Category: News and Views
Everyone needs to read this article. I'll try to post it as a link, but if I fail please copy and paste it. You all need to know that this is going on in our country. (sorry people from Europe, you can go have a cup of tea or something, or get pissed off right along with us if you want)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html?wpsrc
Frankly, when I saw your message I thought: 'someone's dog got stepped on, or someone's cane got bent'.
But I was wrong. You're right, folks do need to read this article.
What's the matter with Kansas?
On Tuesday, the Kansas House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a measure designed to bring anti-gay segregation—under the guise of “religious liberty”—to the already deep-red state. The bill, written out of fear that the state may soon face an Oklahoma-style gay marriage ruling, will now easily pass the Republican Senate and be signed into law by the Republican governor. The result will mark Kansas as the first state, though certainly not the last
try this link.
Bob
Thank you for posting it as a link.
Wow... Abomination is right. This is bullshit no matter who you are, or what religion you do or don't follow. I had a whole elaborate post thought up to denounce this bill, but simply put, This is a shameful bill. it was shameful to segregate blacks, and it's shameful to segregate people based on their sexual orientation.
I think this is wrong. how can it be passed? Is it not going aginst the Constitutional rights?
A lot of people don't really care about other people's constitutional rights when they feel their own constitutional rights are being infringed. That's how they can think that, because they aren't allowed to refuse service based on homosexuality, that they are actually being discriminated against.
What a bunch of bullshit. Sick right-wing nutjobs think they're living in the times of Jim Crow. Well, I guess in cansas they are... Go figure. I have no elaborate post here because I simply don't have teh energy currently to write one, but... Yes. Sick and ignorant.
This is disgusting, beyond me.. Hmmm, what's next? I thought America was making progress for gay people to have rights, including marriage. But discrimination? Wow.. Thanks for posting
If two men or two women decide to get married, it's between them, their children, and, depending on your view, God. It doesn't affect the vast majority of the people around them, and it certainly doesn't violate those observers' constitutional rights. Certainly this is just one in a long list of abominations purpetrated by society, but it's still rediculous in a way I haven't experienced since learning about any other form of segregation.
I’m trying my damnedest to think critically and not give in to the temptation to throw my computer across the living-room as I write this. But frankly, I don’t think I can do my emotions justice right now. Is it any wonder, though, that gay teens still commit suicide? Is it any wonder that a lot of us still feel the need to stay in the closet? Is it any wonder that many gay people still enter into straight marriages because we don’t want to be stigmatized, discriminated against or a disappointment to our friends and family? It seems to me that this Kansas law constitutes a license. Not only is it a license to the obvious in that gays can be denied seats in restaurants, rooms in hotels and even the dignity of a job. It’s a license for parents to disown their gay children and, yes, in some instances, children to disown their gay parents. It is a license for straight or supposedly straight teens to harass and bully their gay peers at school. It’s a license to promulgate even more anti-gay legislation that, regardless of past Supreme Court precedent, can re-criminalize homosexuality. It is a license to assault and/or “justify” killing a gay person or even someone whom the killer suspects of being gay.
I’m not much on being a Christian; I think that if there’s a god, there’s more than one path to salvation or enlightenment, whatever you wanna call it. I’m not even a biblical scholar, though I’ve read it and am aware of biblical proscriptions against homosexuality which is obviously the reason why this law has even been proposed. But I do know that Christ, the apparent founder of Christianity, never even mentions homosexuality in the four gospels, so these Christofascists don’t even have Christ to back them up. In any event, laws like this one are some of the reasons why I’m losing faith in this country, which I suppose is wrong of me. But it just seems like people, especially our leaders, are becoming more shallow-minded, mean-spirited and ignorant. And yes, I think this law potentially gives all of us the license to be all of those things and worse.
No words. I hope any companies with gay board members, gay investors and gay employees simply withdraw from Kansas. The only way to get these people's attention is through their finances.
Another hope is that the judiciary will step in and clean up this potential mess.
I'm not gay, but this still pisses me off bigtime. It's like they're finally giving the westboro assholes what they want.
Here's something that just came across my twitter. I'm pasting the article here, along with the link. I think this is just too backward to pass, and even if it does, it won't last long.
A Tennessee senator is under fire from a celebrity chef and other members of his district, after sponsoring a bill that would allow business owners to refuse service to gays.
Critically received Memphis chef Kelly English this week offered to host a political fundraiser to unseat Sen. Brian Kelsey after reading that the Republican party member had sponsored Senate Bill 2566, which would allow individuals or religious organizations with "strong religious beliefs" to refuse goods and services
that further same-sex unions in Tennessee. It is commonly being referred to as the "Turn Away the Gays" bill.
"I learned about it probably 120 seconds before I posted my reaction on Facebook," chef English told ABC News in a phone interview on Friday. The proprietor of
Restaurant Iris
and The Second Line is married and straight, but he considers himself a proponent of human rights.
"It's crazy to me that people can still think this way in 2014," said the chef, who feels such bills reflect poorly on the state of Tennessee and foster an impression of intolerance in the South. "Some people have reacted to my announcement saying that I spoke out when I had nothing to gain and a lot to lose, but I disagree.
If there is a lack of equality, as a species we all lose."
In addition to chef English's public statement, a
petition
by other community members has been launched seeking to reject the bill.
"We've seen this attitude before, and it represents one of the darkest times in our Nation's history," reads the online petition. "It's time to send a simple message to our State Legislators - we, as Tennesseans across the state in rural, urban, and suburban areas, will not stand for this. We will call it what it is - bigotry."
Senator Kelsey's name has since been removed as the sponsor of the bill.
"I've heard mixed views from my constituents on this issue, and while I still believe in protecting the differing religious views of everyone in my district, I have decided not to sponsor this particular piece of legislation," he said in a statement released by his office.
But just because Sen. Mike Bell, of Riceville, is now the sponsor, English isn't backing off of Kelsey, who serves as chairman of the senate judiciary committee that will discuss the bill on Feb. 18.
"He's the one who presented the bill," said English. "I can take my name off of the restaurant but it's still my restaurant."
"I don't think this a fair representation of Tennessee," he added. "The 'new South' encompasses everyone: It's straight and gay."
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/tennessee-turn-gays-bill-feels-heat-memphis-chef/story?id=22528176
Wow, and I thought we were headed in the opposite direction country-wide. Why is it that something like this is left up to each individual state? Maybe it would be riskier leaving it up to National legislation, I don't know.
The bill is a difficult one. I don’t like it, but see the issue from both sides.
I have read House Bill 2453. And I’ll take the side of Congress for discussion reasons.
If I set my personal, emotional, views aside, I may have had to vote it in to law.
The first issue is state rights given to them by the constitution. This isn’t the most important one, but I have to start someplace, because this issue is like a raggedy rug, where you can grab any string and start to unrivaled it.
This law supports Kansas State constitutional rights.
The 2ND 4th and 14th amendment gives states certain rights. As a congressmen, I’d be bound to uphold constitutional law, or vote to have that law amended.
An amendment takes time, so at present my hands would be tied.
Next, this law is larger than Gay people. This has many sections to it. If we give Gay persons these right, we take away others from the masses also given us by our constitution.
Individual rights, and pursuit of happiness.
As a business owner, I have a right to protect my business from disruption. This means abusive language, obscene behavior, and other things that harm my ability to earn a living and disrupts the peace.
I am not refusing service to people on bases of things they cannot change, such as skin color, disability. I am refusing service to people that disrupt my earning ability, due to their choice to flaunt their sexual preference.
Should I be forced to lose my livelihood, not feed my family, and pursue my happiness because I must allow their choice of behavior?
I have not said they as customers can not be served, I am saying they cannot disrupt with obscene behavior.
Religion:
If I Congress state that your religious beliefs have no barring when you are at work for the Government, I am taking away your constitutional right to practice your religious beliefs.
I can’t force a person to sign a gay couples marriage licenses, I must provide another clerk to do this for them. In this way, I have not turned the gay couple away, I have just protected both their and the religious persons individual rights.
Work:
Of I Congress pass law that states you must hire gay persons, I also must pass law that states you must hire disabled persons.
My law must state, anyone that arrives at your door with the qualifications must be hired, so it is first come, first serve. You as a business can not choose on any other criteria.
How do I enforce this law? I cannot read your mind, and I would have to provide all American business with employees in order to make sure this law was upheld.
As the law stands now, business can fire a person for any reason at all. This covers gay people, women, disabled, short, fat, or people you just don’t get along with.
This law protect businesses from keeping persons that are not performing as the boss things they should.
This law provides business the right to demand dress codes, such as uniforms.
If a business specifically says we fired James, because he is gay, that business must prove were James being gay was causing performance or work ability problems, and if that can’t be proven, it is discrimination. But! That must be proven.
At any work place we as a whole alter our behavior so we can work. I as Congress cannot give gays the right not to alter, without giving Muslim, or Jewish, police officers the right to wear skull caps, instead of the uniform cap.
Sure, by voting for this law, I am voting against gays and what they want, but as a leader, I must look at the complete picture, not just gay people’s wishes.
I have not caused gays as a whole to not be able to earn a living, move freely on the American soil, nor even made it impossible for them to use a business that won’t serve gay people. If a gay couple went in to one of these as just two men or two women hanging out, how would the business owner know they are a couple, unless they indicate this in some fashion?
That is the same for male female couples. That couple has to indicate they are a couple, otherwise, it is not known.
There are far wider issues to this. I’m glad I was not elected to congress.
I must say, I'm pretty thankful you're not in congress either. For the moment, this is all I will say, lest my fingers fly in anger.
That isn't an excuse. Gay people aren't a threat to business operations generally speaking. Gay people have standards as does anyone else generally speaking. Are you assuming that they are all careless, that they will do whatever they want to satisfy their wants regardless of the location of where they are? I don't understand how you can say that they are a threat that need to be kept at bay. That is how I interpret this.
forereel that took courage to write your post. Most of the sentament expressed on this topic has been against the proposed bill.
I see where you are coming from.
If I own a café that appeals to the rednecks in our community--we'll call it Bob's beer and barbecue--and a gay couple comes in and flaunts their gayness, then I think I should have some recourse to protect my establishment's persona.
I'm not saying it very well, because I'm unclear as to how I actually feel, but I respect a gay person's right to do what they wish, as long as they don't tread on my right to run my business in my own way.
Bob
Guess what, you don't have the right to run your business in your own way. That isn't a right you have. You also don't have the right under the law of the pursuit of happiness. If you think you do, quote me the article and clause of the constitution, I dare you.
Wayne, I'm not going to get into this with you because I don't have the energy. Just shut up and save us all the headache. You're wrong, and anybody with enough braincells to rub together should be able to se that with one sentence. Here's the sentence, listen close kiddies. Making you treat everyone who comes into your business equally does not infringe on any of your rights; so shut the fuck up and get on with your life you racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted fuckstick. End of sentence.
So, you wouldn't turn someone away based on skin color because it's something that can't be changed? Newsflash: Sexual orientation can't be changed either.
I simply feel that no one, (gay, straight or whatever,) should be flaunting sex in public. If they are, then sure, the owner has every right to take some action, but this goes pretty deep. A few years ago here in Nashville, a paratransit worker was leading a blind guy in to a building. A homophobe saw two guys walking together, one holding the other's arm and promptly shot and killed the sighted guy. My concern is, this this thing is passed, the religious freaks won't know where to stop. they'll have people thrown out just because they think someone is gay. To me, that's not right.
Just so you guys can have a bit of a happy note in this board, the bill got killed. However, there is still one in Tennessee, and one in Idaho, which have not been killed. So, don't let me stand in the way of the homophobia. Please, tell us why you should be exempt from the civil rights act because you own a business.
I don't think you realize that this law draws a line before any sort of flaunting. From what it says, businesses would have the rite to refuse any sort of business with people that are gay just on the count of because. It isn't a matter of flaunting, they want nothing to do with it. That is ridiculous. Please tell me if I'm wrong / blowing out of proportion, but that's how I read it. If that is the sort of thing you want to support Wayne, so be it. That would be your business's loss. You would lose out on possible regular consumers, and you'd be kicking yourself in the foot really.
This is exactly why I stopped before I said anything that might come back to haunt me or that I'd regret in some other way. I'm not the best at getting my point across, but I do my best to do it without all the name calling. If I stoop to that level, it says more about me than it says about the other person, just in my own oppinion. Sure, I lose my temper at times. I'm just as human as anyone else, but I do make the effort. I don't think some people realize what's happening. Are we still in a free country? sure. Run your business the way you want to run it, if you really can. As far as letting gays in and having harm come to the business, we really shouldn't have abolished slavery, if we're applying the same logic. Many southern plantations depended on the slaves to harvest the crops. don't you think it hurt business when the business owners could no longer rely on this?
I don't think I want to visit Kansas anymore, Toto...
Just sayin'.
That anyone would even try to defend this bill and create--in their minds--circumstances where it is justified is completely appalling. Wonder if you'd think the same, wayne, if you were a congressman with a gay daughter or son. Wonder if you'd enjoy encroaching on the rights of your family. By the way, your "technical" standpoint on this matter is ridiculous and makes no sense. Only in a round-about manner would anyone even entertain your reasoning, and only if the person was trying to make it work in their best, homophobic interest.
To any businessman who feels threatened by harmless homosexuality--look back at the nineteen sixties where idiots back then also felt threatened by a person of a different race. Simply put, if you discriminated against a black person today by not allowing him in to your stupid-ass redneck cafe because your idiot redneck customers didnt' like black people, your ass would be sued and your business shut down. What makes it different in terms of a homosexual person.
That point about homosexuals ruining a business because it primarily serves rednecks is about as stupid as it gets. To anyone with that reasoning, I got news for you, buddy. Shut your redneck cafe down and charge your biggot friends to come over to your own house and drink coffee there. Because a homophobe's place is in his or her own home--in front of fox and friends, where he cant' harm others with his or her own ignorance.
You want to talk about persuit of happiness? Well, I say ignorant biggots can't encroach on my persuit of happiness of knowing that I live in a tollerant country where freedom isn't just used to serve one's selfish purpose. Where freedom of lifestyle--as long as it doesnt' affect others--should be left alone and tollerated. Newsflash, biggots. What one man does with another man in or otu of their bedrooms has nothing to do with you. It harms you in no way--unless those two men are secretly fucking you up the ass as well. lol.
I'm just curious here.
Say I own a bar. Further let's say that my clientelle consists mostly of a group who are fairly surly, apt to get rowdy and, for want of a better word, bigoted. They pay their tabs, they generally don't smash the place up and I don't really have to care about their bigotry from day to day as a business owner, even though it appalls me.
Now, let's say that a couple of gay guys started showing up at my bar. My other regulars start getting mean, verbally abusive. There are twenty or thirty regulars and only two gays. Surely you're not suggesting I kick the regulars out. Would I not potentially lose business that way?
I'm saying this in response to the people suggesting that there's absolutely no sense to this. There is no sense to bigotry or the bill proposed and then killed, but I can see what Wayne was getting at even if he didn't exactly phrase it well.
