Luna Bliss

I would not discriminate...I would slice 'em up and throw them in my virtual oven just like any other RL animal....

That was a silly, hyperbolic comparison yes, but your lack of awareness as to what takes place during discrimination by labeling it as "hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, so sale for you" is equally silly, and abusive due to your lack of empathy for people who are discriminated against.

As a side note, it looks like there are some avenues one could pursue: Federal Law Although federal laws protect people from workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. (Federal government workers are protected from such discrimination.) In recent years, however, some courts have been willing to extend protection to gay and lesbian employees by holding that they were victims of illegal "sex" discrimination for not living up to gender-based stereotypes. Based on these cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agency that enforces federal antidiscrimination laws—has taken the position that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily a form of sex discrimination because it involves gender-based stereotypes of how men and women should behave and with whom they should be in romantic relationships. The EEOC is accepting and processing sexual orientation discrimination claims from employees, and in 2016, it filed its first two sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits on behalf of LGBT employees. Whether sexual orientation is protected under federal law is a complicated and unsettled area of the law, which will ultimately be up to the courts to decide. For now, however, the EEOC is accepting and pursuing sexual orientation discrimination claims. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sexual-orientation-discrimination-rights-29541.html

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you." Regulating safety is fine, but once you start telling people who they need to allow on their property, you're starting to violate their rights. Whether we like it or not, commercial/business property is private property. Private property does not/should not trump every consideration. I know Libertardians think it should, but they're wrong. Once an individual or business decides to use their property to benefit from society they need to be subject to SOME control from that society. The issue is not about an individual they may hate 'standing' on their property and whether they have the right to remove them from said property -- the issue is about the goods and services society needs. They made a choice to enter into this contract with society when they decided to sell to it, and yes they then need to give up some of their freedom due to that choice.

When they decided to sell their goods from a private home/place of business they entered into a contract with society, and so society should have some say in what they are doing. For example, would you allow them to put poison into their goods just because they're doing it from a place they own? Of course not...because when they decide to sell and benefit from society they need to accept some regulation from that society, because this is the fair thing to do -- both parties need some control here.

You obviously haven't looked too deeply at the origins of religions. They are seldom new ways of looking at anything, and 'loving' is hardly a word to use of most of them, and in 5 decades, I've still never seen anything beneficial about any of them, unless you happen to be an official member of the cults clergy, when you are usually good for free meals for life. What about the very beginnings of Christianity?

I probably go through periods of thinking too much, but I have to say I have never thought of this....;0

I'm curious.. do you think whites are the only race to have abused "others"? Or are all races guilty of racism and abusing people that are different? All races can be guilty of discrimination and racism. As whites though we are a majority and have more power and can therefor do more damage. A majority or group with more power can slant situations their way much more easily, and this has been the case in the US since its beginning. Unfortunately many whites don't recognize their power...their privilege...nor do they recognize the disadvantages of minorities. I think if many could be aware of it they would not minimize minority complaints by calling it "PC".

I brought up this experience from a meeting for songwriters at a women's festival to illustrate a unique learning experience for me -- being excluded as a white person by blacks. The issue was never whether it was okay for them to exclude me (until you brought it up). I never made it sound like I was "an ally" (I was simply attending a class on songwriting), nor was I "loitering" without purpose (as I was talking to 2 black women about the songwriting class as the class was ending and another class/meeting beginning. But...it's an interesting topic....were they 100% right in asking me to leave? I'd say they were, but we probably differ on the reasons. Oppressed groups need to bond together and receive support for each other in order to combat the destructive forces of discrimination. A white person among them would disturb the solidarity. So when they ask a white person to leave it's fine by me. I'm kind of surprised you didn't see this as blacks discriminating against whites. You didn't because you thought I was pretending to be an ally or loitering?

Almost everyone else. I could do without Maddy. Wow I just had major awarenesses from that...maybe I don't even need to meditate today

