see I think the sort of person who bases their opinion on laws is probably a bit wishy washy anyway and maybe didnt [sic] have firm beliefs either way.

Or perhaps once they saw that the world didn't end and their lives continued on as always when the laws were enacted, they began to realize that perhaps they had been wrong and people are just people who are 99% the same.

What's puzzling and still rather amazing to me is that some participants in this discussion still think it is about cake. Or dogs. Or the color of someone's skin or his or her sexual orientation. Or religion.

"Trance…your analogies are way off. One chooses to be a dog owner. what is protected by the government are things people have no control over and are BORN with "

But I got this dog when I was 14 so when I went to rent years later I had no control over it. For me, keeping my dog (who was my family) was a much bigger deal than whether or not I got a particular cake from a particular baker, you know? I didnt rent a place and then decide to become a dog owner. You might think keeping or getting rid of a pet is a choice, but not everyone feels
that way about their pets, once you have them, getting rid of them is
simply not a choice for many people. And likewise, is it ok to refuse to rent to unmarried mothers because they werent born with children and had a choice? (but the homeowner believes children might draw on walls or be messy or damage stuff too?)

The point isn't about dogs, it's where do you draw the line with laws and how far do you take it? and this is part of what beagles was saying too, is it ok to discriminate against a dog owner (who feels their dog is family) not based on facts but beliefs? is it also ok to discriminate against having a disabled tenant because someone BELIEVES they may not be capable of keeping the house/apartment clean and in good order? or only if they weren't born that way? Is it ok to discriminate against single parents because their kids MIGHT break things and draw on walls? the possibilities are endless and it's not that cut and dried as being born a certain way or having a choice. Once you start making laws and getting involved in non govt areas about beliefs, then how do you include some beliefs and not others? Then the arbitrary nature of what is ok to discriminate against and what isnt becomes discriminatory in itself.

One issue tibbrix, is that some people insist that sexual orientation is not inborn and that people make a conscious choice not to be heterosexual. As if, somehow, they are just contrary.

But like I said before, if even a small minority came forward and said "I am heterosexual because of conscious choice and I had to make a conscious decision to love my wife/husband instead of someone of my own gender or a dog or tree", I might start to think about their argument a little bit.

"Or perhaps once they saw that the world didn't end and their lives
continued on as always when the laws were enacted, they began to realize
that perhaps they had been wrong and people are just people who are 99%
the same."

I personally don't think laws are what gave acceptance to gays and lesbians. I think it was when they started to come out of the closet. I remember back in the late 70s/ early 80s (at least where I live), straight people had no clue who was gay or lesbian. It wasnt until gays and lesbians started to come out that we realized they were all around us all along. I remember in high school hearing George Michael was gay and it was such a shock to teenage girls everywhere who swooned over him. I think in general much of society went from total ignorance, to uncomfortable facing it, to just getting used to it. I doubt many people gave it much conscious thought because some law was passed. I just think it came out of the shadows and just wasn't treated like a secret society anymore that straight people were IMO largely ignorant of. That was my experience of it anyway.

Doesn't matter, Pal. People can insist that sexual orientation is determined by the day that person was born, or by any absurd rationalization they come up with to justify their nonsensical beliefs. Here are the problems with that stupid argument, that people choose their sexual orientation:

1) Ask any heterosexual if they CHOSE to be straight and when they made that decision. I guarantee, you will get a 100% response that they were born that way, they did not choose it, and the thought of boinking someone of the same gender is revolting to them;

2) ask any gay person the same thing. They will tell you that no one would CHOOSE to be gay, considering the misery gay people have been subjected to;

3) the only time anyone "chooses" to "be gay" is probably in prison, where there is no alternative. But that isn't even "being gay". it's being sexual and exploiting all that is available;

4) What I tell those dummies is, "If you believe people choose to be gay, then that means that sexuality is a choice we're all born with. That means YOU were born with the CHOICE to be gay or straight, but you CHOSE to be straight. But that also means you were born with the choice to be gay, which means you were born both gay and straight but you simply CHOSE to ACT sexually in a heterosexual way for moral/religious reasons but that, barring those restrictions, you could get it on with someone of your gender just as easily as with someone of the opposite sex.