Personally, as that aforementioned bar owner, I'm probably going to get the law involved but only if it starts getting ugly. I'm also going to hope that those two guys find a nicer place (nicer for them) to hang out, and if I get half a chance, I'm probably going to apologize to them for the state of things. It probably isn't my fault that my clientelle are idiots. They keep my bar going, so what else can I do? It won't stop me feeling bad, and I don't think passing a bill that would support my kicking out the gay couple is in any way an example of forward thinking.
This is similar, in one way, to a bit of the rape-related discussion in another thread. I'm going to hope that, sad as it is, targeted minorities exercise wisdom in where they go and what they do. They are not at fault for what they are, but they can display common sense and avoid doing things that will stir up the anthill. If they realize my bar isn't friendly, I wish them all the best luck in the world finding someplace better, and I hope they don't make a point of coming back over and over just to try and prove something. A few drinks seems a pretty small necessity in the face of that.
I will add one last thing, just so no one gets the idea of trying to backshoot my point of view. I am not saying that there is never a good time to make a stand. If people never stood up for being trodden on, we'd be in a darker place. I'm not contesting that. I am saying that there are better things to stand and fight about than having a few drinks in a local bar, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would never want to see a law passed that supported me being able to take that choice away from people, but at the same time, I do want to see people exercise good judgment in the things they decide to fight for.
I don't think the average gay couple is gunna go into just any bar and be all over each other because that's called being inappropriate. Especially in this day and age where while we're gaining more acceptance from the general public, there are still psychos out there like the one Anthony was talking about, and that wasn't even a gay couple the guy was aiming at. Speaking just for me, I probably wouldn't go where I thought I'd be unwanted, but that's a different story altogether from judicially or legislatively sanctioned homophobia. And Anthony, I do hope the guy who shot the sighted guide got life in prison at least.
SW, you don't kick out either the rednecks or the gays unles one of them starts making trouble. You kick out those who start fights. You don't kick them all out, just the ones who are going too far. If the gay couple wishes to leave because of the homophobia, that's their choice. You don't kick them out for it.
As for your last point, I'd like to point something out. The civil rights movement of the sixties started with people being willing to fight for a place to eat lunch. The civil rights movement of the fifties started with someone willing to endure being arrested for a seat on a bus. Still think a few drinks isn't worth it?
I have not seen where this law has been totally repealed, but soften to an extent.
I read the revision. Of course, that isn’t good enough, but it is a start in the right direction.
Because our constitution protects states, they can enact these sorts of laws, and right or wrong, the Government must agree until a law, or amendment is placed on the books.
If we, due to public sentiment throw out the constitution each time we disagree without amendment, what good is it to us?
In the LGBT rights issue, this has been good and bad.
An example of the good was California.
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a landmark decision in the case of United States c. Windsor. The ruling struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996 that previously prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages as legal in order to provide the same federal benefits that opposite-sex couples receive.
Even though it was Government law that same sex marriages were illegal, California had to be granted its privilege to say in California couples could marry, and receive the same benefits as any other couple. The citizens of California decided, and no matter what religious leaders felt, or persons not living in California felt, the rule stood.
How can we rightfully take that same privilege from Kansas, or any other state that wishes to set laws based on citizen demands, or sentiment?
To affect change we must start at the citizen level to change minds, or we must start at the top and change constitutional law. Both these processes will take much time and careful thought.
I say states rights are bigger then LGBT rights. We have to consider all humanity, not just one group.
Gay persons are not the only group subject to state laws, we all are in some way or other. These laws do not take away our rights to be gay, and live freely, but they do govern our behavior, in that state.
If I drive by road from Colorado in to Utah, I must abide by Utah laws. I cannot drink or purchase alcohol on Sundays, and other rules.
If I live in Utah, and travel to Colorado, I can bring all my lawfully married wives with me, but if we live in Colorado, we are not married, so cannot claim benefits as married persons.
These state laws do not take away my freedom to be what I am, they just dictate my behavior in that state and are legal.
If Kansas law were like slavery laws that took away freedoms, and were humanly abusive, we’d have a human rights issue.
In abolishing slavery, we did not take the land owners livelihood away. The owners still had there land, seeds, money, and freedom to earn a living and sale their crops.
It took years to enact the rest of the laws that made it possible for a black person to live equally, and in some states, they are still prohibited from things based on personal reasons, not actual law.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
We must go to the top and have an amendment added stating sexual preference, in order to keep states from enacting laws as Kansas and others are wishing to do.
The laws are murky on a business owners rights to refuse service.
Businesses are permitted to post signs stating “we have the right to refuse service at our digression.
A person can be turned away from entering a place, due to the shoes they are wearing. They can be refused admission because their T shirt has writing on it, or the display of gang colors.
A business owner could use having writing on a shirt as a means to insight a fight, or his dress code requiring dress attire, no sneakers, and the police will uphold him.
If a business owner felt an openly gay couple might cause the rest of his customers to walk out, or might cause him to lose business altogether, he might have a right to refuse to serve these that are displaying they are gay, but could not refuse them if they were not.
The constitution gives him the right to be able to earn a living, and if he can prove that allowing openly gay persons in to his business will cause him to have to close his doors, due to public sentiment, he must be protected, just like a gay couple must be protected from being charged more for the same meal others are getting for less.
That brings me to another point. Businesses can offer discounts to kids, women, seniors, so technically, could charge openly gay couples more.
As a gay couple that wishes to live freely, do you really want to eat at a place that charge you more, or live in a state like Kansas when you are totally free to live other places?
This is an emotional topic, but until we have constitutional changes, we must rule using these guidelines.
This is not a justification, it is protection of all people’s rights and freedoms.
If I still ran stores here in Portland, and if the rural sheep shaggers in the High Desert got such a thing passed out here, because I can be economically spiteful, gays would get free coffee and any other discount I could afford. Guess a gay couple would need to kiss or something to prove their gayness.
The stump-breakers forget that any business wanting to market to non-bigots will exploit the opportunity. Every gay has friends and family who are straights, plus people concerned about human rights. Just read about the male supporters of the Suffragettes.
We oughta put the primitives on game preserves. Or tie 'em in a sack and drop that somabitch in the river.
Not the most tactful here, but just the rambling of some middle aged straight white guy with some friends who are gays and some Trans.
Wayne, I'd just like to make this point one more time just in case anyone has forgotten. You are a dumbas.
"These state laws do not take away my freedom to be what I am, they just dictate my behavior in that state and are legal..
So in escence, you are allowed to like people of the same sex, but you are prohobitted from eating at a public restaurant because the owner is homophobic, because he does not want gays eating at his restaurant, and because the state says he has the rite to do so. That is class-a discrimination. Nowadays that would be unacceptable if we changed the scenario slightly, say instead of it being a gay couple to a Black family. That business would easily be sued in to oblivion. So if we allow people of any race to be treated equally, if we allow people who are male or female to be allowed the same opportunities, if we who are blind or otherwise disabled are allowed to work in whatever field we want provided that we have realistic expectations, then what is wrong with the idea of a couple who is gay to be able to eat wherever, walk and hold hands wherever, etc. It really isn't causing a nuisance or ruining someone's day, so people need to quit being dramatic and live on. There are certain parts of our system that need to be patched up and fixed, and this one area.
Never mind that he has it entirely backward. The states do not control the laws, the federal government does. The tenth amendment says that any power which is not laid out in federal law then pases on to the state. Antidiscrimination is federal law. DOMA is also a federal law, not a state law.
Cody, I see what you're saying about the 1950s and 1960s, though it pains me to have to tell you that we're not living half a century in the past. This is to say that people might have decided on putting their foot down over lunch, or a bus ride, or whatnot, but that doesn't necessarily mean it made a hell of a lot of sense. It worked though, which is why I say that I see what you're saying. I suppose if there's someone out there willing to try and make a point at my bar, power to 'em; I'm just not sure how wise it is. They'll deal with the fallout, sadly.
Johndy, of course gay couples aren't going to be all over each other in public. If I gave that impression it was not my intention. Someone earlier in this thread said something about how couples aren't obvious unless they make themselves obvious; implied was the notion that it would take something blatant to tip people off. It...really doesn't. I imagine that if you were with your partner and in the vicinity of fairly observant people, they'd get the hint without you having to be stupid obvious about it. People by and large don't flaunt their sexuality because it's not all that respectful. I sort of figured that went without saying.
Also, I would only kick people out/involve the law if, as I did say in my first post on the matter, things got ugly. A harsh word isn't nice but it's not illegal. A fistfight on the premises, though...that's different.
But SW, with civil rights, no matter if you put your foot down here, or you put your foot down there, over this subject or that subject, over lunch counters and bus seats or the right to vote, there is always fall out. The question isn't whose going to stand up, but why we aren't standing up. I never understand how people can se things like this happening and think that its someone elses responsibility to handle it.
Ok, so I'm not homosexual, I'm not African American, I'm not a woman, but why does that mean that I should sit back and let those people deal with the backlash that comes from trying to become equal in our society? Why should I sit back and say that its their fight, not mine. Its not my fight or your fight or their fight. Its our fight. WE're all humans, and all humans should be equal.
When it comes to discrimination there are three groups. There are the victims, there are the perpetrators, and there are those who allow it to happen. The last two are equally as bad.
No, Cody, that's where you're wrong. Even the law says you're wrong, in a more general sense. Does a bystander get charged for a crime because he didn't stop it? No, I didn't think so. He may be looked down on, and it's not impossible that he could be charged with something, but he's definitely not going to prison for life along with the murderer he observed.
To be fair, though, and to keep it on a civil rights angle, I will say this much. I think we do owe it to the less fortunate to do our damn level best to help out, if we can. Fear can get in the way. So can simple logistics. Also, it is a little harder to be empathetic if it's not happening to you, and thus a little easier to turn away from certain deliberate action because you, as a person, have a bit less to gain or a little more to lose from it.
Sad but true.
Please be clear on what it is I'm saying. We really should stick our necks out for the other guy more often, as a species. However, if I, or anyone else, happens to fit squarely into the "might help, but doesn't" bracket, that does not for a second mean we're just as bad as the bigots. It means we don't have as much motivation as the targeted minority, or that we don't know how to help, or that we're frightened, or, in some cases, that we don't realize what's happening. Very few people I know will stand aside in the face of violence or open abuse of this kind, but speaking up at the wrong time is a really excellent way to get hurt. It saddens me that the world is this way.
One thing that will give you motivation is having gay or LGBTQ acquaintances and friends. I had considered myself a decent honest guy before, supporting gay equality / gay marriage and all. Until I met my grade school friend on Facebook who is herself gay and has a wife and family. We don't need the tired old condescending "They're-just-like-the-rest-of-us" arguments, but we do need to realize what their troubles really are. She has to take adoption papers if she travels between states with her family, in case her marriage isn't recognized and her daughter needs medical attention. Since my friend is not the birth mother of the child, hospitals would not necessarily give her the privileges and rights that go with the responsibilities of being a parent: signing for consent to treatments, etc. She had to adopt her own daughter since marriage, not even proper common law marriage, is not recognized for gays everywhere. In San Francisco she is fine, but I can think of some pretty sheep-shaggish places even in Californicus.
The gays really are a lot like the Suffragettes of the 1920s, more than they are African Americans. In fact, we with disabilities are also in this camp. It's possible to be raised around one homogenous racial group: New York Italians, Mexican immigrants, African Americans, European American mutts, etc. But all women, gays, people with disabilities and trans people have family and friends not in their so-called group. These groups we put people in are pretty artificial anyway but certain groups not based on heritage, we all know people in that group.
It wasn't some 1980s euphemism that everyone knew someone who knew someone who died of AIDS. I'm not saying gays have AIDs, just saying, it was true then and it's true now. If you don't know someonw who's gay, you know someone who knows someone who is, or who is affected by the problems they face.
Cody's right, this isn't just about one group. I'll admit, I'm not the revolutionary freedom fighter Cody appears to be. I might have thought about it more when I had no responsibilities but certainly not anymore. And even I, an average middle age white guy, gets this. Not exactly milk toast but don't really push the envelope that often, not even for myself. And I get this. So I see no reason why others wouldn't.
Kudos to you forereel for trying to shed some logical light on a topic that most others have attacked simply out of emotion.
I personally think our country pisses on the constitution anytime it suits the men with money, but I can very much see in a theoretical sense where your point is quite valid.
So I take it anyone agreeing with Wayne does support women's equality, black desegregation, and the rights of people with disabilities. Probably even supports rights of the Native Americans.
If you don't support the rights of these groups, the following question isn't for you:
How then are gays / gay rights any different? How is this just not repeating the same cycle? I am honestly asking, because some of you don't seem like the because-God-said-so types.
Also, when people are intolerant of a group of people, then they go out and ask for tolerance of their intolerance, it's like when we were kids on the playground, John hits Joe, Joe hits John back, then John tells the teacher that Joe hit him. A smart parent or teacher won't be buying this.
Meow, here is a rational reason:
Your rights affect your person, your ability to come and go as you please, and noninterference by others and by government. They do not extend to your sensibilities.
So I have the right to run my business, even have a dress code if I want to. That is usually explained by the dining experience, e.g. black tie and such. But my rights as a business owner are not violated when I am asked to respect people's ability to come and go from my establishment, to not restrict based on a number of factors.
A person's religious rights only extend to the practice of their religion. So, for instance, Jews can have kosher food, but they can't deny you entry onto a business because you have eaten pork that day, or you have a Porky Pig T shirt on.
This is where religious and other easily-offended types misunderstand the constitution and are usually just trying to get in line for who is the most offended.
Wow, yeah i don't have anything to say, besides I hated Kansas before this law and now have even a bigger reason to not like it, but don't get any ideas, I am not gay lol!
My primary reason for not liking Kansas is because I work in social service in an area known as the four states area. I live in missouri, but I am ten minutes or less from Kansas, Oklahoma, and about 30 from Arkansas. People come in to our center all the time needing help with food or utilities, but if they are not a resident of Missouri, we have to turn them away, ultimately referring them to resources in their area. Oklahoma and Arkansas have resources, not as great as Missouri but good. Kansas on the other hand has hardly any source. Some of the cherity companies in Kansas actually right in their legislature counties to rule out of the services. So there are four counties close together that make up a very rural, unpopulated area, and one of the counties, Cherikee, has no social service organization and have been written out of the other areas liberties, and its the closest county to Missouri. So how do you tell someone no you can not give them a box of food because they are not a resident of your state when they do not have any resources of their own community.
Yeah most probably think I'm just rambling on about a bunch of crap, but it is a serious problem for those unfortunate individuals.
It's not a bunch of crap, and it bespeaks well of whom we're talking about.
So I'm going to address the arguments some people have raised:
Private wedding photographer, Christian, it's against their law / convictions to serve a gay wedding.
First, you're a contractor. So fill up your contract obligations from likeminded. There are Christian yellow pages now, believe it or not. I found this when in Florida. This is how the Christian white separatists avoid providing service to interracial couples, either in Florida or even in Sand Pointe Idaho, where there aren't any interracials that I know of.
Anyway, nothing wrong with a full schedule, and targeting your contracting business to your target audience -- in your case, straight separatists, in theirs white separatists. The Christian yellow pages are full of said people. That is where I met them. You can see for yourself on places like Stormfront a social network for white nationalists similar to this forum in setup.