Religions are a way of perceiving reality? I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetically sad. Can you give a single example of a "reality" that's been perceived? Some amazing factual, tangiable thing religions have discovered that we faithless can't perceive? Some medical drug that only works if you lick a statue of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens on that most Holy of Days, Tuesday. An extra 10 miles to the gallon in your car's fuel consumption if you wear Muslim prayer beads and chant in Arabic. Religions are more about perceiving the UNREAL than the real. I said religions are a way of perceiving reality - their way of making sense of it - I did not say they perceived it in any way that could be objectively true. Big difference. I think religions and movements start out as way to make sense of the world and one's place in it, and often have a spark in the beginning (a new way of seeing something, more alive, a better or more loving way that's beneficial to many), but unfortunately they become stale after time and decompose to habitual ways of being, patterns, & laws. Unfortunately, Klytyna, I think that's what you're encountering -- especially on certain forums where people have no desire to seek truth, but instead their only motivation is to win an argument in an attempt to feel a surge of power. I go more for the spirituality that involves Mysticism (the core or essence), and there are elements of Mysticism in most religions, accepted or rejected in varying degrees. I've learned various things from orienting myself in this way, but someone you're labeling as "faithless" can just as easily perceive these things because nobody is excluded from a journey of growth or evolution in consciousness. It has nothing to do with 'gods' that are outside the Universe, and is more of an inward journey so that one sees oneself and the perceived outside world in a new way. One begins to see 'the big picture' -- it's more about personal evolution and connecting to society in a better, more loving way. Nobody cares how you conceptualize the Universe, whether this Universe is seen very personally as a particular person or saint, or whether it's seen as 'abstract light' BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY A CONCEPTUALIZATION, ONLY A SYMBOL to hold in one's mind as an anchor toward a new way of being -- the important part is to attempt to connect in a more expansive way with WHAT IS NOT YET SEEN OR KNOWN - what has not yet manifested in one's life. Mysticism with its focus on love is just a way to tune into what is unknown and make it known to yourself, personally. You BECOME IT -- it is not an abstract conceptualization, it is a revelation, a new way of being in the world. I share your disdain for religious people that think they have the one true way and fight with everyone else who does not share their conceptualizations, and cause harm to others in the process. But if you examine the mystical dimensions of all religions they speak of 'love' and changing oneself into a new person -- this is what lies underneath religion at its core, and not the forms people fight over.

Religions are just a way of perceiving reality. Atheism has it's own way of perceiving reality, and so I consider it a religion too. It's pretty insulting to think your religion is 'the way' while other people's perceptions of reality are delusional.

lol I never thought of it that way

That could certainly be a debate worth having, things like how much and to what extent, and so on, sure. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and say that if we're not careful, the pendulum will swing too far in the other direction. Gotta find the balance. I agree it should be evaluated carefully, but that pendulum has a long way to swing to equal what minorities have suffered, given the way we've treated blacks, gays, the disabled, and other minorities through the ages in this country and around the world. Though I love spirituality, I hate religion, and especially any religion that says other human beings are trash and should be denied rights (you know, like the cake-denying person does, and the official trying to deny gays a marriage license).

NO Increasingly some spiritual groups focus on the essence of religion and deem it to be more important than all the rules. Religions evolve.

So you're saying it's okay if the people you don't like suffer, as long as the ones you do like don't have to? Nice of you. I was making the point that the situation is unfortunate that it exists at all, because someone loses no matter what we do. You totally misinterpreted my point -- of course I don't ONLY care about the suffering of people I like. The point I was making is that there are DEGREES of suffering, and so we must favor the group that has suffered the most if we must choose.

why were you at the meeting if you weren't black? Conference rooms at festivals get used by various groups in succession, and I had just attended a women's songwriting session taught by a black woman. I'd been sitting there talking to a couple of black women songwriters as the meeting ended and didn't notice the next group had filtered in, which was a support group for black women only.

Is it a Yoga type of Hinduism? I love Yoga...

You make relating to someone in a loving way so very hard...

It may be that people who feel there's a purpose to life, a benevolent overseer, and an afterlife, handle stress better than those who don't and are favored by natural selection. One could imagine this proclivity evolving over time, just as many physical attributes (eyes, ears, etc.) did. There's some evidence that "faith" has healthful effects. I wish I could avail myself of those, but I'll have to find another way. I feel awe and wonder every day of my life, and understanding that this may be an evolutionary trait does nothing to diminish it. I have good reason to think that personal intellectual evolution is not the same as biological evolution. One occurs within a single thinking individual within one lifetime. The other occurs across countless organisms over countless generations. So you speculate the reason people believe in God is so they can feel better, feel secure. Well...could be..or could be some of them do. But just because some people believe in 'god' or 'intent' does not always mean they're doing it only to feel better as they bask in some sort of delusion. But feeling awe and wonder every day, what I call 'love'....that sounds good to me! I do believe that's what 'intent' is...despite the pain we have to deal with.

Caesar salad of course, silly.

That seems like an arbitrarily complex explanation for the result of replication error and competition. It also confuses personal evolution with natural evolution. I am feeling more and more that there is a purpose to life, possibly to evolve...and that it is some kind of 'intent'...though not a type of intent us mere mortals can quite grasp at this point. I maintain that belief for the most part despite the state of the world....and the state of this thread Also, I'm not sure why personal evolution and natural evolution should not be the same...but perhaps you have reasons?

What if the purpose is to Evolve through the necessary pain that I assume causes you to feel that 'intent' insinuates either malice or incompetence?

Exactly...they are unable to recognize their privileged status in society, and unable to empathize with those who have been oppressed. It's pretty creepy, in some of their mind-bubbles they even deny prejudice exists at all, or worse think it's a fine attribute.

Yes yes yes essential services... but when was it a basic human right to be able to force someone to cut your hair or bake you a cake? You can't really segment off what's essential vs what is not in many cases, so the law has to be applied equally. What's essential to one person might not be to another. For example, driving through the southwest often there's only one gas station in a town. What would you have the law do -- police each car driving through to make sure they could actually drive to another town and so could not claim a discrimination when not serviced? What you propose (this division) is just not practical, and also doesn't reflect the type of society most want to live in (fair, not prejudiced).