| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, how is asking for equal rights the equivalent of attacking or pushing around the religious? Because anti-discrimination laws may force your business to serve the LGBT community?
You know who else they force you to serve already? Black people. Is that tyranny? If not why?
A lot of what you've said sounds like victim blaming GreyWolfLord, people won't be discriminatory towards LGBT folks if their rights aren't perceived as being threatened?
B!~+!*##, what about the last innumerable years where there was no perceived threat and they where discriminatory as hell?
To me much of what you've said leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it strikes me as very similar to the "If blacks would just stop being so uppity (for asking for equal rights) they wouldn't face so much discrimination and fear, what happens to them is mostly their fault really, if they would just sit down and shut up everything would be fine for them."
No. No, it really wouldn't.
Violence is, obviously, no solution.
But I think it is optimistic to the point of naivete to assume that allowing further (if "lesser") discrimination to stand in the hope that once fears of pushback against religion are proven unfounded, all or even most opposition will fade away.
What's more likely is that marriage equality will be seen as a lost cause. Can't oppose it any more without looking unreasonable. But all these vehement anti-gay people will do is fall back to the next defensible point and entrench themselves there.
Strike while the iron is hot, I say.
Religion shouldn't be an excuse to be a dick to someone else. It might be a trite, over used saying, but "your rights end where mine begin" does hold a kernel of truth in it.
Especially when your religion arguably doesn't say a damn thing about the matter at hand in the first place.
Sure, not selling flowers to someone may not be a big deal in the grand scheme, but it's the principle of the thing here (not to mention personally hurtful to those discriminated against).
It's a complex issue, and I'm not comfortable unequivocally supporting running a small business owner out of business, or saying it's right for social justice issues to dictate how people should speak or act, necessarily, but there needs to be some form of consequence for turning your inner bigotry into outer actions against other people, and in any given specific scenario I'm more likely to side with the person who isn't indulging in petty spitefulness toward another human being for no other reason than Pastor Tom interpreted some words in a roughly 3000 year old book that's been re- and mis- translated half a dozen times to mean you should get your hate on for gay people.
Because sure, it's not that hard to find another flower shop. But you know what's even easier? Doing the same f$$#ing job you do every day of the week for just another customer. This is some dickitry you have to actively go out of your way to participate in, so I don't have much sympathy when the karma boomerang comes around in the form of someone going out of their way to pull even bigger dickitry. Because hell, at least they GOT something out of it. They got $1000 or whatever for being a dick. Something was accomplished.
What did flower shop guy get out of it?
GreyWolfLord, how is asking for equal rights the equivalent of attacking or pushing around the religious? Because anti-discrimination laws may force your business to serve the LGBT community?
You know who else they force you to serve already? Black people. Is that tyranny? If not why?
A lot of what you've said sounds like victim blaming GreyWolfLord, people won't be discriminatory towards LGBT folks if their rights aren't perceived as being threatened?
B$*#%&@%, what about the last innumerable years where there was no perceived threat and they where discriminatory as hell?
To me much of what you've said leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it strikes me as very similar to the "If blacks would just stop being so uppity (for asking for equal rights) they wouldn't face so much discrimination and fear, what happens to them is mostly their fault really, if they would just sit down and shut up everything would be fine for them."
No. No, it really wouldn't.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is there is an AWFUL LOT OF FEAR out there right now. If you look at the speeches and sermons from the SBC (and others) it is almost entirely based upon the fear people have of an aggressive LGBT movement. They may say something about the Bible...but most of it...it's due to the fear that they have of the LGBT movement moving to destroy the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.
I feel that fear is what is motivating a LARGE number of people in the past few years...and I think that's the biggest obstacle currently.
I am under no illusion it will completely disappate opposition, but I think it will do a great amount of help in disappating it.