Anyway, it's primarily managed by private, members-only clubs and organizations, or targeted circles like the Christian yellow pages. Anyway this happens all the time with various groups.
There are groups of womyn-born-womyn lesbians who refuse to have men on the premises. In order for them to do this, they own private property and don't do walk-ins from the street. It's a members-only outfit.
So if you want to be a straight separatist group or what have you, your best bet is to manage things the same way other separatist groups do, and put your chin up and be a man and quit demanding legislation to get your little way. Your sensibilities being offended is not constitutionally protected, while people's personal autonomy certainly is. You have ways and means to protect your sensibilities, the same as the white nationalists on Stormfront do. Most of whom identify as Christian. Do what you want in your church, and you will be exempt. Hold members-only clubs, and you will be exempt.
I've been an invitee out here in a members-only cigars club and smoked to my heart's content, even though Oregon now has clean air laws that prohibit even cigar bars from functioning like they used to. We're not whining, society has moved on, and we meet in private clubs. Made up of mature men and women who don't have to lobby and stamp our feet to get our own way.
Wayne, how can a gay person be disruptive for a a business? I'm not jumping on you wayne, I"m curious because I think that if people are homophobic, it's not the fault of the homosexuals. It's as if you're promoting it in a way, let me tell you why. If people at your cafe dislike gay people, who's problem is that? I don't think you are against gays, but I'm trying to understand your point. Because they deserve no discrimination also.
Well...I'll admit I'm ignorant as to how certain laws are laid out, but you would know how that sort of stuff works. I do agree with you though whatever the case. It isn't a matter of whether or not the law is state or federal. It comes down to personal preference and how it is being messed with, because you can't dictate what a person prefers.
Ok but I don't think that sexual orientation should have anything to do with a business being disruptive because of some cynical homophobics. I think wayne will come back and respond. :)
Another word people use is flaunt.
So what is flaunting one's gayness? Should be definable, if this is a rational discussion.
Is me using my cane or having it with me, when walking sighted guide, flaunting my blindness? I think we all growing up were punished for flaunting our disability, usually such grotesque indiscretions as having a cane with you, appearing disabled in some way, or some other enormous contentious act that is likely to destabilize the universe.
Oh and I want to see how some the more dogmatic wiggle out of this one: Blind students were at one time punished for the use of Braille, because it was not pleasing to look at and it was a way of flaunting one's blindness.
So here we see that flaunting is not so much interpreted by the flaunter, as the ones offended. Sort of like that harassment thinking where it's all in the mind of the harassee, and you are guilty after proven innocent.
Wildly and cravenly unconstitutional on so many levels.
Google lists the following as definitions of "flaunt".
display (something) ostentatiously, esp. in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
"newly rich consumers eager to flaunt their prosperity"
synonyms: show off, display ostentatiously, make a (great) show of, put on show/display, parade; Morebrag about, crow about, vaunt; informal flash "he flaunts his young wife as if she were the prize heifer at the county fair"
In my opinion, this whole discussion has gotten way off track.
I don't think anyone participating in this discussion so far are in favor of the Kansas law--at least as we understand it. I know I'm not.
On the other hand, some of us who have tried to look at things a little logically, have been screamed at as if we were part of the anti-gay establishment. "Some of my best friends..." *smile*.
Here are a couple of the more aggregious messages:
"Post 20 of 48 SilverLightning
Guess what, you don't have the right to run your business in your own way. That isn't a right you have. You also don't have the right under the law of the pursuit of happiness. If you think you do, quote me the article and clause of the constitution, I dare you.
Wayne, I'm not going to get into this with you because I don't have the energy. Just shut up and save us all the headache. You're wrong, and anybody with enough braincells to rub together should be able to se that with one sentence. Here's the sentence, listen close kiddies. Making you treat everyone who comes into your business equally does not infringe on any of your rights; so shut the fuck up and get on with your life you racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted fuckstick. End of sentence.
Post 27 of 48 write away
That anyone would even try to defend this bill and create--in their minds--circumstances where it is justified is completely appalling. Wonder if you'd think the same, wayne, if you were a congressman with a gay daughter or son. Wonder if you'd enjoy encroaching on the rights of your family. By the way, your "technical" standpoint on this matter is ridiculous and makes no sense. Only in a round-about manner would anyone even entertain your reasoning, and only if the person was trying to make it work in their best, homophobic interest.
To any businessman who feels threatened by harmless homosexuality--look back at the nineteen sixties where idiots back then also felt threatened by a person of a different race. Simply put, if you discriminated against a black person today by not allowing him in to your stupid-ass redneck cafe because your idiot redneck customers didnt' like black people, your ass would be sued and your business shut down. What makes it different in terms of a homosexual person.
That point about homosexuals ruining a business because it primarily serves rednecks is about as stupid as it gets. To anyone with that reasoning, I got news for you, buddy. Shut your redneck cafe down and charge your biggot friends to come over to your own house and drink coffee there. Because a homophobe's place is in his or her own home--in front of fox and friends, where he cant' harm others with his or her own ignorance.
You want to talk about persuit of happiness? Well, I say ignorant biggots can't encroach on my persuit of happiness of knowing that I live in a tollerant country where freedom isn't just used to serve one's selfish purpose. Where freedom of lifestyle--as long as it doesnt' affect others--should be left alone and tollerated. Newsflash, biggots. What one man does with another man in or otu of their bedrooms has nothing to do with you. It harms you in no way--unless those two men are secretly fucking you up the ass as well. lol."
My question is: are we going to have a discussion, are will we just lie on the floor and scream?
Bob
I'm not one of the screamers. Heh.
Bigotry is bad. Those who openly support it are almost as bad. Those who don't necessarily jump into every issue on behalf of the oppressed are not aggressors, are not bigots, and should not be treated as such.
Dolce, I have a question for you. It's a variation on the same one I used before.
Let's say you own that bar I was talking about. It's fairly prosperous, but you haven't had it too long. You're not exactly rolling in money and wouldn't want to lose it, or lose your custom. Most of your patrons are assholes, pure and simple, but they pay up and keep you above zero.
What do you do if a couple starts frequenting your bar, a couple who is known in some way to be gay? I'm not asking what you'd do when they walked through the door, because I hope the answer is self-evident. I wonder what you'd do if a lot of your bar patrons started grumbling about finding another watering-hole. What if a few of them even did it?
I'm asking this to illustrate a point. And anyone else who wants to chip in, go ahead. Leo, you owned a store once, and I know stores are a bit different but perhaps you have insight as well. I'm saying that in certain very specific cases, a minority can cause ripples for the majority. I'm saying that if you rely on said majority and it gets pissed off enough to reject your business, compassion might take a back seat to financial responsibility. Throw a dependent minor into that mix and it gets even uglier.
Its 2014, if you want to have a discussion of equality you should have been born in the time of reconstruction. You no longer have the right to claim words like logic. You no longer have the ability to discuss this. We're past that point. This matter is not open for discussion among humans. You either agree that everyone deserves equal treatment and equal rights, or you are a bigot. Those are your choices. It doesn't matter what twisted sudo-logic you try to use to justify your racism or your sexism or your homophobia or your bigotry, none of them work, and none of them are justifications, and none of them are logical.
The only reason you can possibly hold the opinion that they should not be equal for any reason is sheer ignorance. I could have excused ignorance twenty years ago. I could have excused it fifty years ago. I could have easily excused it a century ago. But I can't excuse it now. Not in this country, and certainly not from the people who have the ability to post on this board.
Why not you ask? what makes the difference between now and twenty years ago? Simple, the answer is the internet. WE didn't have the wide proliferation of the internet twenty years ago. Now we do. You can go and find true, honest, scientific, unbiased information. You can find the truth about issues. You can educate yourself, and its all as simple as doing a google search and knowing how to weed out the bullshit.
So there is no excuse anymore. If you are ignorant, as has been displayed by several posters on here but most agregiously by Wayne and Meow, then it is your fault and your choice. I say its time we start treating you like the lower form of humanity you're choosing to be. That's the only way we're going to get to a higher form of society.
Just like Asa Carter and Wallace Stevens were weeded out, (google them if you don't know who they are), its time we start weeding out people with ignorant philosophies who don't fit with the society we have formed. And for those of you who have already started typing, "but Cody, you're just saying we don't fit your version of society", stop. Don't waste your typing. I have over 250 years of history which documents the progress toward equality on my side. I have several cases of federal judges throwing out anti-homosexual-discrimination bills on my side. I even have the fact that the bill in Kansas was killed on my side. You have the westboro Baptists and crazy youtube preachers like Dr. Chaps. My side wins hands down. The faster you realize that, educate yourself, and join the thought-process of progress and equality, the sooner we'll stop treating you like a lower form of humanity, or at least I will.
Well, we really can't make fun of russia any more as a country for their Gay oppression stance. We have a lot of high brow morally corrupt sub human piles of shit here, we need to deal with first. I don't believe that its OK to bend the discrimination laws and standards to subject gays to the same treatment those of other races faced years ago. I see what wayne is saying to a point, but when you get right down too it, this is the kind of arm twisting of the law we should stand up and say is wrong. though i'm an atheist, if I chose to open up a bar, and refused to serve Christians who are outspoken about their faith, i'd be sued to hell and back. the right wing would run me down, and most of america would probably be on their side. People wouldn't defend my right to kick christians out. Same thing goes for serving disabled people, guide dog users, people of different races, etc.
I do understand this is a complex issue. Considering bigots can't play nice in their little sandboxes clearly, we've got to step in and add to the discrimination laws "No evicting the gay or LGBT community from your business, unless they actually cause a serious disruption."
Until that step comes though, We as a community should be vocal. We should make our displeasure known.We should make these people understand that they're not living in the 1960s any more, and either need to grow the hell up, or take a job doing something that doesn't possibly mean they'll come in to contact with the "untouchables."
People can't refuse to grant marriage documents to african american couples, or mixed race couples, even though many christian groups will tell you mixed race marriage is against gods will, in the south anyway. So why are we going to underwrite the oppression and restriction of rights for gays? By this logic, I could move to kansas, set up shop and refuse to serve Christians, and christians only because doing so violates my atheistic beliefs, and makes me feel uncomfortable. I'd bet you all the money i have my restaurant or bar wouldn't last 2 days.
Maybe I have personal reason to be fired up about this. My brother is gay. I don't want him to ever suffer like that. He lives in the republican capital known as Texas. In my opinion we need to stamp out this subhuman shit now, before it spreads to any more states than it already has. My brother, his boyfriends, and any of my LGBT friends shouldn't be denied access to any public place in this country because of a preference *They can't change.* I'll bet that if there was a law allowing people to kick disabled people out of their shops, stores, bars, etc... The reaction here would be much different.
Last thought. If you haven't lived in the south for an extended period of time, like myself, Leo, Cody, chelsea, and others have... I can tell you truthfully you don't understand how much different a world it is culturally. bigotry is not only encouraged, but its a social norm.You start giving some of these closed minded, and seriously hateful people an inch... they'll take a mile. That in my opinion is why we shouldn't just quietly sit and watch these people turn back the civil rights calendar. Yes, we must do that with laws, for most. But there is nothing wrong with letting these bigots know they're being bigots in the mean time.
SW, I'll explain what you do. You do nothing unles laws get broken. Then, you throw those who broke the law out. Period, end of story. If you discriminate you're going to lose your business and pay legal bills, so if you want to look at it economically it makes more sense to lose a few customers who can't handle drinking in the same room as a homosexual.
I usually don't read boards, but I was prompted to read this one by my lovely boyfriend. I really wish he hadn't though.
Words ccan't and explain how sickened, disgusted, angry, upset, and yes, a little fearful I am right now. The fact that you would eeven have to discuss whether this is right or not frightens me. Bottom line is, GAY PEOPLE ARE HUMANS! They are not a separate species. They are not from another planet. THEY ARE HUMANS! What right do you have to tell humans beings not to be served or treated just as equally as other humans because of their sexuality?
This especially disgusts me because most of you are blind. You have a disability, which makes you a minority. Are you in favor, then, of being told "We won't serve you because you're blind"? It's ridiculous!
Flaunt? Why should people have to hide who they are to make you comfortable? Do you kiss? Hug? Hold hands? Some of you probably don't because you don't like PDA, but I bet a lot of you do. So should you not "Flaunt" your heterosexuality? This is one of the most upsetting board posts I've read on the zone since I've been a user. Stop treating homosexuals like they're inhuman!
I live in Missouri, which is frankly too close to Kansas, and I'm from Tennessee. I am outraged! No, I'm not gay. I am, however, a biracial, bblind woman who faces her own issues and can more than understand how ignorant and shameful this bill is. You who support it, defend it, condone it, can understand it even on a remote level disgust me.
I am ashamed of America, and I'm ashamed that people like you are humans.
I think Bob raises a rather valid point in one respect. . To wit, to some extent our society has degenerated into a bunch of screamers and blamers. I wonder how it all got started. Bob, you’ve presented an objective definition of the word “flaunt.” Objectively speaking, I have to say that I don’t fit this definition. I’m pretty matter of fact about being gay. I can get a little campy with my friends, but by and large I’m pretty quote end-quote straight-acting. When one of my friends informed another friend at work that I was gay, she was like, “John is gay?” Never even entered her mind. But I’m getting a little off track here myself, though this anecdote does demonstrate a point. It seems to me that we’ve reached a level of toxicity in our society that we, especially gay people, can’t always be sure that even the casual mentioning of anything that reveals our sexuality might not be considered flaunting. Sure, I can be pretty brave behind this keyboard because I’ve never met one single solitary person on this board. Maybe I can even be a little defiant here about being gay because in large measure this is the sort of forum that allows a lot of leeway when it comes to discussions like this. The thing I wrestle with is how brave I can be in the real world, which let’s face it, this really is not. Yes, gay people have made great strides over the past ten years. If you’d told me a decade ago that I would have moved back to my childhood home town and felt comfortable being as out as I was, I wouldn’t have believed you. We don’t talk a lot about it, but my mother accepts me, and I think she’d like to see me find a guy that I can be happy with. Two years ago I came out to my nephew, and it could not have gone better. I have friends here who accept and like me for me, and I count my boss as one of them so I don’t have to worry about getting fired. How much better could one have it? But none of us will ever really be completely free when some of us have to worry about mentioning our same-sex partners even casually and be treated to raised eyebrows at best and violence at the worst. I hear it all the time from people who use the word “flaunt” the wrong way. “Why do you have to flaunt being gay? I don’t flaunt being straight.” What they don’t realize is that they don’t flaunt being straight because when a man or woman mentions an opposite-sex partner, it’s considered “normal.” Thus, “flaunting” isn’t even remotely an issue. These proposed bills only serve to demonstrate how far we still have to go despite all the progress we’ve obviously made. When you stop to think about it, these laws are pretty cleverly designed because they permit people to act hatefully, all within reason, of course, without actually outright compelling it. It would be the equivalent of Hitler decreeing that Jews can be forbidden to patronize parks, restaurants and hotels or be denied entrance to universities if good Germans chose to forbid them from going into this or that park, visiting this or that restaurant, staying in this or that hotel or matriculating into this or that university. He never said absolutely that Jews shalt not go to parks, patronize restaurants, stay at hotels or go to universities; he’s leaving it up to the people to treat Jews as subhuman if they want to. After all, it’s not as though he’d be sending them to the gas chambers or locking them away in concentration camps for the unspeakable crime of being Jews.
