|
I hope this doesn't end up contributing to a precedent where obviously neutral/non-political speech becomes advocacy/political speech because some fuckface breathes and bleeds (but mainly shits) politics and therefore a shirt with a picture of the earth on it becomes the subject of an RFRA suit because some son of a bitch really has it in for climate science.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Just jumping in this thread to offer my (greatly belated) jubilation that mandatory SSM is now the law of the land. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You made this one up though. The idea is that the Old Testament covenant was fulfilled when Jesus was born. Old covenant promises "A guy died for your sinS". Well... he did. So the covenant isn't invalid, it's just completed. So no, that's not made up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I hope this doesn't end up contributing to a precedent where obviously neutral/non-political speech becomes advocacy/political speech because some fuckface breathes and bleeds (but mainly shits) politics and therefore a shirt with a picture of the earth on it becomes the subject of an RFRA suit because some son of a bitch really has it in for climate science.  but one of the arguments in the t-shirt case was that the Pride Festival was "without dispute a strong advocate" for sexual relationships that ran contrary to the owners' religious beliefs and was "undoubtedly" a form of "expressive association."So if it's doubtedly expressive association or even obviously not, does the court tell the business to stuff it? Maybe. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
One of the conflicts we're witnessing is people on both sides failing to make a distinction between sexual orientation per se and advocacy for. And that's what sets us up for legal battles. For social conservatives, everything same-sex couples do is a form of political speech, because they don't see gay people as fully people who live normal lives like everyone else. So having to serve same-sex weddings must be a form of compelled speech, when the courts are saying: no, that's just a service your business already provides to the general public and it doesn't necessarily imply any form of expressive association. It's certainly not undoubtedly so, or any more so than the loving limo driver. For a gay rights activist, it's understandably not very convincing for someone to refuse to print you a pride parade t-shirt and then say it has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Obviously this is motivated out of homophobia. But you see the difference here: It's a pride parade in which there's undoubtedly (as far as the courts are concerned) some advocacy going on. But let's say you wanted t-shirts celebrating a wedding anniversary, like these rather polite and friendly-looking cascadians here:  It's hard to argue the company that printed those shirts engaged in expressive association with Biblical marriage or something. The t-shirts don't actually say anything of the sort per se. For a same-sex couple, I bet they'd have a good case if they were denied, since they weren't asking the t-shirt shop to make anything outright political. Again, there's doubt in play. Ahhhh technicalities. I should've become a lawyer. 
BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:For social conservatives, everything same-sex couples do is a form of political speech, because they don't see gay people as fully people who live normal lives like everyone else. Specifically, they think "being gay in public" is a form of speech that's insulting their religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Midnight Voyager posted:The idea is that the Old Testament covenant was fulfilled when Jesus was born. Old covenant promises "A guy died for your sinS". Well... he did. So the covenant isn't invalid, it's just completed. As I understand, Christian control freaks handwave that away by claiming that the completed covenant only shuts down the Old Testament's "ritual law", and that its "moral law" is still in effect. Where "moral law" refers to "whatever back-asswards bullshit we're peomoting" and "ritual law" refers to "any Old Testament passages one might use to discredit the idea of treating the Bible like an instruction manual".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Counter sign: Then maybe their parents shouldn't have hosed that up by putting them up for adoption.  (Edit: Not that I'm blaming biological parents for anything, but the only thing that stops children from 'not having a mom and a dad' starts from whatever choices the blood-related parents make. Having gay couples, or whatever, doesn't effect what parents children get. If they're put up for adoption, it's a crap shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Morter posted:Counter sign: Then maybe their parents shouldn't have hosed that up by putting them up for adoption. And haven't there been actual studies showing that being raised by a homosexual couples are does not, in and of itself, have the slightest negative impact on a child's mental development?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Specifically, they think "being gay in public" is a form of speech that's insulting their religion. Yeah, one of my friends changed his profile picture to him kissing his significant other, as you do...   There are plenty of people out there who think we don't have loves and lives like normal people, but just hold hands and kiss to gently caress with heteros. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There are plenty of people out there who think we don't have loves and lives like normal people, but just hold hands and kiss to gently caress with heteros. I remember when people made a huge deal over Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on television when he was drafted into the NFL. There were a great number of sportswriters and fans who implied or outright said that he did it for attention or shock value. But how many other players on draft day hug or kiss a girlfriend without anyone even noticing? All he did was embrace the person he loved. Nope, must be just trying to stick it to those straights!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
My facebook feed has evolved from widespread celebration of gay marriage to calling everyone with a rainbow filter on their cover photo a transphobic rear end in a top hat. Yay social progress. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Yeah, it's this inability to conceive of love and commitment between to people of the same sex, it must be all about loving. So instead of immediately understanding why a man whose childhood dreams have just come true would be bursting with excitement and impelled to embrace the person he cares about, you see a lot of "why does he have to show off his sex life, ugh" in a way that's never done when straight players kiss their wives or girlfriends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
