- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.
After decades of fighting for gay rights, those who should be guzzling the bubbly are muzzling the vanquished.
What happened in Indiana is reminiscent of the bullying that led to the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich exactly this time last year. Eich was harangued for a six-year-old donation supporting an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, but ultimately purged for refusing to recant his beliefs about marriage.
Last week, Hampton Catlin — a computer programmer and gay rights advocate — started taunting Eich on Twitter. Catlin tweeted, "…couple weeks since I'd gotten some sort of @BrendanEich related hate mail. How things going over there on your side, Brendan? Eich responded, "You demanded I be 'completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla' & got your wish. I'm still unemployed. How're you?" Catlin continued to gloat.
Yes, both Catlin and Eich got hate mail, but only one lost his livelihood. Is this really what winning looks like?
Nowhere in the bible does it state that feeding homosexuals is a sin. If providing your business services to a sinner was a sin, you wouldn't be able to serve anybody. Stop projecting your intolerance on your religion and man up and admit that you make your own decisions in life just like everyone else.
How many gay people had asked to have their wedding catered by this small-town pizza joint? None. What number of gay people had been denied a slice by O'Connor? Zero. In fact, the owners told the reporter that they would never refuse to serve a gay customer who came to the restaurant to eat. The wrath of gay rights supporters rained down on Memories Pizza because O'Connor committed a thought crime.
Considering no one has refused to serve food to homosexuals, you statement seems a bit odd. In fact the pizza place said they would never refuse a customer because of their sexual orentation, only that they wouldn't cater
This is exactly the type of radical hated that leads to moving the goalposts. Stop making strawman arguments man up and look at the facts and make a real argument like everyone else.
Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners
The only moment we are at is that if you express an opinion that liberals disagree with they will try to get you fired or run you out of business. Hurray for "rights"
Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners
So there are still plenty of people who would argue that marriage is between a man and a woman but they can not express this idea because liberals will try to ruin their lives if they express this opinion.
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation. There are no white weddings, black weddings, asian weddings, christian weddings, muslim weddings, or gay weddings, there are only weddings. If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.
A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.
Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
Which law did they break?
Being a Christian
I was unaware there is a law defining how to be a Christian. What's the punishment?
A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.
Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation.
If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.
A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.
Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
:naughtyIncorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime.
As I already said; No they didn't.They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation.
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.
I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
Yep.Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation. There are no white weddings, black weddings, asian weddings, christian weddings, muslim weddings, or gay weddings, there are only weddings. If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.
A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.
Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
The only moment we are at is that if you express an opinion that liberals disagree with they will try to get you fired or run you out of business. Hurray for "rights"
Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners
So there are still plenty of people who would argue that marriage is between a man and a woman but they can not express this idea because liberals will try to ruin their lives if they express this opinion.
From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.
I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.
I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
The lobbyists standing behind indiana's governor are the same assholes who have always opposed gay rights, including members of FRC. This is a simply a last ditched gasp by the religious right to prevent equality.
Getting a bit dramatic, aren't we?so a family business passed down for generations
now they have to choose.....their religion, or putting food on the table
The Bible doesn't say anything about serving pizza at a wedding.either forsake what they believe in, and stay in business.....or close
what you believe the bible says, or the bible means doesnt mean a damn thing
They're dead. They don't live in our world, they don't live by our standards. What they would think is not relevant, because they are not the ones who have to live with these decisions. WE are, which is why we get to decide which laws to pass and to repeal.i sometimes wonder what the framers of this wonderful country would think about decisions like this.....
so a family business passed down for generations
now they have to choose.....their religion, or putting food on the table
because basically that is what you are asking them to do......
either forsake what they believe in, and stay in business.....or close
what you believe the bible says, or the bible means doesnt mean a damn thing
it is what THEY believe, and how THEY live their lives
that basically is what all of this is coming down to......
people and families will have to choose what is more important to them
to me, that is exactly opposite of what SHOULD happen......
and i sometimes wonder what the framers of this wonderful country would think about decisions like this.....
Horse****. the people who would refuse service to homosexuals are still ranting and raving about the coming doom of gay marriage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?