|
SedanChair posted:Yeah. Like I said, pretend you're trying to convince somebody. So can tattoo artists be compelled to tattoo wedding rings on the fingers of same-sex couples? Can gay atheist tattoo artists be compelled to tattoo Ecclesiastes 4:12 on the lower backs of straight couples? I know this is a page (and a day) back, but yes. A straight Protestant tattoo artist should be made to tattoo wedding rings on a gay couple, and a gay atheist tattoo artist should be compelled to tattoo whatever bible verse the customer wants. Those people are operating as a business, not as a person. Individuals can be the biggest assholes they want but businesses can and should be forced to accept everybody.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
StealthArcher posted:This is true guys. I guess we all do need to see that it's totes okay if the company funds causes and people who hate our very being and the concept of civil rights. We just need to stop being so damned uppity. Listen, you can't fault a man for setting aside his convictions to heed the siren call of waffle fries. Seriously though, it's not that hard to get your fast food elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:The way you're going about it? Yeah the Tea Party comparison is apt and appropriate. I'm not even a gay man, I'm straight and married to a woman. But he's right, it's not hard to not frequent a lovely chicken joint and you and people like you that say otherwise are assholes and lovely "allies" who likely wouldn't do any good no matter how much the LGBTA panders to you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the irreligious only make up 20% of the US population, and even if 100% of them were LGBT or Allies (and I assure you that there are many anti-gay bigots in that 20%), that wouldn't even be close to the numbers required to get any sort of social change. So it's very unfair to look down on religious LGBT members and allies as somehow being ideologically impure in their support.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Trying to browbeat people over something as nebulous as "religion" or vague undefined "churches" is pretty counter-productive and frankly pretty stupid in and of itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:It is literally a way to demand people prove they haven't switched to being crypto-bigots. I would much rather people be crypto-bigots than bigots, but it's very suspicious to me when people stop having awful opinions conveniently when having awful opinions becomes unpopular. I'm totally fine if people see the light via "My friend's cousin said it was ok" or "I didn't know any better", that lets me know they don't have a functioning moral system. If Joe Random Person operates that way, I don't really care as long as they vote correctly. If Religious Organization That Claims To Have Access To A Good Moral System or Person With Political Power operates that way, that lets me know that they are an uncertain ally at best, and shouldn't be trusted (or praised). "You know a lot of these States That Claim To Be Arbiters Of Morality And Rights used to go out of their way to make lives very difficult for homosexuals but now all of a sudden they are legalizing Same-Sex Marriage? Anyone from California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Michigan, or Oregon should be considered an uncertain ally at best, and should not be trusted (or praised)."
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, unironically. Most of those states had their laws forcibly changed by a small number of judges, California (to pick the first entry in your list) as an entity certainly shouldn't expect to be praised because Walker and the Supreme Court forced them to stop being shitheads, though I guess some credit goes to Schwarzenegger and Brown for not actively defending being shitheads. (edit: And I sure as gently caress don't trust California to do anything right) Good to know that even though I've been campaigning in Michigan to increase support for LGBT issues for years now that I am somehow untrustworthy and a worthless ally simply because of the state I live in!
