It is frightening to me that anyone finds it okay for government officials to deny businesses licenses based on their opinions. What about freedom of speech? I wish we had one of these stores in our area so that I could support them. Never once did Chick-Fil-A say that they support discrimination.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is sort of out of context, or incomplete.
Who denied them a business license? I seem to recall Boston saying Chick Fil A couldn't go there, but I haven't heard if a CFA has actually tried to get in and been denied. Could you provide a link to what you're talking about? Or actually, I just found a link to a Chicago alderman who is specifically blocking the sale of some land to a CFA. Is that the case you're referring to?
By the by, Chick-Fil-A opposes same-sex marriage, which a great many people view as a form of discrimination. Actually, I think by definition it IS discrimination, it just depends on whether you think it's acceptable discrimination or not.
Also, freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from all repercussions. You have the right to say whatever you want, and hold whatever opinions you want, but there are often repercussions beyond being hauled off to jail that are both legal and fair.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
I'm guessing he's referring to the letter from Boston's mayor to Chick-Fil-A's president that surfaced recently. Here's a link to the letter, as posted on the Boston, Mass. Facebook page: Link . Here's a link to a HuffPost article discussing that letter: Link Posted by Jerry Lee (Member # 12865) on :
An alderman and the mayor of Chicago said that they would do what they can to prevent any Chick-Fil-A's from coming in to the city.
This is all due to the president of the comany stating his opinion against same-sex marriage. He did not say that he would discriminate against homosexuals as employees or customers.
Please keep in mind that Chicago, like most major cities, is in desperate need of jobs.
Same sex marriage is still illegals in the majority of the states..... Including Illinois.
Him having that opinion (right or wrong) is protected free speech. Any repercussions should be from consumers choosing not to dine there.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: Him having that opinion (right or wrong) is protected free speech. Any repercussions should be from consumers choosing not to dine there.
Who are you to say that there can't be other repercussions to bigotry? Democracy is essentially rule of the majority. The opinion of the majority is changing from one of hate to acceptance, just as it did for suffrage and other minority rights. People, including elected officials, can do whatever they feel they have the power to do -- unless the courts overrule them. They'll have to face the repercussions, yes, but there can be a lot more repercussions to anyone's freedom of (hate) speech than just the power of the individual. Fortunately, in this case, some individuals have more power than others.
Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
This isn't true, actually. And consider how you would feel if the reason was CFA supporting SSM, or hiring along those lines.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
This isn't true, actually. And consider how you would feel if the reason was CFA supporting SSM, or hiring along those lines.
If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yesterday my daughter's team was at a camp and the coach said we were all going to eat lunch at Chick Fil A. I didn't think anything about it, because we picked different restaurants every day at the camp and ate there.
When we got to Chick Fil A, we had to get our food to go and leave because there truly was no place to sit down. It was so packed we had to park in a restaurant lot next door and walk over, and the line was to the door.
Surprisingly, we got our food very quickly, because they were fully staffed and were running every register. The manager took my order, and I asked him if they were always this busy, and he said they were a very busy location, but business had exploded in the last week.
So, I would think that the corporate office would accept no new store in Boston if the result at the one I was at is typical across the board.
Like all things, though, it will die down when the media frenzy stops and will probably go back to normal.
I honestly do not get overly concerned about the religious or political views of CEO's of companies. I figure most people don't agree with me and if I only shopped or bought from people who did agree with me, my options would be limited. Chick Fil A has never made any secret that the founder and current management are conservative Christian, and they demonstrate that by being closed on Sunday (the only days I seem to truly crave those chicken mini biscuits for breakfast!). Therefore, this was not a true surprise to me.
I understand this is a much more hot button issue for some people than it is for me, and as Jerry Lee said, those people certainly have the right to express their disapproval by not buying anything there. If a city does deny a business license though based on the religious views of the company's president, that does seem worrisome. I'd have to know more details about how such processes usually work to comment with any degree of authority.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Well, yes. But only in the sense it's also your "right" to murder someone even if it's against the law and then it's the polices right to find you, the DA's right to prosecute, and the penal system's right to imprison or kill you. But then what does "right" mean in this context? Physically possible? It's not legal, so it's hard to say it's our system: our system outlaws that.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not comfortable with the government using its power to ban a business because of the beliefs of the owner as long as that owner's business practices conform to the law.
On the other hand, I find that this guy whinging about how he is being discriminated against because he supports discrimination (and, yes, opposing SSM is discrimination) to be a little rich. I am having a hard time mustering up much sympathy for him.