They'll look at you like you've got two heads, and you'll see the little wheels in their heads start spinning as they try to figure out how to answer the FACT that THEY did NOT choose to be straight, that hey were born that way an couldn't be gay if God Himself told them to be so, and the argument that based on their argument, ALL people are born with the option of being gay or straight, which means they are born that way, themselves included.

It is as absurd to say that someone chooses to be gay as it is to say that anyone chooses to be straight.

However, most non-activist gay people came out after they could no longer be arrested simply for being present in bars or clubs known to cater to gay people, or there was less chance of losing their jobs simply by being identified as being gay.

Gay people used to be arrested for congregating in a bar and dancing together. Women used to be arrested for wearing too many articles of male clothing. When they were arrested, their names would be published in the paper in order to shame them, their employers would find out, their families would find out and sometimes they would lose their jobs or be disowned. They were arrested more as a form of harassment than anything else, but people would end up committing suicide in the holding tank or after they were released. There was one notorious incident where someone jumped out the back window of a club rather than face arrest and was impaled on an iron fence. I believe he survived but the fence had to be cut apart and he was taken to the hospital impaled.

Most people did not come out voluntarily in this period, the majority of people who came out at that time already had nothing to lose. They came out after there were already some bare minimums of protection in place.

Right. and who would CHOOSE that???

Absurd. We're such a spoiled lot, Americans, that we've come to believe that just WANTING to believe what we WANT to believe makes it legitimate.

you can't 'see' sexual preference tho for the most part so it is not like discrimination of blacks, gender, many ethnicities, some handicaps... if I was gay and went in and ordered a wedding cake for my wedding, how the heck would the baker even know it was for a gay wedding-- even if I had my partner with me?? I can't imagine saying to the baker, 'oh, by the way, we're gay' or 'oh by the way, this is for a gay wedding'.... I guess some couples go into the bakery together, fawning all over each other to order a cake....? I didn't buy my own wedding cake tho and never set foot in the bakery that made it, but maybe this is something that is done often?? as a couple??? I don't know.

if a gay person walked into any establishment of any kind, unless he or she was announcing that he or she was gay as s/he entered or was known by the 'shop', that person wouldn't be discriminated against... I have been lots and lots of places with a girlfriend- haven't ever been asked about my sexual preference...

i don't live in a small town bible belt area tho, but if there was a fundamentalist or whatever extremist type of business owner who didn't want to serve me or my type for whatever reason, i don't think i would ever want to step foot in or support his establishment, even if he was forced to serve me... to be honest, i would be afraid a closed minded or radical baker would spit in my cake... then what??? after enough lawsuits, cameras would have to be installed in every kitchen to make sure this type of hateful behavior didn't take place or catch it if it did... i don't know... maybe I'm just naïve....

"However, most non-activist gay people came out after they could no
longer be arrested simply for being present in bars or clubs known to
cater to gay people, or there was less chance of losing their jobs
simply by being identified as being gay."

I do agree with you pal in that it wouldn't have been possible for gays or lesbians to come out while it was still illegal etc. I think decriminalizing homosexuality was necessary but that's a whole different ball of wax to suing and sending a baker out of business because he didn't want to provide a cake for a gay wedding. I think most of the population gets discriminated against in one form or another at some point but a lot of the time it's over pretty trivial stuff that we can get over. I've felt discriminated against, been treated like a stupid woman more times than I can remember when I was younger. I've been sexually harassed in probably 3 different jobs, I've had my ass grabbed by numerous guys in public, and as disconcerting as it was, it was just the times I grew up in, no lawsuits, no cops, no big hoo hah, just deal with it and move on. I just dont think every wrong has to be righted and I think sometimes it can just have more of a backlash in some cases.

I believe that whether someone is going to be more willing to accept diversity or not is actually installed at a very young age and it is largely learned through the examples taught at home and school. My father was in the Navy and said the men on the ships had to get a long in very tight quarters regardless of culture or background, so he instilled acceptance in us at a very young age. One of his many favorite saying was "walk a mile in their shoes first" which I think everyone should do before they judge someone.