In short, these bills are not benign exercises of states’ rights, they pervert a religion of supposed love and acceptance and use it as a crutch to treat otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens as second-class human beings based on something that cannot be controlled. If enacted, they would drive many of us back into the closet out of fear of being rejected, ridiculed, scorned or possibly harmed. I’d hate to be a gay teen growing up under such a regime; it was tough enough growing up in the 70s and 80s. I suppose the only good thing these proffered bills do is to provoke enough outrage that they make us aware of what some of us are doing in the name of perverting freedom of religion. But as demonstrated here at times, they also provoke screaming matches. Maybe to a certain extent that’s justifiable, but the problem I have with it is that if everyone’s screaming, who’s listening?
So you're saying gay people should be allowed to flaunt their sexuality but I am not allowed to flaunt my logic? Oh that's right, I'm just a lower life form. Thanks once again for proving my earlier point. You are right, the discussion is over because you are so blinded by your twisted interpretation of what was being said and your emotions to partake in intelligent conversation. Sad.
If we Americans are going to continue to live in harmony, we must respect our laws, and we must amend them as situations such as this one arise, not trample them in anger.
It is true, that the federal Government sets forth laws, but these laws are written in our constitutional bounties, and these are the amendments 2ND 4th and 14th that give the states ’ rights to enact law the federal Government must respect until an amendment is set forth in the constitution.
If constitutional law had not prevailed, the federal law that stated same sex marriage was not legal, could not have been successfully challenged by the states.
We now have 14 states that legally recognize same sex unions.
In date order, those states are: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Maryland, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, California and New Jersey. The District of Columbia also recognizes gay marriages as of March 3, 2010.
Colorado will soon follow.
The federal Government cannot dictate law that takes these rights from test states, so by the same token must allow, and accept Kansas and other states decision to not allow certain things to its gay citizens due to religious beliefs held by the majority.
We can say it’s wrong, and its violation of civil rights, but until we place an amendment on the federal constitution that sexual preference, these states can legally Denbigh openly gay citizens, but not if they are not openly gay.
We argue that the right of gay citizens are the same issue as black citizens, but that isn’t exactly true.
When a person steps from the privacy of there home, if they are Black, White, Hispanic, or Native American, these straights are obvious to anyone observing them stepping out.
What is not known is their sexual preference. The only way these things are known, the person stepping out has to cause them to be.
For this reason Kansas can say that anyone displaying the fact they are gay is offensive, and if a business owner feels this display will offend the majority of his customers, that owner can refuse to serve the couple.
Federal, constitutional law protects that same couple from the business owners decision if they are not displaying there sexual preference.
A black person can’t stop displaying his or her blackness, to be served, but a gay couple can and be served and cannot be Denbigh service. This bill was carefully drafted with language covering this law.
In this discussion, we are only focused on one issue, that non serving of a gay couple or person that is displaying his or her sexual preference. We haven’t addressed the religious aspect, which was the main base this bill stands on.
The 1st amendment gives us all, religious, or non-religious, the right to practice our beliefs freely and without Government intervention. The Government cannot come between a person and there God.
For this reason, language was used stating if something was against a person’s religious beliefs, they did not have to be subjected to it.
In all states where same sex unions are legal, the Government cannot force any federal employee to sign a gay couple certificate, but must provide someone to do it if that person states it is against their religious belief.
Using that same application, states do not have to recognize anyone displaying they are gay if it is religiously offensive.
I agree it is a shoddy defense, but it is perfectly legal and must stand.
It is the reason, although it is not legal by federal law, or, constitutional law, religious communities can enact laws that are legally binding, such as the one I gave where in the State of Utah, it is legal to marry more than one wife. The Government has to allow it.
I’ll close my opinion by staying until we Americans push our congress to push for an amendment to the constitutions bill of rights stating sexual preference is a human right, not a human choice, we will continue to have states passing laws that persecute our gay citizens.
Wayne, nothing you said in that entire post was correct.
The second fourth and fourteenth amendment don't even have anything to do with the states. The only amendment that has to do with the states is the tenth amendment. The second is the right to bear arms. The fourth is the right to privacy and protection against unlawful search and seizure. The fourteenth deals with population, residency and rebellion. It does nothing to tell the state what laws they can pass.
You're an idiot, we all know it, feel free to stop proving it.
As for Meow, no, you don't get to flaunt your logic. Because you have none. You're not logical if you think there is any justification for inequality under any circumstances. There aren't any. So you don't get to claim logic because you have proven to not possess any.
These amendments were all created by state law, not government law.
Some personal notes.
Before I posted, I gave this issue much thought, and I actually read the bill, so I could study it, and learn its contents, and why it was passed.
I set my personal opinions and emotions aside.
The year 2014 or the year 1960 changes nothing in a persons religious, or personal beliefs, it is the laws of the land that make us human and socially open to others.
Right now, America has a black president, but that hasn’t changed prejudice.
If not for his party placing him in the position, his skin color would have never gotten him there.
He is still seen as a black man, not the president, or that guy.
I am a black man, and it is 2014, but I must be careful where I go if I am with a white woman.
We can walk in, we can sit down, but the service will either be so bad we leave, or due to the vibe in the place, we understand we are not welcome, so we’d be foolish to remain.
I can return to that same place in some cases with a black girl and be treated just fine by the same people.
2014 has not changed majority dislike of Jews, Latinos, Blacks, Gays, and other groups, it is the laws that have made people accept them.
I could not come out anger, with my heart on my sleeve, after I understood why this bill passed. I had to accept why it was even allow to come in to being.
After that deliberation, I wanted to find a solution that could keep this sort of situation from happening in the future. That solution was a change in the laws, not as one poster says, kicking and screaming about how unfair it was.
If reason makes me all the titles that were attached to me, so be it, but reason will be how this situation gets changed, not anger.
If you understand why something has happened, you are better able to find a solution to repair the damage, and that is the tact I chose to take.
I have enjoyed reading the reasonable post.
First, polygamy is still illegal in Utah; that was a condition of its being admitted into the several states. This is still true despite a federal district court’s recent ruling that you could not prosecute someone for bigamy based on cohabitation. Utah still only allows one marriage certificate to be issued at a time, as I read the NPR article entitled “Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions” dated December 18, 2013. So, this guy who has four “wives” doesn’t actually have but one legal wife, it seems to me. Also, I disagree that you cannot absolutely interfere with someone’s religious freedoms where the exercise thereof interferes with another’s right to be treated as an equal. The analysis that blacks and other persons of color are more protected than gay people because they can’t turn off the exterior manifestations of their differences strikes me as disingenuous because it means that as long as a gay person does not openly manifest any aspect of his or her homosexuality, he or she will not face discrimination, shame or hatred from the so-called “normal” elements. And this means even the most innocuous of references such as, for instance, my referring to my boyfriend instead of my girlfriend. I would also argue that if Christianity is the so-called basis of this law and that if the majority of Kansans interpret Christianity as allowing discriminatory behavior toward gay people, then hypothetically speaking, either it’s just as acceptable for the majority of Christians to use Christianity to discriminate against, say, blacks or other minorities as it is to discriminate against gay people, or it’s not. People do still use Christianity as a means of justifying their racial prejudices. In either instance, it strikes me that we have progressed as a nation when we have not always bowed to majority rule because there are instances when the minority is tyrannized by the majority. This has happened in the South before the civil rights movement, and it still happens now in the majority of states when it comes to the issue of gay marriage alone. As to post 56, if it was addressed to me, I hope you read my post better than you appear to have done. I did not say that people should or should not be allowed to “flaunt” their sexuality whether gay or straight. What I did say was that as gay people, we get acused of “flaunting” our sexuality even in the most innocuous of instances. Being allowed to be ourselves without fear of legal or extralegal retribution is all that the vast majority of us are after. That makes perfect sense in my view and has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to flaunt our sexuality.
No amendment to the constitution has ever been made by a state Wayne. That isn't how the process works. Just because a law suit starts out in the state, does not mean that the state made the amendment. That's basic civics.
Also, I'd like to address this idea that black people can't hide who they are. Actually they can, or at least they could. It was called Sambo. Google it and educate yourself. I don't have the time to be your teacher on civics and basic united states history.
Wayne, laws do not create acceptance, they can't. That is why I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about the intelligent ones among us looking at people like you, who wouldn't know civics from a hole in his ass, and saying that you are no longer allowed to talk until you become smarter.
Well, if everyone just sat back and excepted things for the way they were this country would be anything but the way it is today. It takes committed people who are willing to get up off their asses and do something, fight for a change for the good of the majority as well as what is best for smaller minority groups (which I am not referring to any groups as minor or inferior to others so please do not interpret that as so), and make an attempt to build things up. You can have a lot of say probably more so than you realize if you stand up for something with a lot of knowledge and support from other people. Unfortunately more people in this country just let things fly because they are too afraid of being persecuted for not agreeing.
I should have refered to the complete bill of rights.
These again were the first amendments to the Constitution, and gave states power so that the Government could not force them to do things they did not wish to do without much law being passed.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the term for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments explicitly limit the Federal government's powers, protecting the rights of the people by preventing Congress from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, and the right to bear arms, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States. These amendments came into effect on December 15, 1791, when ratified by three-fourths of the States.
Here are how they read. I am not a constitutional lawery, but these are what makes it possible for Kansas and other states to do as they are trying to do.
The United States Bill of Rights
Congress OF THE United States,
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Article the first. .... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every 30,000 until the number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than 100 Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than 200 Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every 50,000 persons.
Article the second ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Article the fifth ....... No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh .. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Article the ninth .. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article the tenth ..... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article the eleventh .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth ... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of course it is possible for anyone to hide what they are, but it is not easy like just not saying.
If I am gay, and I don't display any flag, behavior, or make a statement, knowone knows.
To change my skin color is not something I can just do at anytime I wish.
The only way, as I see it, we can change all the wrongs all of you are posting is through law, not anger. Anger is fine, but it doesn't move any processes that say legally Kansas and anyother state trying to do as they are doing can't.
Post 60.
I like your view.
Here is my question. What is your solution to fix it?
If not law, as I suggest, what would you suggest?
Wayne, are you suggesting being passive about it? Ok, I understand why it was passed, but it doesn't mean I have to accept it. Especially, especially when I understand not only why it was passed but the people that are affected by it. I'm not here to tell you that you're an idiot, as it's not my place to do so. But I think there are things beyond reason and logic here. It's none of my business if the woman in the elevator, or the man in the lobby are homosexual. I don't care what others do in bed. It shouldn't affect what I do, or the business I run. Oh, and greg, to answer your question I wouldn't send the gay couple out, I would ask the haters to leave. Certainly they are not the only people who come for some drinks at my bar every day, other people might come to hang out there. I'm sorry, but I do believe gay people deserve respect and to have the same rights as others. Whoever mentioned their finances is right, think of all the sheffs and people who design clothes and who have great business positions. It has nothing to do with the way they think or work, so I don't really understand why. I don't think that every business will go, ok, all the gay people meet me in the conference room, and to their surprise they get lady off. It just ain't gonna happen. It wouldn't be fair. I don't think one has to do with the other...
No, not passive at all.
You have a rep to the united state congress. You saw this law in Kansas passed, but you don't like it.
I'm writing my letter.
I just feel we have to change the law, and I feel an constitution law is the best from to make that happen.
We can't change Kansas law, because Kansas voted for what they felt they wanted in that state, so we have to make sexual preference a human right, not a choice.
As it stands, no matter what I think, Kansas sees it as a choice, and a wrong one.
Shepherdwolf, I will answer your question regarding a store, coffee bar, bar, etc.
You've heard "The customer is always right." That only extends so far, and doesn't extend to their infringement on other customers. So if someone wants to push in line to get coffee, he's not right, just because he's the customer. If he wants me to expel the gay person he is also not right.
People threaten to leave stores for a whole host of reasons. Maybe you have too much male energy. I got told this when running a quickstop where a whole host of postal workers came and got coffee and snacks. This offended older woman didn't possess the right to dispossess my customer base.
Now remember, the gay person isn't asking for anything. This is what Cody means by twisted logic. They're just there like anyone else. So others in that establishment can't start running things, demanding I expel the gay person. If you do that as a proprietor, you just asked to be run over in all sorts of ways. You really aren't there to please everybody. You're there to provide the goods and services that meet your market's demands. I never provided well for vegans because my places tended to be quick stop type locations where people want fat greasy quick food and good coffee. Vegan items for a minority simply don't sell well.
I hope I'm explaining this right. You are always making decisions like this running stores or even bars. You carry some products and not others, due to distribution rights. Yu cater to one group of clientele usually, even if that clientele base is pretty general.
Cody also mentioned getting sued which is a real problem. And no matter the religion, your insurance company is not going to touch that with a ten foot pole if you openly refused a gay person and got sued. That'll be your own pocket.
And often it's not the person in question who sues, others who were offended by the gay person having been expelled. Some rich white person who saw it happen is more likely to sue you than some downtrodden and disenfranchised gay.
It'd be the same thing with companion animals. On another board, you referred to what I wrote as anecdotal and it was: that dog that constantly came into my place. Its owner didn't manage it well. We all just kept an eye out and things. And that could have damaged merchandise. But a gay person isn't even in the same league: they're just there.
For those who consider this flaunting of gays:
Any aspect of yourself can be said to be flaunting. You a college student? The topic of school come up? You're flaunting your student status in the face of people who can't get student loans. We who work mention our jobs? We're flaunting our employed status in the face of the unemployed. You see, this starts to sound ridiculous when you remove non-normative factors like sexual orientation or disability.
Anyway I realize I also came off as screaming in earlier posts and hindsight would say that was particularly unwise. Thanks to Bob for calling this out. You're right, only rational discourse will really fix this. We ought to leave the screaming to the bigots.
So Wayne what you are saying is for them to not act in a way that they truly feel. Just conform to what the "Normal straight people" do and act in society, because if you act like us it won't even be a question of "are they gay?" Need I say any more? Why can't people except the fact that people that are gay want to be excepted in society regardless of being gay? It does not infringe on your day-to-day life. It doesn't matter if two guys or girls that you never knew before got married and decided to come in to your shop for a cup of coffee. I said this before, if you want to reject them from your store because of their sexual preferences, nnot only are you losing on out on money and threatening your own reputation, but you are prejudice. Get over the fact that gays want to be treated equally because that is the direction we are going in, and I along with many other people will support it.
I personally am not saying anything. I am taking the other side to explain why Kansas, and other states, is doing as they have done.
My personal opinion, feelings, emotions, are not here. I am discussing an issue.
The law seems the best and only way to resolve issues such as this one.
Here in this small community, and even among the opened minded posters on this board, we require constitution, and legal protection.
There are some that would restrict religious expression and belief, abolishing it completely.
We have some that would restrict or limit freedom of speech, the way some choose to express themselves and their beliefs.
We have others that are offended by topics of discussion, such as intimate relations, birth control, mixed race relationships, and a host of other items.
We have others that are racially prejudice, even though they are disabled, and have had to deal with this against themselves.
I am positive we have others who have not posted that feel this subject should be stricken from this site, and would agree that homosexuality, in any form is an abomination.