Despite my discomfort with government overreaching, I am pleased to live in a place whose heart is on the right side of history.
[ July 26, 2012, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Do you think there are no laws already dealing with when and how a business may be barred from an area, or its entry made harder?
quote:Despite my discomfort with government overreaching, I am pleased to live in a place whose heart is on the right side of history.
It's easy to be content with government overreaching when it's in your favor. When that overreaching was on the wrong side of, as you say, history, though...I suspect it was more than just 'uncomfortable'.
I don't get this. To me, freedome of expression, speech, association, etc., is right up there at the top of the list of important things we ought to be concerned about. It's distressing but not surprising how willing we as a society are willing, even supposed liberals, to just brush it aside when it's in our favor. It's not about sympathy or antagonism towards Cathy. Freedom of speech is designed specifically to protect speech we're uncomfortable with. That's the entire point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course it is. Hence, my discomfort.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This isn't directed at anybody in particular. I should think that if you truly believe in a principle, if a situation arises where that principle is being tested. If an opponent stands to gain by that principle being upheld, or if they stand to lose by it being forfeited, you must cling to that principle even harder. Anybody can have convenient beliefs.
Voltaire never actually said it, but it's still true, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Those zoning for businesses are not the morality police, and we have not given them that power to exercise it in defense of any philosophy.
There's no karma account we can draw from based on years of abuse or current mistreatment of homosexuals. Tit for tat justice is just about the most useless form.
I wouldn't say I feel sympathy for CFA except insofar as franchise owners who don't agree with the CEO are now taking a lashing for her words, and now have to decide if they can continue supporting that business. It's not a fun position to be in.
But these men who are using the zoning process as a penal system are doing more damage to a cause they support than good. They need to do the right thing and take a big step back from what they've declared they are going to do. While still holding fast to their beliefs.
Folks who dislike CFA and what they stand for can choose not to eat there, and can organize boycotts of CFA locations. They can make sure CFA maintains fair hiring practices, and keeps the law. Those are all methods our constitution fully supports.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It would be nice to hope that Mr. Cathy would experience a little epiphany with the discrimination show being on the other foot. I suppose that is too much to ask.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
This isn't true, actually. And consider how you would feel if the reason was CFA supporting SSM, or hiring along those lines.
If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
You are under the mistaken impression that the licensing and zoning authorities have *a right* to violate the law in such a way. They have no such right, and knowingly violating the law, as opposed to having been found to have violated the law in judicial review, is illegal. They have a duty instead to follow the law as closely as they can. Knowingly violating it is not something they can just do, and let the courts sort it out later- at least, should they choose to do this, the affected party could win a fairy large amount of money from them in civil court for their trouble.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
A lot of the backlash that I know of from friends and whatnot isn't because the CEo HAS that opinion- it's because CFA, as a company, has donated MONEY to anti-SSM causes. It's not the having an opinion, it's the actively discriminating part that irks people. And the lying about the reason they recalled the Jim Henson toys.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Also, did Chick-Fil-A just register at Hatrack?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think so. I'm notified when anybody creates a new account.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I don't know. As much dissent as their is to my post, I still disagree. I live in Utah. The local city council denies many businesses for many reasons . . . particularly using a morality clause or because it "doesn't fit in with the city's image". It's the same in a lot of other cities in the state. I'm not really sure why this is purportedly "illegal", unless you can 1) point me to the specific law and 2) show me instances where it's been upheld by the courts.
Same deal-i-o.
Regardless. Many laws are violated that don't get prosecuted. Society functions based on enforcement and the court system, not what's always on the books. Sodomy is against the law in most places, but that doesn't prohibit . . . never mind. As you were.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think so. I'm notified when anybody creates a new account.
Blackblade, I was just making a joke about a new user registering specifically to defend Chick-Fil-A.
Strider: Yeah I did and I suspected you were alluding to that, but I couldn't be sure. Also, I wouldn't put it past them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Shame, as their food is amazing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Do you think there are no laws already dealing with when and how a business may be barred from an area, or its entry made harder?
quote:Despite my discomfort with government overreaching, I am pleased to live in a place whose heart is on the right side of history.
It's easy to be content with government overreaching when it's in your favor. When that overreaching was on the wrong side of, as you say, history, though...I suspect it was more than just 'uncomfortable'.
