If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   When it comes to the gay marriage debate, the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots bigots. Bigots   (theweek.com) divider line 315
    More: Unlikely, Conor Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, democratic government, fashion trends  
•       •       •

1359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 10:14:31 AM
Here's the rub, one group believes "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs. The other group doesn't believe "A" and wants the force of law to let everyone believe whatever they want.


/"A" can be about abortion, gay marriage, hate speech, etc
//Shove your slippery slope arguments of, "What if 'A' were murder, or rape, etc?"
 
2014-03-07 10:19:09 AM
And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?
 
2014-03-07 10:23:47 AM

Gecko Gingrich: "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs


That's why people are being forced by the state to get gay married.  We knew this would happen.
 
2014-03-07 10:25:32 AM
I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.
 
2014-03-07 10:27:21 AM

Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.


You'd think that the Equal Protection clause would count double if the two people were men.  But you would be wrong.
 
2014-03-07 10:28:16 AM
They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.
 
2014-03-07 10:30:22 AM

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


What if I am tall and standing on a ladder?
 
2014-03-07 10:37:38 AM

Nadie_AZ: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

What if I am tall and standing on a ladder pulpit?


FIFY
 
2014-03-07 10:38:59 AM

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays.

In other words, your garden variety "small government" conservative.
 
2014-03-07 10:43:31 AM

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


It's the best of crazy arguments

"If you want to change the legal status quo that's stopping you from getting equal rights, you're not respecting my sincerely held belief that you should continue to be oppressed, and that's not fair."
 
2014-03-07 10:51:49 AM
Is it still ok to be in favor of gay marriage because you really don't give a rat's ass how other people live their lives?

/apathy FTW
 
2014-03-07 10:54:55 AM

gilgigamesh: It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays


I thought that's what you meant.
 
2014-03-07 11:04:01 AM
The business community was very upset/concerned of the Arizona law permitting discrimination.   Everyone dodged a bullet.  I would suggest that now we be a good time for all businesses everywhere to purge themselves of their bigots before another law like this is proposed.  Just doesn't make good business sense to have bigots on the pay-rolll.
 
2014-03-07 11:05:14 AM
I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.
 
2014-03-07 11:30:44 AM
I wonder what people who were opposed to interracial marriage on religious grounds would say to all this?

Something derpy, no doubt. Either way, those people were on the wrong side of history just as the people currently opposed to same sex marriage are. In a few decades they'll be viewed with the same sort of head-scratching disbelief as those who came before them.

They're entitled to their opinions, of course. Just as people choosing to remain aboard a sinking ship are entitled to their choice off the menu, blissfully ignoring the waters rising around them as their arguments and objections are swatted away by acceptance and common sense. Those of us who long ago swam for the shores of equality and reason don't wish them ill will, but we're not above pointing out the folly and utter wrongness in their choices.
 
2014-03-07 11:34:16 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Is it still ok to be in favor of gay marriage because you really don't give a rat's ass how other people live their lives?


I'd argue that that's the preferred way.

We have to get there first, though.
 
2014-03-07 11:55:49 AM
This certainly is the Golden Age for us closeted masochists that see the world in black and white us against them dualities.

Whip me, tease me, tell me I'm intolerant.  Make me get on my knees and lobby for civil rights like the dog that I am.  Don't stop filibustering don't stop until you filibuster a nut.
 
2014-03-07 11:59:14 AM
I am sick of this issue.  Who the eff cares?  Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree.  I couldn't care less.
 
2014-03-07 12:15:02 PM

mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.


i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.
 
2014-03-07 12:20:48 PM

JohnnyBravo: I am sick of this issue. Who the eff cares? Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree. I couldn't care less.


Tell me more about the taste characteristics of those grapes.
 
2014-03-07 12:23:00 PM

ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.


So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?
 
2014-03-07 12:25:39 PM
FTFA: <the argument assumes> that "homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding," when in fact, plenty of gay marriage opponents merely reject it because they regard "marriage as a religious sacrament with a procreative purpose."

Then I suppose those same people oppose the elderly and people who can't or don't want to have kids getting married as well.
 
2014-03-07 12:27:47 PM
The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.
 
2014-03-07 12:35:14 PM
Even twenty years ago Wal*Mart was giving benefits to same sex couples *gasp*. Target followed shortly after that year. I get the 'point' - that everyone needs to understand everyone needs equal protection. But when you have an overwhelming number of voters, in the Kerry POTUS election for example, vote Democrat and against Gay Marriage on the same ballot where I lived at the time, there is a disconnect that isn't limited to rednecks. In fact the support of gay rights was around the same number in the red and blue areas that year. Considerable improvement has been made since, but if you are just going to bash one group because of one issue while disregarding the other extensive issues on the ballot, than yah, I could see calling it a form of bigotry.
 
2014-03-07 12:36:00 PM

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


Except you're not free to be a bigot in every way. That's what Douchehat was whining about in his column, and that, unbelievably, this article is defending: that you don't get to refuse service to gay people in your business, and that that's somehow unfair.

There's an ironic part to this, too:
And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents... They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Douchehat and others want to be free to ostracize gay people from civilized life, specifically, by excluding them from public businesses, and yet are complaining about receiving similar treatment.
 
2014-03-07 12:38:03 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.
 
2014-03-07 12:40:14 PM

OregonVet: Even twenty years ago Wal*Mart was giving benefits to same sex couples *gasp*. Target followed shortly after that year. I get the 'point' - that everyone needs to understand everyone needs equal protection. But when you have an overwhelming number of voters, in the Kerry POTUS election for example, vote Democrat and against Gay Marriage on the same ballot where I lived at the time, there is a disconnect that isn't limited to rednecks. In fact the support of gay rights was around the same number in the red and blue areas that year. Considerable improvement has been made since, but if you are just going to bash one group because of one issue while disregarding the other extensive issues on the ballot, than yah, I could see calling it a form of bigotry.