Unlike interracial marriage, for many, it is blatantly and obviously written out in the Bible in regards to homosexuality. You and I are not going to change this. Furthermore, history has shown, (and in this our Founding Fathers were extremely wise..this is also one of the reasons they gave for a separation between church and state) when you have church and state collide, and people have to make a choice, invariable it eventually leads to violence. (Edit: I should add as a point, there are ALSO other Christian ways of interpreting the Bible that are now out there, and LGBT Christian religions...which have a different view on the Bible and the words of Christ as a whole).
What's worse, it's not even been a week and we have people (as you can see even in this thread) now pushing to make a move against religious institutions, basically fulfilling those fears.
You speak of years past...let me assure you, maybe for you it was years past...for me this is current history. Just last year we dealt with some rather dangerous and possibly deadly discrimination against us from where we lived (It's also why I feel Paizo is accepting of people by words only...basically I got some reinforcement discrimination here as well as a meh...whatever). I relocated for awhile. I'm well acquainted with heavy discrimination.
For me, it is a current and active thing. It's not some imaginary item. People where I live are still extremely discriminatory. Laws don't stop it necessarily, and me antagonizing people about it will NOT do me any favors either. What it will do is spark violence.
This is a different thing as well. IF a "black" person walks into a store, as you would put it, it is instantly known that they are different than a white majority.
IF an LGB (once again, T can be a different situation entirely, and we can see the T portion of LGBT has FAR further to go and FAR more discrimination, probably primarily because of that different situation, then the rest of the LGBT) walks into a store, no one will really be the wiser. They look JUST LIke everyone else typically does.
There are some situations where it is known, and yes, discrimination should be fought in those arenas...but picking a fight just to pick a fight...that's NOT the right way.
What's WORSE though, and this is what I think is terrible, is to do unto others what you fought against. In otherwords...
To make it so people can't find someplace to live, someplace to work, to cause it so discrimination is so against them that they are fired simply because of their ideas and thoughts...isn't that what the LGBT rights movement has been fighting to stop?
What sense is it then to try to recreate that?
Do you really feel good about trying to make it so people lose their employment, lose their place of living, lose their right to talk openly, and their right to believe as they wish?
Or do you think such things are wrong?
Because I feel it is wrong, whether it is because of someone's orientation, gender, race, age OR RELIGION. The problem I think is people are forgetting that discrimination isn't just about orientation and gender, there are other things that are equally discriminatory, and I feel Religion is one that people are starting to get more discriminatory towards simply because they feel anger and want revenge because of perceived (real and not) slights against them.
Religion is one of the big things that causes discrimination in my area, at least I feel that way. But I also feel it's important to let people practice and have that freedom, and I feel the fear that people have of losing that freedom is what is driving a LOT of the opposition against LGBT rights these days.
Maybe I'm wrong...and we all have different opinions, but I find it hard to think that this would put a sick feeling in one's mouth if they understood why I feel this way. (though in some ways it could make someone who is ultra religions, ultra conservative, and anti-anything that isn't WASP sick to their stomach. They'd also probably be the ones that it wouldn't matter if that fear was gone or not, they'd still be discriminatory).
AS for the past...this isn't still the 1960s, or even the 1980s. This is 2015 and attitudes overall have changed. If we don't change with it, if we are stuck in the past of 1960, or 1980 and keep old hatreds up...are we really any better then those who did the discrimination of the past?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wait until we reach the point where people have enough empathy for each other that a gay couple can walk into a baker and things can proceed apace:
"We're getting married. Will you do the cake for us?"
"I'm sorry, because of my religious convictions, I'm not comfortable with that. However, I recommend this bakery. They're very talented, and will be able to accommodate your needs as I in good conscience cannot."
"Oh. OK. We'll check them out! Thanks."
"You're very welcome. Take care."
Of course, I know that some will not find this acceptable, because it allows both sides their dignity and the courage of their convictions ... and when there's a chance to rub someone's face in something, we should probably go that way instead.
So, be completely honest here.
Had you lived a couple hundred years ago, when religious arguments were in abundant use in the U.S to justify separation of blacks from whites, would you have said the same about a couple of one black and one white wanting that cake?