Our small community here as also a state, and has rules that govern behavior, the behavior is technically not illegal, but in order to be a member of this community, we fallow the terms of service.
We have these that feel these rules are oppressive, and have either been expelled from the community over violation, or left due to disagreement.
What makes this community able to exist, although, not in harmony, is the mighty constitution, and United States of America’s laws.
One example of how this community limits our freedoms due to state rule, is freedom of speech.
In this community, you can’t use the N word to express yourself, no matter how you feel about it.
This state has decided banning the use of this word is best for the welfare of the whole, so strips you of your rights to use it freely as you choose.
You have options however. You can leave the community, and go to one that allows you to use the N word, You can simply not use it and continue to be a member of this community, or you can take your case to the United States Of America’s governing body, and get constitutional law that makes not only this community, but any that operate in the web space of the United States of America stop restricting your freedom to use the N word.
This is not perfect by any means, and historically been a struggle for several groups, but it does and has worked.
Due process is what makes America one of the most desirable places to live.
We have had civil war, when American’s fought American’s sure, but all our other disputes among ourselves, have mainly been fought using pen, paper, speeches, and demonstrations.
The courts have solved these disputes, and I see no reason this one can not, and will not be the same.
All right, Leo. Let me see if I have this straight. I'm just trying to be clear.
You're saying, or implying, that no matter what happens, I should still stay afloat as that bar-owner. Even if a good chunk of my clientelle leaves, there'll still be a good number who don't care or who may help bring new business. You're saying, in sort, tat the treat of my going under is pretty much nil. For every person who gets off their barstool, someone else will probably walk in at some point...and even if they don't do it right away, most people probably aren't up in arms about homosexuality to the point where they'd stop coming to a bar purely because a gay person was on the premises.
If that's right, then that's good. I'd like to hope it's right, anyway. That's how it ought to be. Let the bigots growl and stalk off, is what I say. If my scenario of being abandoned by most of my clientelle is simply not realistic, then feeling as if you're forced to take action is also unrealistic. And thus, in that light, I can't really think of any viable scenario where that bill makes any sense.
As to people like Meow, who seems to hold a similar viewpoint to my own, bear in mind that we are not advocating bigotry. We are doing nothing more than explore the situation. The trigger-based hatespeak we got in response (Meow especially) is the sort of response commonly associated with dogmatism. Might want to keep an eye on that, since bigotry and dogmatism go hand in hand. I'd even argue that there is evidence of a sort of moral/civic superiority thing going on here in some cases, and it's counterproductive.
There is nothing wrong with exploring avenues, using test cases for validity.
One thing, though. Cody, are you a rights activist, active in your community on behalf of all the causes you champion in all these threads, or are you just a keyboard warrior bent on making a point? Something Leo said many many posts ago caused me to think about this. There are a great number of people who suggest that others put their money where their mouth is, and I wonder if you're one of them.
If you are such an advocate, by the way, congratulations for being one of the honest ones.
hmmm, good points Greg. I love your last post. It made sense. ...
Yes, Greg. Many will tell you they will leave, and so forth, but most won't. And those who do will only stir up some controversy maybe, causing others to maybe come by and see what the fuss is all about.
I would definitely use the law to fight this and other similar bills. Maybe this would be a doomed argument, but I’m a bit of a lefty these days when it comes to many issues, so that means I interpret constitutional law as broadly as possible. As I said earlier, we’ve often used the law, particularly the courts, to protect the rights of the minority when the majority would trample them. Witness Brown v Board and other similar cases. We do this because to deny rights to the few might ultimately lead to the denial of rights to the many. So, if the Kansas law is based on Christianity, or at least Christianity as interpreted by the supposed majority of Kansans who support this proposed bill, I’d argue that this bill violates the free exercise of religion because the government is effectively attempting to impose its strict interpretation of Christianity on those who might believe differently. As I said, it may not fly because the argument can be made that you’re leaving the practice of religion in the hands of individuals, and that the state isn’t actually doing anything. In other words, the individual’s decision to discriminate against gay people based on religion has nothing to do with the state. I would counter that argument by saying that even so, again we sometimes protect the rights of minorities over those of the majority, and that in any case, no matter how dear we hold rights like freedom of speech, religion and the right to bear arms, none of these rights are completely sacrosanct. Long ago, Oliver Wendel Homes JR declared that no one has the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. We have laws against libel and slander to protect individuals from false and malicious charges. And where the exercise of religion can cause harm to another, we proscribe such behaviors. It may, for instance, be perfectly acceptable given one interpretation of Mormonism to force young girls into polygamous marriages at the age of thirteen, but we as a society have declared that doing so endangers the health and welfare of these young girls. I guess we have to decide whether we’re gunna tolerate a state’s use of religion as a crutch to protect individuals who want to discriminate against a whole group of people based on hate and prejudice. If so, we let such bills like the proposed law in Kansas stand. If not, we fight it. To me, it’s simple.
Just to be clear. With my posts, I did understand that wayne, SW, Meow etc were for the most part making theoretical arguments. Any hate speech was honestly and truthfully meant to anyone who would stand behind that bill in practice.
A few points to address. Wayne, your argument is predicated on the idea that this isn't already illegal. It is. If that law had passed it would have ben in blatant disregard for more than one constitutional amendment. You need to look at more than just the bill of rights wayne. It only makes up a third of the constitutional amendments. Read on and you'll learn more about this situation.
Now, SW, there are problems with exploring these avenues. When you read a news report that says "man shoots black teen for holding skittles". You don't say, "Well, perhaps the man felt threatened by the teen's skittles. Maybe they'd had a rash of break-ins in that neighborhood and the man felt that this skittly teen may have ben at fault". You don't say these things because we've gotten past that in our society. Racism is old news. That is not to say there is not racism, just that we're used to calling people racists when they're being such.
Now though, we have an entirely new civil rights struggle, and it has all the hallmarks that the last ones have shown. Gays are being assaulted and prejudiced against, just as blacks were before them, and women were before the blacks, and native americans were before the women, and so on and so forth. Yet, for some reason, we keep going all the way back to square one.
So, let me explain why it is not right to explore these avenues of thought. It is not right because prejudice is wrong, period. Whether that prejudice is against black people, women, native americans, redheads, jews, muslims, atheists, Christians, short people, tall people, fat people, vegetarians, communists, socialists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Asians, Africans, or in this case homosexuals. Its wrong, and that's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if you feel that gay people violate your Christian doctrine. It doesn't matter if your client base feels that gay people are an abomination. It doesn't matter if you think gay couples are ucky and yucky. It doesn't matter if you think that gays are a sin before the lord. It doesn't matter what you think, how you think, or why you think it. Prejudice, for any reason, at any time, against any person, no matter what, is wrong. So there are no avenues. The avenues you guys want to explore are dead ends.
So for Meow to say that she's sickened when we cowtow to men in suits, is at the least a completely inaccurate and pointless statement, and at most a form of bigotry in and of itself which deserves to be put down like the cancer that bigotry is. For wayne to even suggest that there might be a reason for this mode of thinking is assisting in the problem. For us to do nothing, to not raise our voices and say enough is enough, to allow this debate as if the other side had a platform upon which to make an argument is assisting in the problem. That's why we don't have scientists debating flat earth proponents. Because we've come to the conclusion that the world is round, and we've gotten past the idea that there can be any debate on that subject. We've reached that point now with prejudice. There is no justification for it.
Finally, yes, I put my money where my mouth is SW. Not for every single group, because I don't have that much time, but I do. Currently I am helping a woman in Canada who is suffering drastically. I'd be glad to give details on her situation in a tdifferent place than on this board.
Cody, I see what you're saying. I agree with a good bit of it, and I do agree that prejudice is wrong. I think most of us agree with that, no matter what form it takes.
At worst, I'll say this much: if you're so open-and-shut about it, then just ignore those of us who may be interested in dissecting the living hell out of it. We're no threat to any minority - in fact, most of us belong to at least one - and most of us are good people with good sense. We have as much right to flog an idea around as the next person, to explore complications. If we came across some really odd quirk in the laws of physics tomorrow that suggested, as a very outside chance, that the earth might be a bit different than we thought, we'd not be foolish to ponder it, so long as we weren't trying to hurt anyone with our musing. And since we aren't, that ought to speak for itself.
Just keep in mind that I am not supporting prejudice. The very worst thing I did was suggest that there might be a situation where one might feel pressured to harm someone in a minority group to avoid a potentially greater wrong (subjectively speaking of course). And since the scenario I laid out was mostly shown to be improbable, the test case kind of failed anyway. I see nothing wrong with exploring and then rejecting such a test case. If you're an intellectually sharp person with a desire to help people, and if aid requires understanding, I don't see why this should be any more than mildly irritating to you.
Yes SW, if we discovered some flaw in the laws of physics, we would be right to reexamine everything. The round earth, orbiting the sun, the elliptical orbit, revolving once a day, all of that. Reexamine everything. But there is no little flaw that suggests the stance that homophobia is wrong is inaccurate. Its why people try to invent them. If you watch a lot of the more vocal oponents to same sex equality, you'll notice that they all try to find reasons we should be against it. One really common one is the aids argument. They argue, gay people have aids, aids is bad, ergo gay is bad. Its completely wrong, and we all know its completely wrong.
So, while you are right in saying we should discuss it when there is possibility of the answer changing, or our current answer being wrong, there is no chance of that. WE already went through all this. WE did the social experiments and explored social Darwinism. WE did it over a century ago. Its time we move on. Just like its time we stop treating creationism or flat earth as a viable scientific idea.
As for why I care, its simple. I care because I don't like people who use misinformation or false information to promote an ajenda. That is what wayne has been doing this whole time. He's ben misquoting, or misusing, or cmisrepresenting, or simply ignoring evidence in order to make his point. That's intellectually dishonest, and I can't abide that.
Also, it treats it as if it is still a viable idea. That's why Richard Dawkins won't debate creationists. It gives them a platform where they get to compare themselves to real scientists. IN this case, bigots get to put their ideas on the same level as our ideas and say, "See, we're arguing them, they must be equal", and that just isn't true. They're trash, and you don't pick trash out of the garbage, compare it to newly packaged food and go, "hmm, what should I make for dinner, garbage or pork chops."
Wow. Okay... as many posts as this topic contains, as much as my brain hurts at the moment, and as sickened as I am by this whole sorry business, I'm glad I read the board in its entirety. This discussion has resolved some internal conflict that I was having with the issue. The following is a copy of a Facebook status I posted last night, which will explain said conflict:
I'd love to hear some insight on this article before it makes my brain implode. I firmly believe that any type of discrimination, for any reason, is wrong. Let's be honest, though--I think it's fairly obvious that this travesty of a bill is not as much about religious persecution as it is about making life miserable for those of us in the LGBT community, as Stern says. I'd be willing to bet that about half of the people in support of this legislation are bigoted hypocrites who haven't seen the inside of a church in years. And I know damn well that if a Muslim or a Pagan approached the legislature and asked for any kind of impunity based on religious beliefs, he/she would be denied faster than you can say "biased". But that, in and of itself, is proof that religious persecution does happen in this country. So how do we reconcile these issues? How do we avoid compromising some people's religious beliefs without oppressing another group of people solely on the basis of who they love?
In summary, my question was, what do we do when cases of discrimination conflict with each other? I now have some solutions. Now, my recent exposure to Bible verses has been limited to episodes of Adventures in Odyssey [which is still an awesome show despite the fact that (1) I left Christianity behind years ago, and (2) I'm an adult... lol], but I'm pretty sure there's something in it about not associating with people who could lead you astray. So, if you want to use that as your reason for not providing goods or services to the LGBT community, then do as suggested in a previous post and open an establishment exclusive to those who share your beliefs. I think I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that the majority of us in the LGBT community would not try to infringe upon your right to take that approach because, as was also pointed out earlier, we're not going to purposely go where we're not wanted.
It's a whole different ball game, however, when it comes to such arenas as health care and law enforcement. And Wayne, this is where I have to wonder how well you understand the implications of the bill, because according to the article, these arenas are covered under the legislation. So if I go to the hospital because of a life-threatening condition or call the police because of a crime or other situation that puts my life in danger and if my sexual orientation became known to the hospital staff or responding officers, I could be refused service. This could lead to my death. If that is not a human rights issue, than do provide me with a definition of "human rights", because I'm obviously sorely mistaken as to what it means. I would also like to point out, just as an FYI, that if the current version of this bill were to pass in any state, the LGBT community would not, in fact, be able to sue those who would discriminate against us. Furthermore, if we tried to do so, we would have to pay the other party's legal fees once we lost. This law would effectively send us back decades.
As to the question of whether business owners should refuse service to an LGBT individual or couple in order to protect their income, that depends entirely on the principles of each individual and how willing he/she is to compromise them. Personally, I stand up for my beliefs no matter what the cost, but I understand that not everyone will do that. In the end, each individual has to live with his/her own choices.
The final point I would like to make is that even though this is 2014 and we have come a long way with regard to defending human rights, we still have far to go. Obviously, LGBT rights need work. Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work. And protections for those of us with disabilities are not nearly as good as even we would like to think (do not get me started on that; that's for another day). And yes, unfortunately minorities do discriminate against each other. All the time. You'd think we'd all unite, as we're all in the same marginalized boat. But alas, this is not the case. Bigots will be bigots, and no amount of Internet research will change their views unless they open their minds and want to be educated. Personally, I don't give two shits what people think about me, my disability, my sexual orientation, or any other aspect of my being unless they're infringing upon my freedom, in which case I'll see them in court. And regarding that, Wayne is right. It's not enough to express our anger about the violation of human rights. We must turn that anger into action and fight for new legislation!
That being said, Cody and others, thank you for expressing exactly what the pissed-off, disgusted, incredulous, and emotional part of myself wanted to yell to the world while the human rights activist in me worked this out. lol. I guess that was precisely my reason for initially approaching this matter the way I did. I'm not just an LGBT rights activist; I'm an all-encompassing human rights activist. Therefore, I had to consider all of the groups involved. And even though I don't agree with many Christian principles, I will fight to the death for the right of Christians to uphold those principles, as long as their doing so does not harm anyone else. But this bill could clearly be harmful, even life-threatening, so no incarnation of it must be allowed to pass in any state. It failed in Kansas, but I'm sure bigots in many other state legislatures are foaming at the mouth to try their hand at it, and it looks like Idaho and my own Tennessee are next at bat. Good luck to us, and thank you all for helping me to work through this complex situation and to realize what actions I must take on the road ahead.
Namaste,
Becky
My view is right, your view is wrong!
My view is the way it should be, and you can’t even think about your view, because it is wrong, so you have no voice at all.
I’m going to pass this law here, that says I don’t have to even recognize you as a human, a citizen, and I do not have to give you any right whatsoever, unless you agree with me!
That attitude is exactly why Kansas and others are trying to pass laws against gay human beings.
And then there is the voice of reason. I don’t like this law, it should not be allowed to go in to law, because it will endanger me and take away my human rights.
I am going to fight this ruling, but I understand and agree that you can feel as you do, and practice as you do as long as you do not harm me. Even though we don’t agree, let’s continue to live together, and I will even fight to preserve your way of life, happiness, and freedoms as well.