I don't get this. To me, freedome of expression, speech, association, etc., is right up there at the top of the list of important things we ought to be concerned about. It's distressing but not surprising how willing we as a society are willing, even supposed liberals, to just brush it aside when it's in our favor. It's not about sympathy or antagonism towards Cathy. Freedom of speech is designed specifically to protect speech we're uncomfortable with. That's the entire point.
Bingo.
Well said, man.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll never eat there (which is made easy by the fact that I think there's only one CFA within 400 miles, and even that's 20 miles away at a campus student union), but yeah, I don't think local government should be able to block them.
It's one thing if the CEO personally believed in something and espoused personal beliefs. But the CEO is using corporate funds to support discriminatory policies. I can't support that with my money, so I'll boycott.
The personal or collective boycott is the constitutional way to react to this. Make a personal decision to hurt them as a consumer, even try to organize a collective, but don't shut them down using the government. It's a bad precedent, and next time around it might not be in your favor.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It would be nice to hope that Mr. Cathy would experience a little epiphany with the discrimination show being on the other foot. I suppose that is too much to ask.
It would be especially nice if people who claimed to respect freedom of speech and expression didn't peer down their noses at Cathy for not being grateful for the privilege of being threatened by local government officials for supporting a view they, personally, disapproved of.
I mean, for pity's sake, the sort of soft self-righteousness you're exhibiting here is precisely one of the things that has historically made it so easy to dismiss gay rights concerns: 'Eh, I guess they ought to be allowed to marry, but really they just shouldn't be gay because it's wrong,' or, 'Sure, they shouldn't be barred from adopting, but what did they expect when they decided to be gay?' or so on and so forth.
Either you support freedom of speech and expression, or you don't. I have very little doubt you would be more than a little 'uncomfortable' had local government officials in Massachusetts and particularly Chicago had said to Target, "We're going to take a good hard look at whether you should be allowed to open a store here, because of your embrace of gay rights."
Would the latter case be wrong because it's wrong to oppose gay rights? Your remarks on this topic certainly portray that outlook. Or would it be wrong because it's wrong for local government to exert pressure in zoning and similar matters for practicing open, legal speech?
quote:A lot of the backlash that I know of from friends and whatnot isn't because the CEo HAS that opinion- it's because CFA, as a company, has donated MONEY to anti-SSM causes. It's not the having an opinion, it's the actively discriminating part that irks people. And the lying about the reason they recalled the Jim Henson toys.
Be fair, Tinros, is there anyone who wasn't already unhappy or even antagonistic towards CFA before the toy thing that changed their minds afterwards? Probably very few. As for CFA's politics, so what you're saying is that people are 'fine' with CFA opposing SSM...just as long as they do that in a way that has absolutely no consequence on the world around them.
Well, alright, fine. Don't shop there, which would incidentally be an extremely effective tool for a private business to change its ways. But don't misuse local government and then cite popular support.
quote:I don't know. As much dissent as their is to my post, I still disagree. I live in Utah. The local city council denies many businesses for many reasons . . . particularly using a morality clause or because it "doesn't fit in with the city's image". It's the same in a lot of other cities in the state. I'm not really sure why this is purportedly "illegal", unless you can 1) point me to the specific law and 2) show me instances where it's been upheld by the courts.
Well if you insist on relying on your own second hand anecdotal knowledge...why don't you instead offer an example of a denial and what the actual, stated reason for it was, and see if perhaps you're not misunderstanding things?
And whether or not political speech is different from some 'morality clause' violation.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I don't know. As much dissent as their is to my post, I still disagree. I live in Utah. The local city council denies many businesses for many reasons . . . particularly using a morality clause or because it "doesn't fit in with the city's image". It's the same in a lot of other cities in the state. I'm not really sure why this is purportedly "illegal", unless you can 1) point me to the specific law and 2) show me instances where it's been upheld by the courts.
Well if you insist on relying on your own second hand anecdotal knowledge...why don't you instead offer an example of a denial and what the actual, stated reason for it was, and see if perhaps you're not misunderstanding things?
And whether or not political speech is different from some 'morality clause' violation.
Well, fun! How about stores that sell adult toys but no actual pornography? Especially when there isn't any city law or zoning regulation against it. Is it too libertarian of me to suggest that it's the same thing?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, please go back and reread what I wrote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, fun! How about stores that sell adult toys but no actual pornography? Especially when there isn't any city law or zoning regulation against it. Is it too libertarian of me to suggest that it's the same thing?