MsJoelBoxer posted:I remember when people made a huge deal over Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on television when he was drafted into the NFL. There were a great number of sportswriters and fans who implied or outright said that he did it for attention or shock value. But how many other players on draft day hug or kiss a girlfriend without anyone even noticing? All he did was embrace the person he loved. Nope, must be just trying to stick it to those straights! Much of the anger from NFL players commenting on Twitter was that it was inappropriate because "children watch this!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:One of the conflicts we're witnessing is people on both sides failing to make a distinction between sexual orientation per se and advocacy for. And that's what sets us up for legal battles. I agree that people are failing to make a distinction. But I think that line tends to favor conservatives. The argument they'd make is that they'd refuse anyone who tried to buy a "Congratulations Adam and Steve!" cake. They'd say no if Steve walked in. But they'd also say no if Steve's straight mother-in-law walked in to buy the cake as a gift. So, they refuse to make pro-gay-cakes as a product, regardless of who tries to buy one. This should let them argue that they're not discriminating against clients, so much as they're discriminating against the message. The prosecution could argue that they're discriminating based on the intended recipient, but it's not immediately obvious that this is covered by current law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
There is a Big Gay Wedding being held tomorrow at the Texas Capitol in Austin. Bunch of people getting hitched. GF and I were considering going to be part of the crowd wishing them well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
MsJoelBoxer posted:I remember when people made a huge deal over Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on television when he was drafted into the NFL. There were a great number of sportswriters and fans who implied or outright said that he did it for attention or shock value. But how many other players on draft day hug or kiss a girlfriend without anyone even noticing? All he did was embrace the person he loved. Nope, must be just trying to stick it to those straights! Basically, it means that people who view an actor as immoral tend to more likely view that actor's actions as intentional. So if people are told that a corporation caused an oil spill, they are more likely to believe the corporation deliberately caused the spill than if ... say, their sister caused it. Because people are more likely to judge their sister positively than a corporation. It's an imprecise analogy to be sure. But where gay people come in, is that straight people with hidden or not-so-hidden anti-gay feelings are more likely to see a gay person *acting that way* on purpose. As opposed to being just how that person acts naturally. This is a GREAT example of it: "I don't have anything against gay people." But when gay people actually be themselves, they're doing it deliberately in order to ... well I don't understand why they're just doing it except that it's suspicious to me! This might also be a reflection of hidden anti-gay biases among consciously -- at least -- pro-gay people. (Honestly, I have encountered this.) I think there's been some studies where straight people were given an example of gay people kissing, and they were more likely to believe the gay couple (than a straight couple) were kissing to "make a point." BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There are plenty of people out there who think we don't have loves and lives like normal people, but just hold hands and kiss to gently caress with heteros. That is just... it's loving vile. Jesus. It honestly feels sociopathic; the lack of empathy it must take to come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:This might also be a reflection of hidden anti-gay biases among consciously -- at least -- pro-gay people. (Honestly, I have encountered this.) I think there's been some studies where straight people were given an example of gay people kissing, and they were more likely to believe the gay couple (than a straight couple) were kissing to "make a point." That person is pro-gay much like Freepers are Not Racist because they don't openly support segregation when talking to their Black Friend(tm).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:There is a Big Gay Wedding being held tomorrow at the Texas Capitol in Austin. Bunch of people getting hitched. GF and I were considering going to be part of the crowd wishing them well.  because SO LONELY.Keeshhound posted:That is just... it's loving vile. Jesus. So better start kissing! The more often in public, the better. Evil Fluffy posted:That person is pro-gay much like Freepers are Not Racist because they don't openly support segregation when talking to their Black Friend(tm). I can recall several times when straight friends have tried to cautiously prod me into "explaining" some behavior by a gay person they witnessed that they disapproved of, that they wouldn't have batted an eye about if it was a straight person doing it. And the sad thing about it is that they are at least ostensibly pro-gay, tolerant, "progressive" people. At least they believe they are. But they're still heterosexuals. And it's very hard if you're a heterosexual who grew up at least where I live to deprogram yourself from a lot of that. Many of them don't consciously mean any ill. That happens much less these days. But a few years ago I remembered it happening more often. Like a gay guy acted inexplicably rude to a friend of mine at a party, who then very cautiously probed me as to why. And it's like ... umm. I don't know? What kind of question is that, really? You're not thought of as an individual. I don't know this person. Maybe he's just an rear end in a top hat? Why are you asking me? How would I know? Or even positive behavior. A straight friend points out a gay couple in public to me. Like I would appreciate that? I swear to god. I would rather wish it was just treated normally. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Finnankainen posted:My facebook feed has evolved from widespread celebration of gay marriage to calling everyone with a rainbow filter on their cover photo a transphobic rear end in a top hat. Yay social progress. Context?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:That happens much less these days. But a few years ago I remembered it happening more often. Like a gay guy acted inexplicably rude to a friend of mine at a party, who then very cautiously probed me as to why. And it's like ... umm. I don't know? What kind of question is that, really? You're not thought of as an individual. I don't know this person. Maybe he's just an rear end in a top hat? Why are you asking me? How would I know? I'm pretty happy that I've never experienced this kind of bullshit from straight friends. I will attribute that to living in Massachusetts (and also probably to being openly bi, not gay, and only out to a few people as trans).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