What you seem to disregard in your image of a peaceful utopia is that never matter how you spin it or how you look at it, the inclusion of anti gay stances in a religion are a harmful thing. There have been many (many, many, many) types of hatred that were once part of the christian religion and have been subdued in the western world in the past couple of centuries. For a religion that is not yet as subdued check out Judaism or Islam.
In time, as with misogyny, racism and a plethora of other outdated concepts from the various bibles, homophobia will diminish. You children's childrens will probably deny that Catholicism (true Catholicism of the modern kind they'll have, not the misguided interpretation of the 20th century, of course) ever had a problem with gays.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One group asking for the same rights everyone else has is not oppression, it's equality.
The most "oppressive" thing I've seen legitimately pushed for is applying the same anti-discrimination laws that already exist for other groups to LGBT individuals.
If you are taking some random people on the internet's opinions as indicative of the reality of what will happen then I'll do the same and fear all LGBT people are going to be put in concentration camps and murdered as some internet a%@+~+&s have called for before. That is some serious oppression!
GreyWolfLord as a Trans person of color I experience bigotry pretty much everyday I leave my house, so it is a very present reality for me as well. I am sorry you receive bigotry for your beliefs, that isn't ok.
I believe in religious freedom and free speech and that religious practice should be protected, my only caveat is that it shouldn't be allowed to oppress other groups of citizens, they need freedom too.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wait until we reach the point where people have enough empathy for each other that a gay couple can walk into a baker and things can proceed apace:
"We're getting married. Will you do the cake for us?"
"I'm sorry, because of my religious convictions, I'm not comfortable with that. However, I recommend this bakery. They're very talented, and will be able to accommodate your needs as I in good conscience cannot."
"Oh. OK. We'll check them out! Thanks."
"You're very welcome. Take care."
Of course, I know that some will not find this acceptable, because it allows both sides their dignity and the courage of their convictions ... and when there's a chance to rub someone's face in something, we should probably go that way instead.
So, a white baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being black should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?
So, a Baptist baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being Catholic should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?
So, a Catholic baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple because one them is getting remarried after a divorce should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?
Edit: Ninjas! {shakes fist}
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What with evreyone wearing rainbow themed cloths now, I am surprised ninjaing is even possible currently.
In regards to the subject itself - exciting news. Coupled with Obamacare I daresay it seems to an outside observer that the US is taking some big steps in the right direction. Oh an the increasing tendency to legalize light drugs. It's moments like this when one might hesitantly considers that things probably will be less f*cked up in the future.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jaelithe is right. Homosexuality is specifically called out in the catechism as inherently disordered behavior, an unnatural sin.
I'm cool with that, I just don't personally want the laws of the country I'm living in to be based on that.
I don't care if the Catholic Church wouldn't marry me or give me communion I just want to be able to go to the only pharmacy in town and be able to pick up my diabetic medication with out being refused service for being disordered!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, a white baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being black should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?Is race not proven a wholly artificial distinction? Has it not been shown nonexistent by the weight of scientific evidence? Is the baker not simply acting out of dislike for a skin color, which is wholly irrational, and not at all a part of his faith's genuine tenets?
Are you saying that in no way should someone's conscientious objection hold sway in the manner in which they conduct themselves—that the instant they offer a public service that they are not allowed to draw any distinction in so doing? Is this a manner of all or nothing, or is there a consideration of degree?So, a Baptist baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being Catholic should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?
So, a Catholic baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple because one them is getting remarried after a divorce should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?
This has nothing to do with genetics and social elements that compromise one's ethnicity/race. This has nothing to do with a conscientious objection against an individual's chosen religion. This has nothing to do whether the discriminator is a true believer or full of bigoted b!*~&&+%. Those points are moot, because under the Bill of Rights and existing Federal and state laws, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Period. If you don't want to treat people with a different ethnicity or religion equally under the law, you shouldn't run a public business that will put you in that position. If you do, and you do discriminate, you should expect to face legal and social ramifications. This is doubly so if you discriminate as a government public official.
3 years from now the equity laws will have settled in and become part of everyday life. There will be your wacko fringe loons who will bleat about it but the bleating will be drowned out by time - the great killer of everything.