And where exactly are such stores being prohibited, and under what specific rule? If there isn't any city law or zoning against it, did they just outright say, "We don't like it, that's it," or did they have some patina of justification?
quote:Rakeesh, please go back and reread what I wrote.
Oh, wait, I missed it: you're 'uncomfortable' with threats to freedom of speech, a vague half hearted statement in no way offset by self righteous remarks about the shoe being on the other foot now and isn't that ironic, and the 'right side of history'.
What an empty phrase that is, incidentally. 'Right side of history'. That has no bearing whatever on the rightness or wickedness of anything, but it certainly sounds good and nicely critical, which I suppose is the point.
I read what you wrote, which was to say 'it's bad' but then to shrug it off, because the victim is also bad. That is not, actually, support for freedom of speech.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, of all the things my knickers are twisted about, I am just not up to leading the charge on this one. This jerk will get a teensy taste of his own medicine for a couple of days in a way that will never stand up to a legal challenge - unlike the LGBT community which is legally discriminated against. The ACLU will certainly leap to their defense as they should.
It is sort of like when they let the KKK march in Skokie or letting the Westboro Baptist idiots protest funerals. It is necessary and right to do so but don't expect me to be excited about it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am fine with it. I think that the mayor has a right to freedom of speech too, and the City of Boston has a right to decide what businesses go into historic sites. They wanted to put a store on the freedom trail in the center of Boston, and all businesses get vetted before they are allowed to build there.
A store that supports active discrimination against gays, who has a CEO who is vocal about it, and who donates LARGE amounts to anti-gay causes...works for me.
It won't hold up in court, more than likely, but it raises awareness of their stance, and I personally know at least 20 couples who don't eat there now.....including me and my wife. So it works for me.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
It's weird how many bigots come to skokie, westboro was right outside my old school only a year or two ago.
And I really doubt Emanuel will seriously hinder CFA if they have any real plans of moving into Chicago.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Two things.
Strider said "You saw news about the whole facebook debacle?" and linked to a "debacle" going on.
But it's much to do about nothing. There are only two facts in the whole case so far: 1) The Facebook account is new and 2) The profile picture is a stock image. For some reason, someone took those two facts, decided that it *must* be a PR person for Chick-Fil-A, and (as usual for the Internet) tried to make it true.
What's more likely: a conservative, not wanting to get dog-piled on their own FB account, created a fake one to make those comments. They used a stock image because the entire account was meant to be thrown away.
But you can try to make Chick-Fil-A look bad with no evidence if that floats your boat. Have fun.
-----
Second: the whole "they are lying about Jim Henson's toys!!!" argument is just as logically-unsound.
There is a picture of a sign online saying that the toys were recalled by Chick-Fil-A on July 19. The Jim Henson company released a press release on July 23 saying they were severing ties. Based upon these two facts, we can assume one of two things:
1) Chick-Fil-A is lying and the picture of the sign is fake and was made after Henson pulled the toys. 2) Chick-Fil-A is telling the truth. They pulled the toys and a few days later found out Henson was severing ties.
We don't have enough evidence to determine which of those is true. So if you scream "Look at them liars at Chick-Fil-A!" you are either purposefully twisting the facts or you are ignorant of them. Either way, without proof that the company is lying, your opinion is invalid.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It's clear to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Dustin is a shill for Chick-Fil-A.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:As for CFA's politics, so what you're saying is that people are 'fine' with CFA opposing SSM...just as long as they do that in a way that has absolutely no consequence on the world around them.
Yeah, actually, that strikes me as a pretty crucial difference.
If the CEO or even the company merely says "we don't like that," I'm probably not going to get up in arms about it, and I probably wouldn't go out of my way to try to boycott them or raise a fuss about it. It could just be the policies of one guy.
But when they start using my money that I spend there to support causes I don't, well, that certainly changes the equation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: It is frightening to me that anyone finds it okay for government officials to deny businesses licenses based on their opinions. What about freedom of speech?
I am glad you have discovered the wide world of discriminatory policy based on the beliefs of elected officials. I presume you are now only frightened and spurred to awareness and concern about it because this time it is happening to someone based on beliefs (discriminatory beliefs, no less) that YOU support. Perhaps there's a lesson here?
quote: Never once did Chick-Fil-A say that they support discrimination.
I'm going to spoil this for you: Chick-Fil-A supports discrimination. It is painfully obvious, they have said as such, and it's not even remotely a controversial charge. To assume it is ambiguous requires a great degree of ignorance about the issue.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My family will no longer eat at Chick-Fil-A for the foreseeable future. But that is our choice.
Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices. As long as they stick to that, they have the right to give money to whatever ignorant group they want. As long as it is a legal organization. The government should not have the right to deny them a license based on that.
I think what is really upsetting people is the fact that most people don't seem to care enough to stop eating there. That, and it seems that there are more Chick-Fil-As in conservative areas than liberal ones. Did I hear on the news that there are none in New York City?
With their closed Sunday policy is it really a surprise to anyone that they have conservative Christian viewpoints?
I would like to know if it is a tax deductible donation or not.
The other thing I would like to know is should I stop eating at the locally owned franchises as most of the ones in Maryland appear to be?
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The locally owned ones still pay a franchise fee to the parent corporation...so if you're worried about your money getting back to them, it's connected, but it's really up to you at that point.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Nate Silver (of FiveThirtyEight) on Twitter: Will there be a Chick-fil-A inside the ground zero mosque?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
It's unlikely that the hourly employees are contributing all that much in the way of funding to causes I don't support. Major dollar contributions from the parent company, however, I can actively protest.
They're a bigger target, and targeting Joe the CFA Employee who might send ten dollars to a PAC or something isn't really a great use of my time. Targeting CFA, who spends hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to support a PAC antithetical to my own beliefs, now that's a great return on my time and energy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
Yes. Have for some time too. Why do you ask?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't buy Apple products because they're overpriced and lame, but that works too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices.
Isn't that the thing underlying the zoning challenges? CFA vets their franchisees heavily for values. They give strong preference to married Christian men. I thought the allegations were that they won't allow openly gay people to open a franchise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, of all the things my knickers are twisted about, I am just not up to leading the charge on this one. This jerk will get a teensy taste of his own medicine for a couple of days in a way that will never stand up to a legal challenge - unlike the LGBT community which is legally discriminated against. The ACLU will certainly leap to their defense as they should.
Had you said something as clear and emphatic as that in the first place, my initial response would've been quite different.
---------
quote:But when they start using my money that I spend there to support causes I don't, well, that certainly changes the equation.
For me, personally? Where my own private dollars go? It changes things for me, too. I was referring to the tangling of zoning and supporting unpopular speech, not voting with dollars and boycotts.
--------
quote:Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices. As long as they stick to that, they have the right to give money to whatever ignorant group they want. As long as it is a legal organization. The government should not have the right to deny them a license based on that.
I can't speak to their hiring practices with respect to hourly employees, but it's pretty clear they do discriminate on the basis of politics, religion, and sexual preference with respect to owner operators. One of the links above goes into detail. However, they weed out damn near everybody and the process is extremely lengthy and exhaustive, so it's not something that is clear or actionable.
-------
quote:Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
Do you really think this is a valid comparison? On the one hand, a company is paying an employee who then spends that pay on an activity it likely knows nothing about, that it's rarely ever going to be in a position to find out.
On the other hand, the company publicly uses profits to contribute to a political effort to discriminate against a minority. They don't hide it, are in fact proud of it, could stop if they wished to, and their money makes a difference in that cause. On no level aside from the mere involvement of money are your two examples alike.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
As I was driving down through Indiana, I listened to one of the thirty or so Christian talk stations. The host was explaining that everyone needed to get as many people as possible to go to Chick-Fil-A and to organize church outings.
He continued with how important this was for about 20 minutes. It was followed by a program explaining that Muslims are deceived by the devil and are engaged in a war against God.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Well Rakeesh, you just can't seem to agree with anyone can't you?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Weird how you can now make a political statement by which fast food bag you're holding.
I'll continue to eat at Carl's Jr.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: Well Rakeesh, you just can't seem to agree with anyone can't you?
While I'm sure this seemed like a deadly zinger when you said it, the shine comes off a bit if you look to see that I agree with...I actually stopped counting when I reached four people.
If that was a joke using double negatives, it went well over my head. But somehow I don't think so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
Yes. Have for some time too. Why do you ask?
Foxconn?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices.
Isn't that the thing underlying the zoning challenges? CFA vets their franchisees heavily for values. They give strong preference to married Christian men. I thought the allegations were that they won't allow openly gay people to open a franchise.
It's one of the issues, and one of the main reasons that I support what the Mayor did.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh yeah, huh. I didn't even really consider that.
yeah, I would refuse them a location too, if it was reasonable to state that it is a franchise opportunity prohibited to gays.