In what way is bashing bigots "a form of bigotry"? Furthermore, in what way is complaining about people bashing bigots "while disregarding the other extensive issues" anything but concern trolling? "Gosh, we can't say anything bad about those homophobic assholes, because, uh, national debt! Jobs! Afghanistan!"
 
2014-03-07 12:42:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?


img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-07 12:44:18 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.
 
2014-03-07 12:46:34 PM
I am merely pointing out that it is the Democrats that prevent equal protection where I live and and one can't just paint a broad brush.
 
2014-03-07 12:47:54 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


Actually its etymology is French, and refers to a religious hypocrite but thanks again for your undoubtedly thoroughly researched scholarly contribution.
 
2014-03-07 12:48:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.


Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?
 
2014-03-07 12:48:06 PM
Oh, and add in there that evil corporations make better ground by saying farkit and extending benefits regardless.
 
2014-03-07 12:55:22 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?
 
2014-03-07 12:56:17 PM
They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Meh. That's just fear mongering and catering to the ignorance of those who think this is what "The Gay Agenda" actually is.
"The gays are coming to get you!", ad nauseum.
 
2014-03-07 12:56:23 PM

SkinnyHead: Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


If your region interferes with your job, get a new religion or a new job.  This isn't hard.
 
2014-03-07 12:57:15 PM

Rincewind53: Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?

It's the best of crazy arguments

"If you want to change the legal status quo that's stopping you from getting equal rights, you're not respecting my sincerely held belief that you should continue to be oppressed, and that's not fair."


The odd thing about this belabored point of his (TFA author's, that is) is that he is pro-marriage-equality.  My counter-argument to what he's saying is that the "tradition" camp is letting their narrative be projected by people with really insensitive, dehumanizing points of view.  Yeah, gay marriage is a new thing on a cultural scale, but in the information age ideas fly fast.  Perhaps the philosophical war cries from the "equality" camp are responses to the type of crap that we hear from all these "Family" groups of really hateful f*ckers that seem to own the message.

brap: Actually its etymology is French, and refers to a religious hypocrite but thanks again for your undoubtedly thoroughly researched scholarly contribution.


Dude: it is Skinnyhead.  Seriously.
 
2014-03-07 01:00:29 PM
Sorry, I feel strongly about language.  Someday I hope to marry a big thick juicy word.
 
2014-03-07 01:01:30 PM

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?


I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...
 
2014-03-07 01:03:25 PM

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


If you're providing a professional service to the public, you have to understand that the public is pretty much batshiat insane.  You have no idea how many loonies and nutjobs and kooks and losers are out there.  So if someone asks you to photograph a gig and you show up and they're all fabulous, well, that just comes with the territory.  If you feel that God will smite you and you'll go to hell for photographing gay people and then charging them for it, I'd say you need a new God.

Especially if photographing a tattooed man eating shellfish at the buffet it A-OK, you know what I mean?
 
2014-03-07 01:05:26 PM

ManateeGag: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...


Feel free. If you were going to raise the old "but it's a privately owned business and you should have the rights to refuse service to anyone" thing, that hasn't been true for literally 50 years, thanks to the Civil Rights Act.
And part of the reason for the CRA was that the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.
i.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-07 01:07:30 PM
A wild Skinnyhead appears!

He uses 'Troll'

It's super effective!
 
2014-03-07 01:10:31 PM
Marcus Aurelius:

If you're providing a professional service to the public, you have to understand that the public is pretty much batshiat insane. You have no idea how many loonies and nutjobs and kooks and losers are out there.  So if someone asks you to photograph a gig and you show up and they're all fabulous, well, that just comes with the territory.  If you feel that God will smite you and you'll go to hell for photographing gay people and then charging them for it, I'd say you need a new God.

Especially if photographing a tattooed man eating shellfish at the buffet it A-OK, you know what I mean?


So much this. I don't understand how the fark you ever decided to start your own business if you're such a delicate little flower that dealing with the public (many of which are mean, insane crazy people...or otherwise just different from you) makes you clutch your pearls.
 
2014-03-07 01:19:24 PM

Theaetetus: ManateeGag: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...

Feel free. If you were going to raise the old "but it's a privately owned business and you should have the rights to refuse service to anyone" thing, that hasn't been true for literally 50 years, thanks to the Civil Rights Act.
And part of the reason for the CRA was that the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.


No, I was just going to ask, why not hire guy who isn't an asshole?
 
2014-03-07 01:23:01 PM

ManateeGag: No, I was just going to ask, why not hire guy who isn't an asshole?


What guy?

Theaetetus: the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.

 
2014-03-07 01:26:35 PM

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


True; however, not in the way you are implying.
 
2014-03-07 01:28:51 PM

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?


Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.
 
2014-03-07 01:35:32 PM

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?


Because religious people have rights to free exercise of their religion. They do not have rights to operate a business in a discriminatory manner.

To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

Yes, the word is "good". There is no requirement that we be tolerant of hate and bigotry. If you're a huge asshole, there's nothing that legally requires me to smile and nod and wish you well. That sort of requirement is more the province of... religion.
 
2014-03-07 01:41:05 PM
What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?
 
2014-03-07 01:43:59 PM

luniz5monody: What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?


Because judges aren't stupid, and don't have to accept a sham. Whether a business qualifies as a private club is a factual determination that a court can make looking at all the factors - how selective they are, how much they charge for membership, whether "membership" is really just a sham to get around anti-discrimination laws, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report