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
My god... they were all right about you... as soon as you gained even the slightest bit of acceptance you turned on me. The Gaystopo are unstoppable now! And it is all my doing!  -EDIT- twodot posted:Oh sorry, I amended your post in my head to make more sense. Michigan as an organization is not to be trusted, it's run by a bunch of politicians that are clearly not acting in the best interest of its people, and the fact that a judge is forcing Michigan as an organization to be less lovely does nothing to make me thing better of Michigan. Clearly individuals inside of Michigan's borders need to be evaluated on their own merits, and I have no problem arguing that anyone who voted for Michigan's constitutional amendment is untrustworthy until proven otherwise. Actively campaigning for removing the amendment would be an excellent way to earn trust if you were one of those people! (If you weren't, I have no idea why you think you are relevant to my post). My point is that these organizations are made of those individuals you say that need to be evaluated on merit. You can't judge them all at once and as individuals is what I'm trying to say, and saying some makes you look like an rear end in a top hat and a hypocrite. And yes, I did do some campaigning and tried to collect some signatures to get a vote to remove the amendment, and volunteered at campus events promoting LGBT awareness against violence and discrimination when my wife was part of the RHA at her college. But that does not make me "one of the good ones", and it's hosed up to think like that. I mean, you're nowhere near Tumblr "die cisscum" levels of bad. But still, come on. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:I obviously disagree with this, and I think this is particularly true when discussing government. Participation in government is not voluntary, so when I tell someone that their government is untrustworthy and not praise-worthy (I really don't see how that is a controversial statement, American governance sucks in general), they certainly shouldn't take that personally. Even where participation in organizations is voluntary, it's possible to agree with some actions of the organization and disagree with others, but still think it is an overall net benefit. I'm not saying, and I've never said that any such organization is net-negative, just that actively enforcing bigotry breaks a trust, and silent agreement with a new majority doesn't build any trust (other than that I can trust them to agree with whatever they think polls well at the moment) and that silent agreement with a majority/court order while better than disagreement isn't going to get any praise from me. You don't have to praise them, but calling them untrustworthy is only going to self-fulfill whatever insane thing you think they're going to do. Which is... what, exactly? Are gay people going to gain wide acceptance and full rights someday and then all the religious people are going to go "Aha! We didn't really support you, we only pretended to! You can still marry and have equal rights as us, but those rights are now hollow! Hollow! Mwahahaha!". Seriously, what's the point in playing this game of Paranoia and alienating the very people trying to help you?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:More issues exist than gay marriage, if someone is claiming to be a moral authority, or running for political office, I'd like to be able to evaluate if they will come to correct conclusions about not just gay marriage, but also a large number of other things that are important. If they were at some point actively enforcing their bigotry, that is a point of concern, and knowing "this group is easily swayed by random people" or "this person just adopts whatever stance they perceive to be the most popular at the time" or "this person was raised with certain beliefs, but through earnest introspection realized those beliefs were wrong, even if it took them time and experience to come to that realization" or "this group was formed with certain beliefs, and took time to eventually overcame institutional momentum to declare as a group beliefs that they have individually held for a long time" is good information. So what you want to do is, instead of reviewing them on their own character and merits like you previously said, cross-reference a pre-determined list of favorable and unfavorable characteristics and base your judgement on that. And somehow this doesn't make you a bigot. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight... -EDIT- Nah, nevermind
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I don't know, I can't find "die cis scum" offensive, just kind of funny in a sad way, because if you're saying that in all honesty, you must've been through some hosed up poo poo. On Tumblr, many of them have never had anything harsh said to them except online, because most people that use cis- as a pejorative are things like trans-species (die cishuman scum), trans-ethnic (I'm white but I'm allowed to say friend of the family because I'm trans-black), Otherkin, trans-period (that's time period, and no I am not making this up, they think they are trans-1850s and poo poo) and other made up special snowflake "minority" statuses that they miraculously only have online and when arguing with their parents. I mean, it's a lot like cracker in that it is absolutely not the least bit hurtful and in fact can be pretty funny. But it wasn't born out of pain from a real trans man or trans woman. Or rather, it didn't become popular because of a real movement in the trans community. I dunno who Install Window's friend of a friend is.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Interesting - I didn't even read that part in the Pink News piece. HuffPo says Gobber says something different: "Resident gay"? What, did the Viking village send out heralds far and wide searching for the elusive homosexual blacksmith, because as we all know homos are the best at making phallic objects you stick into things. -EDIT- What do you mean? Handle-bar mustachioed berserker missing his hand is exactly what I picture a gay Viking to look like. VVVVV Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