That view is why America is strong, and why constitutional law needs to be enacted in this situation.
I read the bill once more, before writing this post, and found the same thing.
I do understand the problems with it, I sincerely do, and I strongly disagree with it, however, I decided to remain reasonable.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We've allowed people to think like this over and over again, thinking that we've won a war when we barely scraped by a battle over and over again. WE continue to do the same thing, and clearly it hasn't worked. So if we were to simply do the same thing again, we'd be insane. You are advocating doing the same thing again. You want to live and let live. I say its time to live and get rid of the things that keep us from living as we deserve. That includes thought processes such as this. WE need to do more than change the law. The law cannot garner acceptance, it can't even garner tolerance. A person who does what is required of them simply because the law tells them to do so is not a law abiding citizen. We need to change minds, not laws. That is why I am so vocal.
The irony of that last post kills me.
You want to change minds, and your method of doing so is to scream at people, call them fucksticks, misallocate blame and make bad analogies? You'll have to pardon me if you don't strike me as the poster-child for the "changing minds" movement. It's a great idea; you're just not what I'd call an ideal proponent.
If you want to change minds, use facts. Don't compromise, by all means, but stay clear of insults that muddy thinking. You surely know that passion rules reason, even where it shouldn't, so stop making the changing of someone's mind harder by facilitating the clouding of their thinking. You aren't the only cause, but you're not helping.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with standing firm, being unwilling to back down when you know you're right. There's also nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Go on doing that, by all means. Just don't expect people to take you seriously when you say that we should be changing minds. That would be like me trying to say that people should talk less.
I said we should change minds, I didn't say we should change all minds. I'm perfectly happy letting the more useless people wallow in ignorance. Just so long as they don't get into congress.
@Post79 / Becky, You know, this division of minorities has puzzled me for going on 25 years or so. How does a blind person lash out at gays, or a radical feminist lash out at someone with Aspergers, or how a trans friend of mine gets booted from womyn-born-womyn events?
The traditional thinking behind this is that it's a covert attempt to divide and conquer, and I'm not sure I grant the majority of people with that much foresight and intelligence to carry it off.
I think it's a resource issue: People who are disenfranchised typically have less, and so they fight for what is theirs and step on the most vulnerable target nearby. And, I think you have to look at the spotlight as a resource as much as food, clothing and shelter is. People fight over the spotlight as much as anything else.
It's up to us in the disenfranchised groups to see our commonalities and work together. That's not jibberish or new-age fliff, it ust makes sense. Each group has its own issues, yes, but in common there are some things like civil rights that we all share the need to acquire. I don't understand fully how some of my black gay friends are persecuted by their own community for being gay, when the black community itself suffers racism. That simply doesn't make a lick of sense to me. But it happens. This site is a perfect example: Largely made up of people who either don't have jobs because of their disability, or are probably paid less than their sighted counterparts, or something, and we have many who have troubles with gays on here.
I do have some challenges with what Becky said though. This idea of being misled and going astray. I don't know anything about Adventures in Odyssey, but the thinking originated with Socrates - a few hundred years before Christ. Its context is that of a moral mission to keep the youth uncorrupted. In Athens that meant ready to fight for country. So in Athens leading people astray or corrupting the character meant either outright pacifism or the idea that death in war was a tragedy to be mourned. This goes hand in hand with Socrates' view that tragedies and poetic works depicting the poor dead soldier were bad for society.
Again, I don't know what the Adventures in Odyssey people have to say about all that but I will say what you're referring to here is a group, typically a majority group, wanting to ensure its moral status goes unchallenged and in particular by younger people. I'm not sure it bears any resemblance to this discussion unless I'm missing something entirely.
Leo, you bring up some very interesting questions.
You say, "I think it's a resource issue: People who are disenfranchised typically have less, and so they fight for what is theirs and step on the most vulnerable target nearby."
Let me refer you to Eric Hoffer's book "the true believer". Hoffer maintains that participants in a movement have lots in common (though the goals of the movement are different.) I think that your description of the folks here on the zone as potential participants in a movement (at least that's how I interpret what you said), is very true.
--more in the next message--
Bob
Considering the folks here on the zone as participants in a movement is interesting, but not true.
The problem, as I see it, is that no leader has come forward to define methods and goals for us. And a movement without goals to achieve, and methods of achievement are merely postings in a board topic.
Look back at this board topic as an example. We started out with an agreeable topic (we all hated the Kansas proposed law).
But we wound up screaming and hollerin' at each other. There were many expressions of frustration: "what can we do?" and many attempts to explain various positions etc. But no one said, "let's do thus and such", and therefore, we on the zone do nothing as usual, except talk this topic to death, then go on to the next topic.
It's understandable, but damned frustrating.
Excuse me Leo if I misconstrued what you said.
Bob
No, I don't think you misconstrued anything. Definitely some things for me to think about, however.
Hmm,
I don't understand the personal attacks there Silver, you called Wayne and Meow bigots for agreeing with your point, but simply looking at the other side. You threw a fit as if someone put sand into your vagina, and screamed the words, "Death to homosexuals"
The 2nd biggest problem with this bill are people like you, who come onto a damn website for the blind, bitching and moaning about how much you hate it, but never making an attempt at resolving it. Write a ltter, start a facebook, start a fucking petition if you want, but don't attack people who are not even against you.
I spent so much of my life talking about how I was pro this, and pro that, but guess what? It didn't help anyone. I got involved with my colleges G.L.B.T.A group, and even made it down to the State Capital here in Hawaii to support the same sex marriage bill, that was just put in.
Was it a lot? No, but acting like a complete jackass, while doing absolutely nothing but bitch and moan is probably a little less productive..
Now, I don't mean this in an offensive way at all, but vacuum that sand out of your vagina, and actually do something..
Have a nice day..
Now, I know Cody is a big boy and can stand up for himself, so I'm not sticking up for him per say but I will at least ask this. Do you have any way of proving that he doesn't do things in the community to help out with this cause? Just because someone gets a little out of line on a website doesn't mean you can assume that they are just talking a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Now, I don't know if he does or does not actually do anything, but because of what I do know about him beyond his posts on these boards, I am going to assume that he does do more than sit at his computer just waiting for someone to make a retarded claim on a board topic that he can rip to shredds because he is an exuberant debater. To clarify, I don't really know this guy all that well either, so I'm not just taking his side because we are best friends or something.
Lots of good points braught up though. I'm glad that there are people who will stand up for what is equal for each and every individual person and group of people. For many of us it isn't something we do because we have other priorities, but the point of the boards here is to say what we think about various issues. We haven't come to many agreeable conclusions but such is life.
so you mean to tell me the sole purpose of this board is to bitch? Not to educate, not to change certain misconceptions? Not to motivate people to be proactive? Well, that is precisely what he's doing then..
I feel this is all an act, if he cared so much for the cause, he would be doing stuff, and don't give me that b.s, we both know he would have posted something in regards to how we can help, if he was helping himself..
Equality is nice, but like religion if you are going to attack people with asshhole comments,, you are just going to turn them off, and push them further away from your cause..
Besides, I did not see either of those 2 spewing any kind of hate.
So condone equality all you want, but I condone being tactful about it. Which he has not been..
And you're bitching about bitching, so stop bitching.
I don't know. Don't ask me what his intent is on here or the boards. He's all ready said multiple times what they are and regardless it isn't my place to say it for him. One thing has been clear for longer than I've been a user though, that is people aren't going to shy away from being ass holes because it hurts people's feelings, gets them angry, etc. I'm not saying I agree with it either, I just know better than to try throwing them under the bus because I know I'll be drug under it first. It's all ready ahppened or at least they say so. Plus I've done my share of damage to my own reputation on here in the past. But anyway... take it as you will, I just wanted to know your stand point on that.
Oh, and I disagree that he would tell others how to be more productive on here. I doubt he'd be willing to try and make people do stuff because it was right in his view. He may take his arguments to a far level but that's as far as it goes, maybe with some strong comments or names but that's it. That takes another type of person. Hope that makes sense. That's all I'll say.
Sorry to have to do this people, but it got worse. Take a look. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking-arizona-committee-passes-religious-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-bill/politics/2014/02/20/83476#.UwaerCoo5rQ
1st of all, did that really happen?
Did the biggest bitch on the Zone, really tell me to stop bitching? I feel like Lutherk just told me to stop being a pervert. What dimension am I living in? Wimpricator the biggest cunt on the zone, trying to create some damage control.. *Shakes head*
@Ryan- I hear you, and yes you have done your share of b.s, but you've done your time, and changed your course. If someone wants to act like a straight dick, I will treat them as such. He acts like he is so worked up, and so heroic, if he cares as much as his post claim, I challenge him to do something about it.
Now then, here's what you can do. Go to google, find the address or phone number for the representative from your area in your state and national congress. Then call them, or write them a letter saying that if they vote for any kind of bill of this nature you will never vote for them again. Have your friends do it, and your parents, and your teachers, and the cop you meet on the sidewalk. Have everyone do it. Then, do it with your senators and just repeat the process.
Another thing you can do. Stop going to churches that spout this kind of anti homosexual bigotry. Leo's post was good, but it failed to involve one big thing. A lot of the leaders of other civil rights movements, especially the African American movement, were preachers and ministers. Preachers and ministers have become the cause, not the solution for this problem. The same is true for women's civil rights. If you want to take the power wway from those ministers, give them les people to talk to. Stop goint to their churches.
So you might say, but my preacher doesn't talk about this. Go up and ask him. Do you think gays should marry. If he says no, walk out and don't come back again.
Unfortunately I haven't found a petition for these movements yet, but I don't think I'd post one anyway. Petitions are ways for people to fool themselves into thinking they're making a difference. No petition has ever gotten anything done politically speaking, not on a national or state level. Maybe in the board of a city or town, but not a state. They just don't pay attention to them.
So, the best thing you can do is this. Write to your federal congresspeople and tell them that if they want your vote they'll throw their weight behind getting this bill crushed and never gote for something like this themselves. Then do the same for your state congresspeople, and get engaged in politics. The best thing you can do is vote for people who won't do things like this.
Now, we are on the same page.
In my second post I said this law didn't go away, it just got soften.
This simply won't go away because one group lost, or for a while.
The group lost a ruling, but they've got the minds of the people that agree with them simply by trying to get it passed, and I'll bet good money some people are going to use the law, or bill even though it is not valid actually.
Got to have a law.
My next post is not related really, but Leo ask me to post it, and not send it to him privately.
Leo, you asked a question.
“Why are black people against gays when they themselves have seen prejudice?”
I asked if you really wanted to know, and you said yes, so I’ll tell you from personal experience.
I’ll try to put it in the correct order as it falls.
The dislike is mainly against men, because lesbianism is not really judged, noticed, or given much thought.
Unless a girl is what is called in the community a dike, a woman that dresses in men’s clothes and such things, lesbians are not noticed, because they normally don’t show any outwards displays of intimacy.
Two women hugging, walking arm in arm, holding hands, is thought of as sisterly, or friendly, and is not odd at all.
Black people kiss, so if you see women kiss, it is not thought of as lesbians, unless you have one side of it the dike type person, and you know for sure, she is kissing her girlfriend, otherwise it mainly is overlooked.
Many lesbian women have children, and sometimes boyfriends as well. The sex goes on in private, so if you did know about it, you don’t see the intimacy. Lesbians also don’t normally bring disease to the community. I am speaking of total lesbians, or lesbians that have men to get kids, but not for sexual reasons. It is sort of accepted.
So why the problem with men?
The first thing is fear.
Many black mails are hooked on intravenous drugs, and due to lack of money and education share needles. They also will give there bodies to get the drugs from other men, or if they are actually sexually interested in men, it will be a combination of drugs and homosexuality, so they get sick.
Many are also bisexual, so bring the disease home to women, and many black women are sick with aids and such things, due again to lack of sexual education, love for their men.
Next, lack of good men. The black community loses men to prison, death from gang violence, drug overdoses, and war. The women hate when they see a man that is completely gay, because he is one less man in the community for a woman. He’s dead meat, it is said. There are other terms used, but I’ll not go there.
The last on the line is religious teaching, but that is a really small part, because the black church doesn’t preach on sexual matters, nor teach them. If you aren’t educated well, you don’t read your bible, you read, or try to read the parts your ministers preaching about, and if your reading skills are poor, you only learn what is perched about, and sex is not, except in the terms of if you are not married you are sinning if you have sex.
So, it isn’t prejudice against homosexuality, it is fear of uneducated men having sex with other uneducated men in sexual matters, and the harm it does.
The black community needs better sex education, because along with regular education lack, sex is even lower on that scale as you can imagine.
In the black community, people that are homosexual, and not just open sexual, are normally better educated, so seek out better educated partners.
Here is an article that can better explain the HIV problem.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-among-african-americans.htm
That is the best I can do in a short writing.
Let it be noted, I am not posting this for any other reason, but to try to help explain a question. This has nothing to do with gay rights, nor my opinion of gay people.
Last, these preachers you see in the news are not a good representation of the black church in the community.
These preachers are educated, preach in large churches, and that opinion of homosexuals is at the same level as whites or any other group.
I guess I have a different view. I'm half black and from my experience black people have an issue with homosexuality on a whole. I've never seen black people think it's not such a big deal if you're a lesbian but freak out if your a man. Religion, especially Christianity, it very heavy in the black community. I know I was taught that homosexuality was a sin and an abomination before God so we should treat them as such. We should either try and cast out their homosexual demons or not associate with them at all.
HIV in gay males is a common way of thinking too, so I will agree with Wayne on that. They seem to think only gay males will spread the disease. It's just a common think of one minority attacking the other and feeling above someone, in my opinion. We have plenty ofpartially blind people attack totally blind people in our community, so it's the same type of thing.
I don't have a link for you as of yet, but according to my sources the Arizona house just passed the bill I mentioned earlier. That means that, because the senate had already passed it, it is now on the desk of the governor. By all accounts its likely he'll sign it into law.
I heard the same thing. I can find the link if you'd all like. Saw it posted on reuters so it's credible.
Leo, as for why blind people will strike out against gay people, the matter for me is pretty simple. We blind people are just as homophobic as the sighted. We live in a world in which the majority is overwhelmingly sighted, so we learn from them. We most often have sighted parents, sighted siblings, sighted teachers, friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc. We are just as susceptible to learning about the differences between boys and girls and what boys and girls are supposed to like and whom they are supposed to love as boys or girls as our sighted peers. Boys don’t kiss boys. A manly man does not show his emotions, and he certainly doesn’t go around, say, wearing women’s clothes, kissing other men, wanting to be fucked by a man. That’s sick. It’s perverted. If you’re religious, it’s a sin. I heard a lot of this as a blind gay teen, so what did I do? To my everlasting discredit, I became for a time extremely homophobic. I didn’t want to be gay. I didn’t want to disappoint my parents, possibly be bullied by my brother, lose the respect of friends and peers. And for all that, I could fool myself as a thirteen-, fourteen- and fifteen-year-old into believing that my wants and desires – my very explicit wants and desires – were just a phase, just daydreams, just something I’d get over. Know what? Wait for it! Big surprise, I never got over it. Knowing that, I began to moderate my stances, learn to come out, find people that would accept me. I did my share of accommodating though. I even married a woman I thought I could love because I thought I was more flexible than I really was. Bad decision. And it all boiled down, at least to some degree, to not wanting to disappoint those I loved best. And I paid for it. I’m gunna be fifty years old this year, and while that’s not our parents’ fifty, I feel the loss of the years I spent learning to deal. I don’t have as much time as I used to. I may find someone someday, but had I been braver, I might have done it a lot sooner, and it’s my own fault. Maybe that’s why I’m so pissed off at this and other bills like it. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I know how destructive the societal memes were back then. Here we have people that are again willing to use a religion of supposed love, tolerance and acceptance and pervert it into something that I think Christ would preach against were he alive today. The state is allowing some of its citizens to use religion as a club against others. I don’t want to see a teen go through what any of us went through and worse, and that’s what this bill would do.
