All Things LGBTQ+ (13 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[Paul]

Speech that is part of a public employees job. See my previous post.

I mean seriously, do you think a government employee can use racial/religious epithets directed at another employee or a person being given services by the government and not face discipline or termination? Really?

No disagreement.
Are these the questions?

 

[V Chip]

No disagreement.
Are these the questions?

Some of them, yep.

 

[brandon]

Sure, but the government cannot compel speech.

Subpoena says hi.

 

[DaveXA]

Subpoena says hi.

Something, something 5th amendment.

 

[brandon]

Something, something 5th amendment.

Yea but the argument was that the government can’t compel speech. They can.

The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination, but otherwise a judge can absolutely force you to testify against your will or put you in jail if you don’t.

 

[SystemShock]

Yea but the argument was that the government can’t compel speech. They can.

The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination, but otherwise a judge can absolutely force you to testify against your will or put you in jail if you don’t.

Of course, nothing makes you sound as guilty as saying "I refuse to answer because my answer may incriminate me"

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I agree with everything you just said....crazy, I know.

But, what happens if you slip up and call the lady the with Adam's apple and beard a 'sir' by mistake? You would be cool with a fine by the police for your slip up in good manners?

I'm not familiar with the laws imposing criminal fines for such behavior but I have no doubt you will cite them to me.

 

[Paul]

I'm not familiar with the laws imposing criminal fines for such behavior but I have no doubt you will cite them to me.

It is unconstitutional to force people to speak in a given manner. We have accepted that when working for an employer a person may have to use certain words if that is part of the job description. However, outside of a job a free citizen cannot be forced to utter words he or she does not want to say.

 

[brandon]

It is unconstitutional to force people to speak in a given manner. We have accepted that when working for an employer a person may have to use certain words if that is part of the job description. However, outside of a job a free citizen cannot be forced to utter words he or she does not want to say.

I guess you have me on ignore, too, as I’ve already shown you that courts routinely compel speech.

 

[bird]

I would think a pious religious Muslim or Evangelical employee may have an issue in using some of those pronouns. Remember the Christian baker?

I try not to remember that case.

 

[bird]

It is unconstitutional to force people to speak in a given manner. We have accepted that when working for an employer a person may have to use certain words if that is part of the job description. However, outside of a job a free citizen cannot be forced to utter words he or she does not want to say.

Weeellll, if said words fall under the category of, say, cyber bullying that person can, in essence, be forced to utter words that are not cyber bullying. So, yes, government can and does coerce certain actions whether you or anyone else likes it or not. ALL laws are attempts to modify behavior. Government cannot force you to talk, rendition sites excepted, but it can force you not to act in specific ways.

 

[Paul]

Weeellll, if said words fall under the category of, say, cyber bullying that person can, in essence, be forced to utter words that are not cyber bullying. So, yes, government can and does coerce certain actions whether you or anyone else likes it or not. ALL laws are attempts to modify behavior. Government cannot force you to talk, rendition sites excepted, but it can force you not to act in specific ways.

Yes, I agree , but freedom is diminished. The issue is this opens the door for more restrictions. What if people are offended by the low birth rate and someone comes up with the idea of banning birth control.

 

[SystemShock]

What if people are offended by the low birth rate

Irrelevant

and someone comes up with the idea of banning birth control.

Like no one has? LOL

 

[brandon]

What if people are offended by the low birth rate and someone comes up with the idea of banning birth control.

Yikes.

 

[bird]

Yes, I agree , but freedom is diminished. The issue is this opens the door for more restrictions. What if people are offended by the low birth rate and someone comes up with the idea of banning birth control.

Access to birth control is already under attack.

Define freedom.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Paul

I hope you don’t like Hobby Lobby, because if you do, I have some bad news…..

 

[Paul]

Access to birth control is already under attack.

How about banning birth control due to low reproduction rates? Would that be ok if the majority or the state wants that?

Define freedom.

There is no 100% freedom. However that is no excuse to favor authoritarianism.

 

[not2rich]

It is unconstitutional to force people to speak in a given manner. We have accepted that when working for an employer a person may have to use certain words if that is part of the job description. However, outside of a job a free citizen cannot be forced to utter words he or she does not want to say.

Except Farb would have us believe that calling a "she" a "he" could result in a governmental fine, so maybe you need to explain the Constitution to him.