More than anything, laws make exposure more available and the more one is exposed to something the less uncomfortable it may become. The same would hold true with the legalization of pot. Honestly, I don't know how I feel about it, it reminds me of prohibition and I'm sort of sitting on the fence watching. But there are a lot of people who are going to be more open to the options surrounding pot (ie as in medical) because it has been somewhat legalized and there is more exposure out in the open.

It's so easy to be dismissive of discrimination when it hasn't happened to you. Trance, I'm sorry that you've suffered sexual harassment. It's your choice to do or not do anything about it, but there are laws that protect you from it, should you elect to avail yourself. Just because you didn't sue, etc., doesn't mean that everyone should just accept discrimination and move on.

I wonder how many people can freely admit that just the thought of two guys or two women together creeps them out? That's really what this is about.

Trance, that is NOT sexual harassment! And to say that what you experiences is "not big deal" and "just the times you grew up in" is a copout. Fact is, unless you invited the butt-grab, it was assault (battery, actually), which is ILLEGAL.

Sexual harassment is not an act of a butt grab or any one action. It is a pattern of repeated hostility via sexual innuendo, physicality, etc., with an implicit threat that you will lose your job or otherwise suffer some consequences if you don't submit.

Anyone who thinks that sort of thing should be legal and those subjected to it not protected by employment laws is out of their mind. I was also sexually harassed and was FIRED for not going along. You think that's nothing? Believe me, it was NOT nothing.

Atomic, I totally admit that the thought of two women or two men "together" completely creeps me out, so I honestly try to not think about it, also because it's none of my darn business what other people's legal, adult, consensual sex lives consist of.

But you know what? The thought of two straight people going at it pukes me out too. I just don't spend my time thinking and imaging in OTHER people's sex lives. Sex is such a personal thing, which is what makes it not pukey for the couple engaging in it. But objectively, it's creepy to sit around imagining ANYONE doing it!

Btw, you'd think it'd be the Libertarians defending gay marriage as it involves two consenting adults of sound mind making a decision for themselves. So if marriage between two consenting adults is tantamount to liberty, they are therefore absolute no different than two heterosexual adult individuals who've made a sound ,adult, consensual decision to marry.

"you can't 'see' sexual preference tho for the most part so it is not like discrimination of blacks, gender, many ethnicities, some handicaps... if I was gay and went in and ordered a wedding cake for my wedding, how the heck would the baker even know it was for a gay wedding-- even if I had my partner with me?? I can't imagine saying to the baker, 'oh, by the way, we're gay' or 'oh by the way, this is for a gay wedding'.... I guess some couples go into the bakery together, fawning all over each other to order a cake....? "

Seriously? I think it is a matter of awareness, sure some gay people or couples are less obvious than others, but it isn't because they aren't fawning over each other. The whole point though is that it shouldn't matter. It's about acting as any professional should and keeping one's personal opinions separate from their business life. People in the business world are required to do it ALL the time and so should the baker.

I also don't buy into the logic that it's ok for that baker to totally disrespect someone just because she says, I'm Christian and therefore allowed to judge you; because being Christian makes me special. And that is exactly what she is saying. I also don't get why people have this need to justify their actions or believe system with a proclamation that they are Christian to begin with. Who cares? Actions speak much louder than words and what really matters is how one lives their life as a whole and treats ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS in the process.

Tib and AJ, may I join you on the patio for the glass of wine? :)

Lukki, want to join us?

yeah, anita hill too, right?

protection against discrimination in the work place is entirely different...

geez, if we're talking about what 'creeps out' some people, the list could be endless!! biracial relationships used to thoroughly disgust some people (probably still does some), obesity, certain sexual acts regardless of sexual orientation, kissing/being kissed by a dog on the lips..... the list could really be endless about what 'creeps people out'...

"Trance, I'm sorry that you've suffered sexual harassment. It's your
choice to do or not do anything about it, but there are laws that
protect you from it"

thanks jay but this happened a long time ago, like I said it was just the times, and yeah, sexual harassment didn't even really have a name back then (that I recall). It was just the way things were, back then, you would just find another job if it was too much to deal with, times change.