As for what good forums like this do, oddly enough I do think that by arguing as vocally here as we sometimes have, perhaps someone somewhere on the Web will stumble upon it, see it and get educated that the blind are the equal of the sighted. We’re not as childlike and saintly as some would have us be, nor are we as stupid and ignorant as others believe us to be. We want the same things as everyone else, and we’re not asexual neuters. Some of us are even gay.
I agree religion is a large part of the community, but if you aren't educated, you don't really understand religion.
Half black would imake me think you were part of an educated family, and than you'd be right. Cast out the deamons.
Ever been to one of these?
On the governer, I'm going to see if I can find some history on what kind a person it is. Prehaps, if free thinking he will stall it, because again, it is my opinion if the people are asking, it can't be pushed under the rug sort of.
The gov is a she. Smile.
Born in 1944.
Janice K. Brewer took the oath of office as Governor of Arizona on January 21, 2009.
Her bio starts like this.
Prior to becoming Arizona’s 22nd Governor, she led a distinguished career of public service – guided by her devotion to family, faith in God and love of
country.
list end
i read recently about the state of arizona passing a very similiar law. religious ppl can now discrminate against gay and lesbian folk. sad realy.
Okay, I’m back on the other side, or discussion mode, so you can resume calling me names.
Here is what caused the Arizona bill.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/08/22/2513821/new-mexico-supreme-court-photographer/
Basically, a lady refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony based on her religious beliefs.
What about this case? She is not a restaurant, bar, or such business, but a photographer.
The court did allow, she could place on her website and advertising, she is opposed to gay unions, but most serve them.
Now, I hear you, “how would you feel if someone refused to photograph your wedding due to being black, or if you were mar ringing another race?
I’d understand, and go someplace else.
Should this woman stop earning a living, because she can’t do it and feel right in her heart?
Would it be right for her to as posted above, take her business off the public market and advertise it in the Christian yellow pages only?
If she does this, it potentially hurts her earning ability, because she is not marketing to a large a group.
Would you actually force a photographer to do your ceremony?
This same sort of things happened here in Colorado, where a bakery refused to make a cake.
Again, would you force a bakery to make your cake?
Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't force them to give me service, as long as I know I can go somewhere else within reason and get said service. However, if a hospital is refusing to admit me because of my sexual prefference, and they're the only one in town, should I be expected to lie there and die just so they can feel that they did a good deed by getting rid of just another faggot?
Wayne thanks for your explanations about the black community, and Johndy I think you're right on most of what you said.
You do continually say that Christianity purports to be a religion of love and acceptance. That cannot, however, go unchallenged. They must prove this to the rest of us, just as the Muslims proved themselves after 9/11 to for the most part eschew the type of terrorist acts that ravaged New York City. I can't see that we accept without challenge the notion that Christianity is one of love and acceptance. It is extremely conditional and usually does more playing with the words than actually operating by their meanings. We will love you as you are, so long as what that means is we can change you to what you should be. And of course remit all personal responsibility for damages to yourself and all credit to the deity. This is nothing but fluff garbage. It's not like the love and acceptance between a parent and child in the least. And that is their metaphor.
Cody you may be right about the preachers. In fact you are right, regarding civil rights. I guess some of us have a hard time seeing their usefulness beyond their churches / enclaves.
Arizona is quite the rogue state in many ways so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Wayne, about the woman governor, there are a whole host of prominent, extremely conservative, women. To Victorian proportions. Contrary to the mythos of the left, these women run in Republican circles. Often they appeal to the traditionalists' view, paint themselves as the damsels in distress only the dragon that needs slaying is some new form of acceptance or thought. Either they do that, or play out the schoolmarm caricature, the aging prude who just can't believe what is happening.
They basically use the way in which we lump women and children together, a premise independent women like Karen Straughan find extremely distasteful. So yes, I could definitely see a conservative female governor signing this into law, so that in her view at least, male moral agents can sanitize the environment and make it suitable for female and child moral patients. I naturally buy none of this, but that is their thinking so far as I have been able to figure out over the years. These are the same women who fought against the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1980s, by the way.
I only posted about the gov because when I went to learn who it was, it was a she, not a he.
I am interested how she'll rule though.
On the hospital thing, and I'll need to check, I don't think anyone will ever have an issue, because of the oaths doctors must take.
They want you to pay as well, but I've witnessed people getting full services and they have no money. The hospital has to bill you for it.
It is why an Atheist, or a Jew can get served in say a Catholic hospital.
Sexual preference isn't on the admitions from.
Two of you have brought that up, so I'm going to learn about it.
Leo, in case you're still unclear about the part of my post you mentioned earlier, Tremaine's comment about Christian teachings discouraging association with the LGBT community is what I meant. Christians are not supposed to associate with those who do not follow biblical philosophy because those people could lead them off the "righteous" path. That is the basis on which a legitimate claim of religious discrimination could be made by a Christian. However, such claims have no place in state or federal legislation because of the harmful and potentially life-threatening consequences that could result from the passage of such legislation (see hospital and law enforcement scenarios in my previous post). So Wayne, if this Colorado photographer does not want to compromise her Christian principles, then she should indeed limit her business to like-minded people and accept the reduction of income, just as I would risk losing the business of the many homophobic customers in my hypothetical establishment by standing up for my LGBT patrons.
Tremaine brought up another very good point. Discrimination among the marginalized is not just limited to intolerance between different groups of people; discrimination exists within single minority groups as well. I believe that's even worse. People in the blind community with differing levels of vision discriminate against each other, as Tremaine said. It makes no sense. If you have a decent amount of vision but use a guide dog, and the person standing next to you, who is the recipient of your condescending attitude, is totally blind and uses a guide dog, you're both still legally blind and subject to prejudice from any bigot who sees those guide dogs. So you're not getting that job. You're not getting into that restaurant with your dog. That person is not going to date you. And it's because you're legally blind. Therefore, you're in the same boat as that totally blind person standing next to you, the one you were looking down on a minute ago. However, some of you may not be aware that hatred also abounds within the LGBT community. Some gays and lesbians are prejudiced against bisexuals, for reasons that I still do not completely understand. But guess what? If I, a bisexual, am riding in a car with a gay man, the car crashes, and we are refused treatment at the hospital (which happens to be the only medical facility in our small town), then I'll be just as dead as that gay man, and we've gone from being in the same boat to the same graveyard (small town, remember?). If it seems as if I'm going off-topic, I'm simply trying to express that discrimination, in any form, for any reason, among any individuals or groups, is wrong, and no one should participate in it.
Becky
The simple answer to your question Wayne is yes. The more detailed answer is this.
When you start a business, you agree to abide by our laws. Those laws include, but are not limited to, the fact that you cannot refuse service to anyone not breaking rules. One of those rules is not homosexuality, and it is illegal to make it so. You can't kick away people because they're gay. Its against the law.
So just as I would force someone to allow my guide dog in their business, I would force them to take photos at my wedding. They are a wedding photographer, that is their job. They don't get to pick who I'm marrying, where I'm marrying them, what color my suit is, whether we have a string quartette or not, or who we invite, why do they get to choose anything else? They exchange a service for money. The only reason they can deny the service is if I refuse the cash.
As for the idea that doctors are held to some higher standard, I'm afraid you need to read your history more closely Wayne. People were kicked out of hospitals all the time for being black. They were denied safety by the police. Often the police even played a part in the violence against them. There is nothing to show that this won't follow that same pattern.
IN fact, it already is following them. Gay marriage has been struck down by several federal court judges in several states; emancipation proclaimation plus thirteenth amendment. Now, states are enacting laws which allow them to continue their hatred of gays; Jim Crow in the reconstruction era with black codes and sharecropping. Its the exact same pattern. Any student of history knows what word comes next. If you don't know, get a book and read about what happens next. The word begins with L. That's the only hint you get.
Thanks Becky for your responses.
I also have heard from trans folk that they can face discrimination in the gay community, or at least could some years ago.
I know about the black issue, but what I don't know is if there is some sort of law on the books at this time to keep hospitals from turning away anyone.
In a small town, if you knew someone was gay you'd know, but in a large city, I'm interested if it is on the admitions forms.
I've not done any fact checking.
Law enforcement, I understand, because they must abide by whatever law if set, agree or disagree with it.
The are law enforcement?
Just to fix it, the photographer was New Mexico. Colorado, was a bakery, that refused to make a couples cake.
Personally, I'd not want a cake from a bakery like that, even if it didn't have anything in it that would make you sick technically.
Now, here's another question related to the photographer. Would it be right of her to higher a sub contractor, because her shop thought as she did, to take the pictures, or would you force her to be the person?
If so, and she says okay, I'll do it, but because I have to higher someone, I'll have to charge more?
What if the higher cost was simply added to the bill?
Remember, businesses give discounts to different groups all the time, so with that, would she be justified to pass her extra cost on to the couple that is forcing her to do there bidding?
Photography is art, so forced, you'd not get as good of pictures, and that you'd not be able to argue about. Why do it?
In this case, she wasn't the only wedding photographer in town.
The Oath of Hippocrates
I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!
Fine, shoot them. I lost on that one.
I read several, and they are all the same.
Next, the only hospital that must take any patient is the county. Others can refuse sighting “no room, or no professional staff to handle the issue.”
Lost on that one too.
I’m back to the human rights law in the constitution.
It doesn't matter that there are other wedding photographers in the city. The law doesn't say you can turn away people if it happens to conveniently not prevent them from getting the service. The law says nope, period, finite incantartum. Maybe the couple wanted that photographer because they liked their work. Maybe it was cheap.
As for hiring a subcontractor, I'd say no, in this instance, unles they laid it out plain and simple that they would be hiring a subcontractor. Otherwise that's fraud, and they could also get sued for fraudulent business practices. Not to mention the better business bureau.
People always think the hypocratic oath is a binding oath. Its not. They don't lose their license if they "cut those laboring beneath the stone", (whatever the hell that is). Its symbolic, not binding. The ethics code is what is binding, and its sadly lax in several places.
Wow, the Hippocratic oath: I've never read it. Thanks. For some reason I always thought it said something about "above all do no harm."
That was a mantra I said to myself when I was a software developer/trouble shooter. I still think it's good.
If someone wants to discriminate, they can always come up with a reason to do so, no matter what the law says. I once had a landlord keep me out of an apartment because he was afraid that I would piss on his bathroom floor. He didn't tell me this, he told a friend of mine that that was his reason.
Don't forget that discrimination is a knife that cuts both ways. Can the owner of a gay bar discriminate against straights?
Am I practicing discrimination if I say I prefer Tchaikovski to Nirvana?
Sorry, I don't have any answers here, just lots of questions.
Bob
I'd never read the doctors oath either, but that is it. I choose that version, and it is exact, accept for the top statement.
I'm a man with insurance, and the same private female doctor I've had for ever, who is more like a friend, so I just never thought about it further until it was brought up here.
I'd like to observe that when I said "a religion of supposed" acceptance and tolerance, I meant that there seem to be two interpretations of Christianity. I have a friend who believes it is a religion of such and tends to practice what he preaches. Then there's that other interpretation which has seemingly prevailed over the centuries that makes me think that Christianity as a philosophy has been an epic failure. It preaches love one another as I have loved you, judge not lest ye be judged, but history shows that these two very basic tenets get ignored constantly. As far as the law is concerned, I'm not sure you can compel anyone to work for you against their will. I know that as an attorney, if I will not, for instance, work on behalf of an alleged child molester because I was molested as a child, I cannot be compelled to do so. The distinction here may be that while you cannot compel someone to work for you in a contract by will situation such as an attorney/client or wedding photographer/customer thing, it's different when it comes to restaurants, hotels, anywhere in which the situation involves the general public. I wish I still had Lexus/Nexus so I could look up case law to support this, but I gave up being an attorney years ago and don't really miss it all that much. Although this situation brewing in Arizona, Tennessee and Kansas has me wondering.
I could be wrong about this, but if I'm remembering my lecture notes correctly, there is a slight difference in your scenarios. Yes, as a lawyer you may turn down people for certain reasons. However, a lawyer is not a public service, at least not the ones you hire. You are fre to select what clients you wish within a certain extent. You can't, for example, say that you will not represent a black man because Ham saw Noah's penis and the black race was cursed by God. (don't ask me, its in the Bible) You can say that you will not accept a case because you can't create a moral vacuum such as with a child molester.
However, a wedding photographer does not have the ability to turn down a gay family for being gay. That is the same as turning down the black person for the curse of Ham. IF they'd turned them down because the wedding was a child rape orgy, that would be a different story. Its subtle, and I'm doing a terrible job of defining it, but I think you can se the difference. If not, let me know, I'll see if I can't find some sources that explain it better.
It is an interesging situation. She did loose based on Mexico's human rights law, but if she lived in a different state maybe not.
On one hand, she's an artist, or like a lawyer, and on the other she's a public service just like eating places.
What if she were the musician that everyone liked, but she wouldn't play or allow her band to play?
Why would you that say she must serve the couple, why would you want to make someone take your pictures? Wouldn't you want harmony at such an event so that your pictures could be the best they could?
Sure, in Mexico, she'd have to take your pictures, but how decent of a job would she do?
She'd do her best work or I'd get my money back is how well she'd do. And there would be harmony at the wedding, because she'd keep her mouth shut or she'd not get paid.
I don't see why people are always so willing to capitulate with people. Put your foot down and take what you want. You don't actually have to give in to other people. You can actually stand up for yourself every once in a while. Its good to have at least a hint of a backbone.
I might be mistaken here, but I believe there is a difference in the law between, say, someone who's hiring themselves out as a photographer and someone who owns a restaurant. It's a different sort of contract, if you will, and I think Johndy is right; I do not believe you can compel a contractor to work for you. Even if a contract of sorts were signed, or attempted, there is usually some sort of codicil that allows for the termination of the contract by either party for any reason. This doesn't happen in things like stores and eateries because you don't need to sign anything to eat at McDonald's or shop at WalMart. They provide goods and services, they do not satisfy contracts except where a claim involving what they've already sold you is concerned. If something is defective, if you want a refund, if you've gotten demonstrable food poisoning for instance.
Personally, I have never seen a situation where a contractor was forced to work against their will in this fashion. As a contractor, you do have the right to accept or refuse clients. Take my mom for instance. She cleans houses. Say she had someone call her tomorrow and ask her to clean once a month, but let's say they lived an hour and a half away. My mom says "No, I'm sorry, I won't travel that far". No compulsion to serve is possible. All a photographer really has to say is that they have other commitments.