In that three years the media will run stories that are mostly novelty, scandal, what ever sells advertising and as marriage equality becomes an everyday thing, it will get the same Coverage as marriage does now.... Boring celeb stories, and so on.
So my advice to homophobes is in time nobody will care about the crap you dribble from your mouth, so don't waste your time moaning and go and do constructive.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're refusing to differentiate between that which is explicitly condemned by the basic tenets of the religion, within its Scripture, with biases that do not and are based upon other issues.
Conflating current culture, whether that of the 1st century or the 21st, with the basic teachings of a faith is logically flawed.
Bah. To me there seem to be two different concepts in regard to organized religeon:
1) The book the faith is based on
2) The interpretation of that book
Number 1 used to change all the time in less organized time but has since then solidified. For the most part there is a consensus on what "the real bible" of each of the three major religions is.
Number 2 is the category that never stops shifting, and never will for as long as religion in its current form exists. Essentially, since the holy texts are not to be taken at face value, anything in them can mean anything.
It used to be, in past millenia, that the tale of creation right at the start of each bible was "the basic teaching of a faith". You know, seven days, garden of Eden, misleading snakes, the whole package. Later on, as scientific discoveries became common knowledge and it became apparent that the world/universe never had nothing to do with that creation story, the story became allegory. It is not wildly understood that of course there wasn't a literal garden of Eden with a literal snake, and the creation of the universe did not literally take seven days, and so on.
Just as stories stop being "facts" and become "allegories" as new knowledge is accumulated, so do the basic beliefs shift and change. I am not as familiar with Christianity or Islam as I am with Judaism, but I can give a Jewish example to that process. In the old testament, there are laws given directly from God about the proper way to do slavery. If someone is in debt to you for such and such sums you may enslave them for this many years and take this number of their women as "wives". In the same book kosher food is defined (what Jews are allowed or not allowed to eat).
Now, the slavery rules are unacceptable to any modern ear, even the most extreme. So *that* rule from the holy book clearly isn't central to the faith. Kosher food though? There's not yet been a change of circumstances that forces religion to drop this to adapt to contemporary needs, so it stayed - and is practiced with some fervor, might I add. Again, both laws were presented in the same manner and in the same text.
My point is that yes, there are some abhorrent things written in the various holy books. For the large part, they are interpreted literally until time demand otherwise and then some elders of the faith convene and it turns out that that passage really never meant that thing at all.
I fully expect the homophobia in the new testament to undergo the same process.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would not only be ridiculous, it'd be horrifying. Anyone who would deny someone their medication because they disagree with their lifestyle is a monster ... and there's a clear distinction (whether people wish to admit it or not) between denying Yuugasa her insulin and refusing to custom bake her a wedding cake, or allow her wedding on your land.
Only in the same way that there's a difference between stealing from the rich and stealing from the poor. Different order of magnitude, same crime.
EDIT: another way in which the two are actually the same crime except in different degree of severtiy is that the motive is known to be the same in both cases. The baker who won't sell the cake and the store owner who won't sell the medicine is that both of them, because of their faith, will not do business with a homosexual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I just want, as a Catholic and a person concerned with not forcing anyone to act against their conscience, for people to employ some judiciousness rather than cramming their perspective down others' throats.
No one is being forced to act against their conscience. They're simply being told that if their conscience does not allow them to perform an act as the law demands, they must refrain from performing that act in an illegal manner.
Basically, one has three choices.
* Play according to the rules
* Play, but cheat
* Don't play at all
If their conscience demands that they can't do the first, fairness and the law equally demand that they can't do the second.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) People are forced to act against their conscience in the course of their jobs all the time, particularly when their conscience compels them to discriminate against others. We have public accommodation laws for precisely this reason.
While I am taking entirely too much enjoyment in watching fox news turn purple and can understand the need for government intrusion so that people can get food, shelter, and housing I don't see the compelling government interest to force twits to do business with people they don't want to for luxury items like flowers.