming up with a good justification that isn't just "Nazis/WBC are bad". I guess members of the WBC would even be part of a protected class (religion), right? And even then, why's there such a hard line between religion and politics? Both are personal beliefs, and I'd argue some people hold their politics as close to their heart as religion. While I think it's quite obvious that discrimination against gay people is bad, I think it's less obvious how you can justify it in principle.

Refusing to sell a property to someone based on their sexual orientation will most likely be seen as illegal under the fair housing act.

Yeah, to be honest I'm not really interested in what the law says - I'm asking about the principles behind it. Should you be able to refuse an LGBT member? How about a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? A radical Christian or Islamist? Why, why not?

Being gay or trans is an inalienable trait of a person. Affiliation with a religious group is, on the other hand, not intrinsic.

So you'd be alright with businesses discriminating against, say, Muslims? Or any other religion for that matter. I personally wouldn't find that acceptable.

On the contrary, I am against that.

Yeah well, I'd assume so - but then that is inconsistent with your first post, so that can't really be the (sole) moral justification for it.

In your post I first replied to, you mentioned religious radicals. I would be fine with any moderate person of faith, it's the extremism that makes the difference.

So how do you define extremism? Is it extreme to be against gay marriage even though a substantial portion of the country holds that opinion? Is it extreme to believe that non-believers, apostates or LGBT people go to hell? These are all pretty common beliefs within major religions, and even if you think these are somehow obviously all extreme/not extreme, you’d definitely be able to find other areas where your answer would be less clear.

Dude, my stance is if you're saying or doing things to hurt people, or spreading harmful ideas, people should be allowed to choose to not take you on in business. I hope that's understandable because I don't wish to mince words.

I really don’t think we’re having remotely the same conversation here, and that’s fair enough. Wasn’t trying to rule you up.

In the world of selling property such information like religious belief or sexual orientation is irrelevant, it isn't the same as a business selling someone a product. The seller has no right to that information and if they do somehow find it out and use it to refuse a sale then that would be illegal. Whereas a cake shop being asked to bake a cake with "God hates faggots" written on it has every right to refuse that sale if they find that offensive, they can't refuse it based solely on the customers religious beliefs but if they want the business to do something clearly offensive in the name of their religious beliefs then the sale can be refused on that basis.

I think that the question is, how do you define harmful ideas? Depending on the person asked, the response to that question could wildly vary.

@RainbowStalin beat me to it, but I don't think the hypothetical cake shop should be able to refuse service to the WBC either. Let's expand the example by making it a cake shop regularly expected to produce wedding cakes with the little figures on top. It's a product and service being offered, that ought be available to anyone. The act of producing the cake for a customer does not inherently demonstrate support for gay marriage: it shows respect for the individual freedoms that come with (or should come with) living in the US. Offering service to all is the responsibility that comes with operating a business. The business operators should be mature enough to handle serving customers they don't like, and that includes sticking two "groom" figures on the top of the cake. This is not the same thing as making a cake with a political statement written in icing, which would be a different story. In the case of the WBC, that means serving them but not agreeing to write "god hates fags" on the side. In the case of a gay couple, it means serving them but not agreeing to write "god loves gays".

I think this is a pretty good answer, but I'm not quite satisfied with the difference between a written statement and the symbolic one - two grooms atop a cake may not say "God loves gays", but marriage itself is between the couple and God, so wouldn't that symbol in itself imply that God endorses gay marriage? A statement the baker might disagree with? Now the inverse of that example is fairly ridiculous, since I doubt very many gay people think a straight couple shouldn't be able to marry - so at least that shows that this is more of a one-way than a two-way street. E