"Trance, that is NOT sexual harassment! And to say that what you
experiences is "not big deal" and "just the times you grew up in" is a
copout."

Tibbrix, the butt grabs weren't at work, I had no idea who these guys were, it would happen from time to time out in public (some guy walking past decides to grab my butt and give it a squeeze or slap). If I'd gone to the cops at the time Im sure I would have been laughed at. but as far as Im concerned it's in the past.

I did get sexually harrassed at a few different jobs though, usually it was easier for me to just leave and find another job. Maybe Im just a dinosaur and you all are younger than me and dont remember things being that way :)

Tib and AJ, may I join you on the patio for the glass of wine? :)

Cyn, let me pull you up a chair.

Hey trance - but aren't you glad the "new crop" doesn't have to tolerate that behavior in the workplace anymore? I hear what you describe and imagine a scene from Mad Men. I'm certain your only choices back then were to accept it or move on. But isn't a good thing that today there are laws that prevent this from happening to women in the workplace?

Busybee - glad you made mention of kissing a dog. Was certain someone was going to make the comparison eventually. Why is protection in the workplace entirely different from protection in commerce? What is your reasoning??

Pours Cyn a glass of wine.

Trance, nothing has changed in terms of what you are describing, the behavior. Indeed, the only thing that has changed is that now there are remedies (other than the non-offender having to "just find another job").

And thank goodness for those remedies.

aj- relationships are often much more intimate in the workplace... I think homophobia can affect the workplace more easily than in places of commerce. people's fear of aids didn't help the gay population at all, esp in the workplace... sometimes people aren't aware of their coworkers' sexual orientation, but I think often times in shops and restaurants it isn't apparent.... in shops you're handing over your money and in places of work you're earning it, therefore less chance of discrimination (I would think)...

I don't think kissing the dog is a comparison at all, but is a very real thing that creeps some people out...

aren't you glad the "new crop" doesn't have to tolerate that behavior in the workplace anymore?

Uh huh, yeah:

"Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."

Nothing like that happens anymore, nope, never.

My new BFF is a lesbian, I just gave my cat a peck on the lips, and would love to join you guys for an adult beverage out on the patio.

"Hey trance - but aren't you glad the "new crop" doesn't have to tolerate
that behavior in the workplace anymore?"

of course, that should go without saying

" I hear what you describe and
imagine a scene from Mad Men."

haha, ok, Im not that old that I was working in the 60s ;)

writersblock - I said the behavior doesn't have to be tolerated, not that it doesn't happen. Female scientists and all.

trance - I was trying to tread carefully on the Mad Men reference for fear of exactly that! Please accept my apology.

I AM that old (well almost-working in the early 70s). Even then, what you describe Trance would not have been okay with those of us who came of age in the 60s and considered ourselves feminists. Any stranger who "grabbed my butt" would have gotten a very hard elbow jab in his ribs. No one I knew or worked for would have ever considered that to be appropriate behavior.

cyn, Im not in the US so it's likely things weren't quite the same here. Im talking late 80s here and where I live (aust) it was part of the normal culture. That doesn't mean it was ok or comfortable or welcome then either, but it wasn't something you were expected to make a big deal out of, and I honestly don't remember "sexual harassment" even being part of the vocabulary back then (and yes, wolf whistles by construction workers was still the norm). I suspect the US has always been more of a grounds for political activism (including feminism) but in other countries not so much, I think these things just eventually filtered through to other places, but at a much later stage since other countries have far less activism.

trance - such an interesting perspective from an outsider looking in. I'm going to have to satisfy my curiosity and research what the laws re: sexual harassment and sexual orientation are in Australia.

linelle - forgot to tell you I've pulled up a chair for you as well. There are plenty of seats here. ;)

I'd better call a cab. This thread made me start drinking two days ago.

Linelle, that really did make me laugh out loud!