It's the same kind of thing for pretty much every marginalized group. Oh you're one of them, you guys all share some kind of hive mind, right? What's he thinking over there? Where's the nearest gay person? No way, there's another gay person here? Haha you guys must have planned this at last week's all-gay meeting or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1fSPKKtcpaQ This Christian PSA video was made about immoral supreme courts and a recent decision Striking down sodomy laws
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Galatians : "Listen up, you stupid puke eating bastards! (Especially you, Peter!) It is impossible to follow the Jewish laws! You will inevitably fail! You will always sin! Sin means no everlasting life! Sin means death. But Jesus didn't sin, so he didn't have to die. Instead he took on YOUR sins and died for your sins in your place so you won't have to, you ignorant, ungrateful shits! If it were even possible to follow the Jewish laws properly, you wouldn't need Jesus, you dumbasses! The Jewish law doesn't mean dick! So stfu about making new Christians follow the Jewish laws already! I thought romans were the guys that killed jesus
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1fSPKKtcpaQ I love how these guys forget that the founding fathers put the Supreme Court in the Constitution. Like not in the first 10 amendments, but the original articles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, one thing fundamentalists of every stripe have in common is a selective ability to pick and choose what parts of their holy text are important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
effectual posted:I thought romans were the guys that killed jesus I believe this post is referring to "Romans" as in Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans, a book in the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt8GtRa9Igo potent
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:If I recall correctly, one thing fundamentalists of every stripe have in common is a selective ability to pick and choose what parts of their holy text are important. It's weird that a lot of people hold up the Constitution as one of these holy texts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Thump! posted:It's weird that a lot of people hold up the Constitution as one of these holy texts. The Constitution is religion neutral in that people from all beliefs and political persuasions pick and choose it to pieces. effectual posted:I thought romans were the guys that killed jesus The book was written to Christians living in Rome, more than 20 years after Jesus's death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Thump! posted:It's weird that a lot of people hold up the Constitution as one of these holy texts. I'm not sure what you think is weird about the holy text of the religion of Free Market and its prophet Ronald Reagan. Stranger religions have existed. Like that one where someone wrote an entire book about sex positions, or that other one where their god was named after a Magic: The Gathering dragon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:I love how these guys forget that the founding fathers put the Supreme Court in the Constitution. Like not in the first 10 amendments, but the original articles. The powers of the Supreme Court are very vaguely defined due to how law worked and still works today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Like that one where someone wrote an entire book about sex positions To be fair, that one's so you can get bored of sex so it won't distract you on your path to enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Marriages of all types happened today in front of the Texas Capitol.  In addition to the sweet couples and the awesome organizers I really liked the Texas Capitol Police officers smiling and taking pictures right alongside everyone else. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? So what on earth is the problem? I could understand anti-gay marriage folks getting upset if the churches were suddenly forced to perform gay weddings even though they don't believe in it, but that's not happening. There's nothing about this being forced on to them besides the anti-gay marriage folks that work at the courts, and well we all have to deal with stuff at our jobs we don't want to. I'll never understand why they feel anything is being forced on them. It makes more sense when you realize a whole bunch of people out there are so stupid, or so ignorant that they believe marriages, in the US, are only valid if a church is involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The powers of the Supreme Court are very vaguely defined due to how law worked and still works today. One of the most famous Supreme Court decisions is when it decided what its own job was supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
I worked with a not terribly bright woman who was very religious and she was absolutely convinced legal gay marriage was a persecution of Christians. She said some mumbo-jumbo about how the Bible said Christians would be persecuted and gay marriage was the proof. Someone had told her that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages and she instantly and forever believed it. I told her that would never happen but no dice. We had to agree not to talk about the subject so that we could do our jobs without fighting (although of course what that meant was she would just say something horrible and instead of us engaging her we would just ignore it). She also used to own a bakery but it went out of business.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:That happens much less these days. But a few years ago I remembered it happening more often. Like a gay guy acted inexplicably rude to a friend of mine at a party, who then very cautiously probed me as to why. And it's like ... umm. I don't know? What kind of question is that, really? You're not thought of as an individual. I don't know this person. Maybe he's just an rear end in a top hat? Why are you asking me? How would I know? To be charitable, that friend in particular might have just assumed he'd made some sort of homophobic faux pas that he couldn't recognize, and was asking for help in getting his foot out of his mouth. Of course, treating every social interaction with women and/or minorities like it's some kind of Tumblrized minefield is its own brand of sheltered cluelessness, but this at least sounds like someone making a good-faith effort to be less of an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 03:45
|
|