effectual posted:Well people aren't born religious, it's not like skin color or orientation. It's still super lovely to generalize huge groups of people, regardless.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Truth, but it's not all bad if we can soften up some of the backwards folks along the way. I honestly think it would be faster, easier, and more effective to make a world where it is no longer socially acceptable nor supported to raise kids to hate homosexuals than it would be to turn bigots into neutral parties. So I'm unconvinced that it is worth the effort to soften people up along the way, especially considering how deeply entrenched they are.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:You have to remember they literally don't think trans people exist except as crazy sex perverts who want to peep on ladies taking a piss somehow throw stall doors. They also think all trans people look like a huge, burly man with a grizzly beard wearing a too small dress with plastered on makeup. Only chariactured stereotypes exist in their world.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
I turned on the Live Stream literally just as Santorum took the stage. He said the same tired poo poo he always says, that it's not about hate it's about love (as long as it's the right kind of love, of course). But then he started talking about how families are a business (wtf?) and that it's easier to run a business with two people rather than one. Somehow he didn't realize that this was an argument FOR same-sex marriage as well. And I gotta say that whoever his interpreter is has 1000x more charisma than Santorum does, and I barely speak any Spanish!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Don't know about that, but today could be big day for the Sixth Circuit decision at SCOTUS. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette posted:"This case comes down to two words: who decides," he wrote. "The history of our democracy demonstrates the wisdom of allowing the people to decide important issues at the ballot box, rather than ceding those decisions to unelected judges." Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty positive that a huge number of our most important issues were, in fact, decided by unelected judges.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey LBJ better rethink the Civil Rights Act, all the restaurants and hospitals and universities in the south will close forever because you can't reprogram people's sincere religious beliefs that black people were cursed by Noah. I've never understood where the idea that people need to handle bigots with childlike care came from and why it's so prevalent but it needs to die off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
wid posted:Oddly, I'm mildly okay with this. Why? Why would you ever allow any form of discrimination (besides the aforementioned BFOQ) for any reason? Bigots need to face the full force of the laws, not be coddled by the bigoted hand of the free market.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/17/some-target-stores-change-duties-for-muslim-cashiers-who-object-to-ringing-up/ The target stores are willingly offering the employees to move to positions where this won't be an issue. They should do their job, and if they stay as a cashier that may include ringing up pork products, but if they accept the change of job willingly and without any kind of punishment (lowered wages, ect.) for doing so I don't really see a problem. If they choose to stay a cashier and continue not doing their job then yes, fire them, but otherwise who cares? This really seems more like a click-bait article about those "savage and backwards Muslims" than any real issue, honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
"G.et R.id of I.srael D.ecisively"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
I like mine better. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Morter posted:Ah OK, thanks for the quick correction, folks! The same reason we don't allow signs that say "We don't serve blacks". E:F,B Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't think "if you disagree with me you're one of the Bad Guys" is a very convincing line of defense. Good thing Prestor John isn't saying that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:So are you saying that Prester John's experiences, their upbringing and so on, are invalid and they are not to talk about their views of what anti-gay movements are likely to do in the future based on their past experiences? Yeah, I honestly don't see the problem with what PrestorJohn is doing. She's been quite clear in my eyes that she's talking about some very small and specific but very real groups who happen to be some of the most open and loud anti-gay advocates. I don't understand how people keep misinterpreting what she's saying as if it applies to every single right-leaning or anti-gay person on the planet. And pretending like people PJ is describing don't exist and are only fictitious bogeymen seems way more harmful than being slightly derisive in a discussion about them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:What does it mean to be the "core" of the anti-gay movement? We've established that we're talking about a "very small" group, so it can't be that they are a large portion of the movement. This rhetoric is pretty clearly trying to have its cake and eat it too. We're talking about a very specific group of people that a random forums poster has personal experience with, yet are also somehow relevant on the national level. You don't have to be large to dominate the national conversation. The tea party also isn't very large, so obviously they aren't ever worth talking about when discussing right-wing politics, right? ISIS is also pretty tiny, best to just ignore them because they aren't relevant to anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:People are simultaneously saying that Prestor John is talking about a very specific group of people and yet at the same time represent a political party that represents +/- 50% of American voters. Like for real it's just some of that "our enemy is powerless and yet all powerful" poo poo people roll out all the time, claiming it's how fascists operate. It's an interesting discussion to have but for the love of God they aren't going to rise up crucify us in the streets come June. No one is claiming that. And I don't think anyone said they were powerless and in fact have said the exact opposite, that they have a disproportionate amount of power relative to their size. But I gotta say that was a grade A strawman you had.