Thanks for the invite Cyn, am I too late? I would love to join for that glass of wine! Needing one for each hand right about now. :c)

Seriously. I am outside DC and the door is always open to all of you.

Cyn, we're neighbors (DC suburbanite here). While I'd love to join in for a glass of wine on the patio, it's much too hot and humid out there today!

Thanks, Cyn - and the same offer to you if you happen to make it out to New Mexico!

Sonoma County wine country, just sayin'.

Sonoma County wine country huh... are libertarians invited or are you practicing discrimination ;)

Beagles, we are a tolerant people. We'd be bereft without you.

I guess the time limit is up on editing my original post. Here is the article I mentioned, but could not find at the time. The Duggars: How Fundamentalism's Teachings on Sexuality Create Predatory Behavior

Allison, i read your link and it rings very true----not just for the Duggars, but for other people i have actually known of that ilk.

Lena Dunham was 7.

Duggar was 14 when it started, and one of his victims, his own sister, among 4 sisters he molested, was 4 years old. A toddler.

This was NOT a case of teenage experimentation, nor curiosity.

Have you read the "security" measures the parents took to keep him from molesting those girls?

When they built that big house, they purposely put his bedroom on the opposite side of the girls bedroom. Furthermore, they placed their own bedroom next to the girls so that he would have to go by that room to get to the little girls room. Not that any of that did any good.... they eventually placed locks on the girls room.

Not a problem for him, he just started molesting them if they fell asleep on the couch, molest them if they were awake on the couch.

The girls were thereafter never allowed to go to the beach or a pool for swimming... too much temptation and too hard for him to not look.

Mind you, the bathing suits they wore look like something from the 20's....

No more hide and seek. I imagine Tag would be out as well.

Oh, and he was no longer in charge of putting the girls to bed. No babysitting, either.

'Course, the parents never admitted what he did was molestation. um hmm

The article in Allison's link is very interesting, and supports the obvious. Secrecy, denial, and repression do not make for healthy sexual expression.

I'm going to clarify my statement above that people took exception to:

Religious beliefs are not rational, ipso facto, because they are beliefs based on faith, not reason; understandable and totally fine, and I know quite a few very religious people who are rational, of course. My poorly worded statement was really meant to say:

Religious extremists are nuts.

And I stand by that.

According to "breaking news"???? reports on Facebook, a girl (a non-relative) Josh Duggar molested is bringing a civil suit against him and those who counseled him.

Edited to add thos link.

One would think with his past they wouldn't have put the family on TV. Secrets never stay secret.

I don't think it has anything to do with being religious why he molested those girls-I think he is just a child molester and I worry about his own daughter(s). It's funny how some people on here are clinging on to that aspect. One out of all those children had a chance of being one, or some kind of mental illness anyway, IMO.

Being from the Bible Belt I have known PLENTY of very religious people and other than being very strong on their beliefs, none I have heard of has molested children. Some of their children, when older, have rebelled and become wild, etc. but not child molesters. Child molesters come from all walks of life!

A guy I went to high school with went to prison about 20 years ago because of molesting his daughter-guess what?? He wasn't religious! What happened to him? He had wonderful educated parents and siblings (his sister was and is still a very good friend of mine) who was SHOCKED this happened. Made us all sick when it came out. He got out after 10 years-I believe once a child molester-always a child molester-they are sick in the head forever. Just my thoughts.

edited to add: Until after reading the above article, I didn't even know what religion the Duggars believed. I have never known anyone who practiced that one in particular-sounds way out there-but I would not lump all Fundamentalist religions in with that one. There are a lot of Baptists-Assembly of God etc. in my area who are considered Fundamentalist Christian and I don't think it's fair to say they are anything like the Duggar's. As a matter of fact, all the Baptist and AofG I know, aren't close-minded about sex-maybe they were at one time-like most religions and people in general, on the whole use to be years ago-but not so much anymore.

Ruling in Cakegate....

Religious extremists are nuts.

But what is extreme? Extreme to you? While no one condones the Duggar behavior, calling people nuts is not productive to discussion.

I recall a very nutty post about tattoos and pain. I thought it was nuts, but didn't post.

acknowledged.