I don't think anyone ought to be refused this sort of contract work based on their ethnicity or religion or sexual status, but I'm also not gay, Christian or black. It's easy for me to say that, but I say it anyway. Heh. If I was any of these things and was refused for a silly reason, I'd be just as angry as the next guy, but even if for some strange reason I had the legal clout to force someone to work for me, why would I want to do that? To prove a point? Fuck no. That's counterproductive, beause once the contract is complete, guess what's going to happen, friends and neighbours? Angry contractor is going to become very vocal about what a bastard that blind/gay/insert minority was. Good luck in later life with a mentality like that. I just don't think it holds out.
No, not to prove a point, to get it done. If you picked this contractor, you obviously did it for a reason. The gay couple clearly wanted this photographer for a reason. They should have the photos done the way they wanted, by the person they chose. Its their wedding, they get to have it the way they wanted to have it.
Now, certainly, if they lived in another state, and were asking the photographer to travel hundreds of miles, the photographer could refuse, but that is a refusal based on the job, not on the person. That's the difference. You can disagree with the contract, you can't disagree with the person signing the contract.
Its just like, if you're renting a house, they can refuse to let you smoke in their house, or have pets in their house, or paint the walls a different color, but they can't tell you they won't rent to you because you have red hair, or your black, or your a woman, or your gay. Though, apparently they can do it because you're a student, which I think is also wrong.
Ok Cody. While I agree with the basic jist of what you're saying, you're wrong on the legal bindings of a work-for-hire contractor. I am one--that's my business, so I know that just because someone might pick a contractor to fulfill their need or complete a project for them, they can't force the contractor to do it. It's definitely not the same as a restaurant. The restaurant is a public place though it may be privately owned--it is opened for the general public. But a contractor has as much right to choose who he or she will work with as the person hiring him or her. This is legally the case.
Now, of course it's wrong for a person to say he or she won't work for a gay couple, but that gay couple also cant' force the person to work for them if they're a contractor, though they most certainly can legally enter a public business like a restaurant. Of course, the gay couple can sue the contractor for discriminating against them, but unless the contractor turns them away for the specific reason of homosexuality, there's not a hell of a lot of things they can do. In otherwords, the contractor cant' legally discriminate against them, but he or she sure can turn them away and get away with it as long as a different reason is given. And it's simple enough to make up a different reason. It's a subsection of any basic work-for-hire contract--if you're familiar with those. I've signed a ton of them so I know.
For instance, if someone approached me because they liked my writing skills and they wanted me to write their advert for them--and lets say their advert was of an adult nature and for the sake of this example, let's say I'm not comfortable with the content, I can turn the proposal away. I dont' have to reveal why--I can say I am unavailable to do this type of work and I can turn them away legally. If they were to force me to write their content--because it was their project and they envisioned it a certain way and they wanted only me to write it--dammit--I could certainly sue them for harassment because I opperate as a single entity and I am hired via contract. This means that I, too, have to agree to the binding contract.
So yes, it's most certainly different for a contractor than it is for a formal business establishment from a legal standpoint--not saying it's right necessarily, but it's definitely true.
That's why many people go freelance, to be honest with you. One of the perks is you can freely choose which clients you will serve and the law is on your side.
See, you can only go so far with backbone because in order to enter into a contract, both parties have to be willing, and that, I’m afraid, trumps whether you’re gay and want this or that particular person to work for you. Telling the truth, and I may not like this, but I’m not sure the law would even be on your side if the person you wanted to hire said explicitly that they don’t work for gay people based on their religious convictions. That’s different from a restaurant or bar or movie theater because again, you’re opening it up to the general public, and it would be the same thing as excluding black people from sitting at the lunch counter or making them eat outside instead of inside. And mind you, I’m saying all this as a gay male, so I think I’m looking at it pretty objectively.
The way to handle a proposed law such as the one in Arizona is this, and I can see the arguments potentially going this way. If I’m on the pro-discrimination side, I would argue that homosexuality is not a protected class because clearly you can change your sexual orientation, or preference, if you want. You cannot change being black, a woman, Native American, etc. As a lawyer for the state, I could cite potential studies and examples of statistics and people who have “changed” their orientation (preference) successfully and have become “normal” happily married heteroes. After all, we’re not even sure why people are gay or straight, so arguing that it’s in-born is ridiculous. It also insults black people, Native Americans, women, Asians, Hispanics and everyone else who cannot change their skin color or ethnicities. (Please, no flame wars because I’m taking the side of the state right now, and I’m arguing this as a potential lawyer, not as a gay man who would naturally oppose this law. And please note what I left out of my argument, on purpose, which I will explore later.)
As an opponent of the discrimination bill, I could argue the other side of the coin, which would probably be the weakest argument. To wit, there is scientific evidence suggesting strongly that homosexuality is something that is both in-born and cannot be changed successfully. I would challenge anyone who considers himself or herself totally straight to try walking on the other side of the fence for a while if they believe they can truly change their orientation. (Note, please, that this time I did not say “preference.”) As for the argument that gays can successfully change, I would argue that there are numerous and sundry examples where people have tried and failed to change their orientations. I believe now that the Ex-Gay movement has been almost totally extinguished because the so-called reparative therapy thing has been expressly disowned by many of their former followers. And does anyone remember Anita Bryant, who was so anti-gay in the late 70s? Am I wrong, or didn’t she completely change her tune in ’81? Wasn’t there a lot of news back then about this?
And remember what I didn’t mention on the pro-legislation side? Mentioned skin color, ethnicity, but not religion. That’s where the whole thing falls apart. Because even if you argued that you can change someone’s orientation/preference, you shouldn’t have to discriminate against someone for whom they choose to love anymore than you discriminate against someone for how they believe. If you’re a Jew, you can become a Roman Catholic; if you’re a Protestant, you can become a Jew. If you’re a Christian, you can become a Muslim. Mohamed Ali, anyone? Remember Cassius Clay? If we’re gunna say that someone chooses to be gay and that we should discriminate against them based on our religious beliefs, then we can say nothing against a Protestant businessman who discriminates against Catholics, Jews or Muslims. Yet we don’t discriminate against Catholics, Jews, Protestants or Muslims or any other religious group because that’s called allowing them free exercise of religion. And there’s case law that suggests that marriage is a fundamental right that two consenting adults should not be denied. What we’re trying to do is to allow as many people to live in as much freedom and dignity as possible, and if we’re allowing the free exercise of religion in instances where religion can be changed, then we allow people to express their love as they see fit, even if they can arguably change their orientations, which I’m not buying that they can anyway. . I bet the Christofascists would raise a hew and cry if you tried to raise that argument, but I bet it would work.
I stand corrected then Bernadetta. Thank you for clearing that matter up.
Johndy, pretty much everything you said are the exact arguments used. Hell, look back at this very board post and you see people arguing many of the points you made. Its rather sad really.
It's very sad. I don't think it should be tenable if you have baldly stated that you're refusing services based on someone's sexual preference or religion or whatnot, if said sexual preference or religion has no actual impact on how you do your job or provide your service. But it's just as Bernadetta and Johndy have said; all you have to do is cite other commitments or general unavailability, and you can legally get away from prejudice. The contractor always has a back door, as does the perso who seeks the service. It's good that it works that way, but bad that people can act prejudicially toward others because of it.
Luckily, the people in question here often don't think they need a back door. They will come right out and say that they don't serve gay people because of their religion. So we can at least find out who they are and boycott their businesses if we live close to them.
Just understand what I was doing. I'm saying that I'm not even sure that you can necesarily prevent a for-hire contractor from discriminating against gay people based on the concept that you can't force people into a for-hire contract at all, but I am saying that you can easily defeat this bill in court when it comes to public arenas. The for-hire approach is sad because as Shepherdwolf pointed out, even if you don't admit that you're discriminating against someone who is gay, you can get out of not entering into a contract with a gay person or couple by pleading other commitments. To me, what is actually potentially exciting is that you can raise the arguments about religion versus sexual orientation in court and defeat this bill when it comes to discriminating against gay people in public arenas such as restaurants, bars, movie theaters, every other arena in which the general public is invited or where a fundamental right is at stake such as marriage. But in order to defeat this bill as soundly as possible, you have to argue both sides of the issue and try to defeat the arguments you oppose, or think are going to be raised, which is what I was attempting to do in my last posting.
Johnny, I can did no less than admire your courage. This whole thing makes me sick. Again, every gay has straight friends, family, kids, and others. It's true we should vote with our pocketbook, in honor of the friends and family we know who are affected by this. The more we call attention to the gays being our friends and family, the harder it will be for all but the most hard-hearted to politicize it. When it's about our friends and family, it's about us. The gays are not a them, they're an us. Thinking this way makes it much harder for the ideologues, because they can't "other" the gays, just as real chauvinists cannot reliably "other" women. Hope this makes sense and is not just a emotional ramble. n
I saw on the news last night that Gov. Brewer vetoed a similar bill before, and it looks like she's actually getting a lot of pressure from the business community at large to veto this one. If Kinsey's right, we're 10 percent of the populace, so maybe messing with us is becoming more of a problem. Plus, Leo, as you pointed out, we do have friends/family who support us.
Yes, she has vetoed one similar to this before, but the circumstances played a large part in that one. It was more a politics move than a stance on gay rights. So its still pretty up in the air as far as I can tell.
Next year, as I understand it, Arizona is going to host the superbowl, and that may push governor Brewer to veto the bill.
Let's hope so.
Bob
Especially now with some NFL members having come out as gay. I'm afraid we're right back where the music industry was in the late 50s early 60s, only then it was blacks. Was it not Dick Clark who said something to the effect that only white music was pleasing to the parents? Wonder if gays, like blacks did then, will go to Europe.
Bernadetta, in the New Mexico case, she lost, due to human rights.
In New Mexico, she was forced to do the gay couples bidding, or what be if she came on it agtain even though she's a contractor.
This is what I mean by state rights to decide, or state to state laws.
If she lived in another state, she may not have lost her case.
Of course, she had options to get around it, but I guess her religious convictions are strong, so she chose to fight on that footing.
Love to get my hands on that New Mexico decision. Anyway, the thing that makes me nervous about being able to force someone against their will to enter into a contract with a gay person or couple is that as a gay person myself, I might be forced to hire some Christofascist wing-nut when I don't want to. It's one thing to fight the exclusion of, say, myself and my boyfriend from a public establishment; it's another thing to say to a contractor that they have to enter into a contract with someone against their will no matter what. I don't see how there's a meeting of minds, and that's essential to a contract. Frankly, I'd rather not hire someone who's gunna be so opposed to me, no matter how good they were. I'd just as soon get a friend or family member to do the job than hire someone who doesn't wanna work for me, because that means one day that I might be forced to work for someone myself when I don't want to. To me, it's not a matter of state's rights versus the federal government; it's a conflict between applying constitutional law and precedent in the public arena and yet being allowed to choose who works for whom and under what circumstances you're gunna work for someone.
Follow the page in my post when I say what started the Arizona thing and you'll find the information.
Ah. I see it now that I looked at the article. You're offering your services to the general public regardless of sexual orientation, and the NM Constitution declares you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation. Personally, I would still be very reluctant to hire someone who was against me because I'm gay.
Johndy I like that word Christofascist. Check out TotalFacism.com and see for yourself, they're Christian, they're facist, and they're in your face. To misquote another group.
I agree with your assessment of the situation. I would not want a Pentecostal faith healer working for me if their whole aim was that the blind are not faithful enough, or what have you. They, like the anti-homosexual types, claim their strong religious convictionts, kind of a fear of getting cooties from us.
I agree. And by the way, I think ultimately the law looks like it's gunna be vetoed. Like I said, we're getting harder to mess with.
Well, while Arizona deliberates, Missouri has introduced a similar bill.
Now, I know that there are a lot of blind people living in Missouri on this site. You guys and girls might want to start writing congresspeople.
Missouri and Kansas are sort of the same type people. I have relatives in both places, and they are neighbors.
Georgia has a similar proposed bill; I don't know if it was mentioned here. What I find a little sad and annoying is that now that big business has moved in our direction, even John McCain is agains the bill in Arizona because it could potentially hurt business whereas ten years ago, Republicans were proud of being in line with bills like this. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then, but that's self-evident. I guess any help for the cause is better than none. It's just that all of a sudden, now that the Superbowl may be in play, everyone wants to listen to us.
I understand your frustration, but perhaps a bit of a mercenary attitude from you guys will help. Doesn't make it right, but you know big business speaks to republicans stronger than religion. If big business is silent, then the churches have a vacuum to speak into. They are financial contributors, but mostly they are streetwalker contributors: bodies in the voting booth.
If you look back at the 2000 Republican convention, before all the religious money spent against gay marriage, we had the Log Cabin republincs represented and even speaking at convention. Many of them are lobbyists for the oil and gas industry. Even Jerry Fallwell supported their presence at the convention.
If the big business side of the Republican party can rebrand its message to make it more appealing to the average Joe, or even the average Jose, we'll see the religious arm need to remodel itself or split.
Elections in this country are always decided by the independents, and the religious types will never see this. Hate and intolerance are, and always have been, bad for business.
You didn't see Jim Crow states prospering and turning out great feats of engineering or massive industrial complexes.
Of course, one lesson that could be taken from this, for future groups, is find a way early on to make business a part of the cause. Religion can only afford to fill a vacuum that business has left. That's really what happened with the gays, I think.
Money talks, bullshit walks? Smile.
Not entirely true Leo. The jim crow states actually saw the fastest economic growth of all the states in the country after reconstruction until the great depression.
Just fyi, this just came in my inbox.
"BREAKING NEWS Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:00 PM EST
Arizona's Governor Vetoes Bill on Denying Service to Gays Republican Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona decided late Wednesday to veto a bill that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gays, lesbians and other people on religious grounds.
Her action came amid mounting pressure from across the spectrum, including members of the Republican establishment — former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, and others — who sided with the bill’s opponents.
With three Republican state lawmakers who had voted for the measure now saying they oppose it, the bill is not expected to garner enough support to overcome the veto, which would require two-thirds of the votes in the Legislature."
Bob
Good. Now we just have to work on the half a dozen other states. This will be an excellent precedent though.
Ah yes, that P word precedent. And this is giving me hope. Had the public lost on this one, and the bill passed, other states would have been far more capable of running other bills through.
California's infamous Prop 8 succeeded because before it Oregon had had a similar measure. Sadly, many out of state political religious people came to spend millions of dollars to get the Marriage ballot measure passed in Oregon. Or, as they often called it, 'Oh-ree-gone," a true sign of someone who isn't from here.
I wish states would exclude out-of-state people like that. Oregon has constantly had this trouble since we opened up ballot measures in the early 90s, and anybody from anywhere can spend enough money and get enough signatures, practically putting into law that all native Oregonians should saw off their left foot or something.
I don't know how many other states have this problem, but I guarantee that precedent in Oregon is what made Californians' life more difficult. That was part of their campaign out here. All of them out-of-staters.
So let's hope precedent works in reverse this time, and that gays are protected. I agree with Wayne, we need to seal the deal by putting sexual orientation and transsexuals on the Constitution as people groups who cannot be discriminated against.
Well said Leo.I agree completely.