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The overwhelming majority are. Sorry bud, it doesn't make it a secret signal to reject this out of many other rejected amendments. Never change, you ignorant clown. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What do you think is going to happen? Incrementally weaken the ruling over a period of years until they will have in-effect rebanned same-sex if not do so overtly. So yeah, exactly what's happening to abortion right now. What do you think will happen? They'll just shrug their shoulders and never ever speak about it again?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Argument against demonization by gay-marriage supporter. So vote with your wallet, but only if it won't actually inconvenience anybody in which case you should support that person and their bigotry. Well that doesn't sound asinine at all!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
platzapS posted:You are wrong, and you're being goofy. It's possible to extend some accommodations to the losers of the culture war without saying people should be murdered. Why should we accommodate bigots? They can be dragged into the present kicking and screaming or they can gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
platzapS posted:1) Because they're fellow citizens, and I'd rather not bother them if there isn't much to gain. 1) The gain is less discrimination. That's a pretty nice gain in my book. 2) "Don't discriminate" isn't going to lead to 1984, that's some especially bad slippery slower thinking. 3) Do you not know what an idiom is? And no, Conservatives were told they wouldn't have to get gay married and that churches wouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies, both of which are true. It's not my problem if they've been lying to themselves about what was going to happen. Edit: And nobody is being "coerced" into participating in same-sex marriages, they're being told they have to provide the exact same service to all of the public or none of the public. To call it "coercion" is either idiocy or outright lying on your part, I'm not sure which. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:20 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
platzapS posted:The opposition is rooted in religious bullshit, definitely. A lot of our fellow citizens believe in all sorts of religious bullshit. I still don't think they should be fined or arrested or have to compromise their religious beliefs as long as LGBT rights are swiftly advancing anyway. Do you believe that people shouldn't have to serve blacks so long as they believe dark skin is the mark of Cain?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
platzapS posted:If it were just a few weirdos who thought that, no. But racial discrimination in the 60s was so pervasive, in so many facets of life, that it was a good idea to force recalcitrant whites with the Civil Rights Acts. I don't think gay people circa 2015 are in a similar situation. Correct me if you think I'm factually wrong. You support racial discrimination as long as it isn't too pervasive. Ok, how many is too many then? What's the hard number people have to remain under before it's not ok to you anymore? 50? 100? 1,000?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
platzapS posted:There are plenty of things that are bad (habitual cocaine use, cheating on your spouse, insulting people's looks) that I don't want criminalized. "Guy's, they're just being denied service because of their sexuality, it's not like they're being murdered  ".Seriously, you support bigotry so long as there isn't too much of it (whatever that point is, who knows!). Take a good long look at that sentence and please rethink your life.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Because these people are fellow citizens, and we have to build a republic together. Well then I have great news for you, person who fell into a wormhole in 1776 and landed in 2015, the republic is already built!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Discussing things is extremely illegal in the Debate & Discussion forum. loving sick burn, bro. Way better than the time it was used ten posts up. VitalSigns posted:So should we pass a new exemption to the Civil Rights Act to allow racists not to serve interracial couples? Apparently we should, as long as not too many racists are discriminating against interracial couples. How many is too many? Who knows!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Under what circumstances should we restrict business owners from refusing to do business with members of the public? Whenever they are refusing to do business on the grounds of race, religion. sexuality, gender, or political affiliation.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:But why should I, a hypothetical baker, have to not discriminate because of political affiliation? Let's say the bakery is a socialist worker's collective and the customer works to entrench capitalism. Actually this isn't a hypothetical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_and_Black_Cafe#Controversy Then you should serve them. I don't give one single poo poo about what hypothetical or actual scenario you can come up with, you either serve all of the public or none of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
VitalSigns, I had no idea you and CommieGIR were the exact same person this whole time!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 03:29
|
|