That alone actually changes my position on the matter somewhat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hadn't realized that was an issue. I haven't read that in any of the articles I've seen on the topic.
That might alter my position as well.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Ditto.
Posted by Jerry Lee (Member # 12865) on :
If some governments can make licensing decisions against companies due to their c-level opinions against SSM what's to stop other governments from doing the same thing against pro gay view pointed business?
Posted by Jerry Lee (Member # 12865) on :
Ironically the ACLU is supporting CFA in this matter.
Posted by Jerry Lee (Member # 12865) on :
If some governments can make licensing decisions against companies due to their c-level opinions against SSM what's to stop other governments from doing the same thing against pro gay view pointed business?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think I know what you mean by "ironically", but the ACLU has a pretty good history of sticking by their principles and standing on the side of civil liberties no matter what the rest of the context is.
Hobbes Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, it's perhaps the opposite of irony. It's exactly what someone with any knowledge of the ACLU (outside of conservative/republican propaganda) would expect.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
I feel the need to point out that Jerry Greenfield was wed to his wife in 1987 and that while Ben Cohen has not publicly said he was gay I doubt he would ever care enough about what bigots think to stay in the closet. Although your anecdote does show some of your own character and views.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: If some governments can make licensing decisions against companies due to their c-level opinions against SSM what's to stop other governments from doing the same thing against pro gay view pointed business?
By "pro gay" do you mean "anti discrimination?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I suspected, this is a tempest in a teapot. No licenses are being withheld unless there is evidence of discrimination in hiring practices (which there may well be). Both the alderman and the mayor have backed away from the rhetoric and acknowledged that, of course, they can't legally bar a business because of the legal (if hateful) speech of the owner.
What has happened is that, while we understand that government cannot actually prevent support for discrimination, we can, as a community, make clear our distaste for it. I find this shift in zeitgeist to be heartening.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I am also heartened, though I am comforted additionally by the fact that less than a block from the only CFA in my city is one of only two Raising Cane's in my state. I have never tried CFA (never will now) but Cane's chicken strips are so good they don't have any other item on the menu, and now I want chicken.
Also I thought of sharing this yesterday and didn't, but now I think it may help ease some tension. Three drag queens on CFA. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: An alderman and the mayor of Chicago said that they would do what they can to prevent any Chick-Fil-A's from coming in to the city.
This is all due to the president of the comany stating his opinion against same-sex marriage. He did not say that he would discriminate against homosexuals as employees or customers.
Please keep in mind that Chicago, like most major cities, is in desperate need of jobs.
Same sex marriage is still illegals in the majority of the states..... Including Illinois.
Him having that opinion (right or wrong) is protected free speech. Any repercussions should be from consumers choosing not to dine there.
Dear Nail,
Sorry for hitting you perfectly on the head.
Sincerely, Hammer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The threats made, and then somewhat backed off from by some of them, were indeed not about hiring practices, but Cathy's politics and contributions.
But there is really no doubt that, so far as its actual operators are concerned, CFA does discriminate against non-Christians, homosexuals, the unmarried, and really anyone who can't pass an exhaustive vetting process that reads actually like the process Mitch McDeere (I think that was his name) had to undergo in Grisham's novel The Firm, where friends, family members, neighbors will be interviewed to vet for quite a lot more than business acumen and stability as well as work ethic.
If you're fine with that, alright, but let's not pretend they don't discriminate to attempt to weed out those who don't toe their particular social and religious line. If you refuse to believe that, then you've simply not informed yourself about them. It's all in a Forbes article linked in this very thread.
However, the initial outcry on the part of Chicago and Boston ppoliticians, wasn't about this. I'm not even sure they knew about it, or they would probably have said so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: Ironically the ACLU is supporting CFA in this matter.
"Ironically" ...?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, typical far-right perspective on the ACLU, that. Along with the sudden realization that, hey, local government using power unlawfully to curb unwanted social behavior or political speech is serious business.
This insistence that government has no business interfering in the private speech and associations of private citizens is, of course, supremely amusing coming as it does from people who advocate precisely that: concern in and interference with the private lives of homosexuals.
Eh, but taking the First Amendment seriously means one will often be shoulder to shoulder with those who attempt to deny the rights and freedoms of others, as in this case. Cost of doing business.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
Yes. Have for some time too. Why do you ask?
Foxconn?
Nah, walled gardens. Especially expensive walled gardens. I don't think Foxconn is particularly egregious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, typical far-right perspective on the ACLU, that. Along with the sudden realization that, hey, local government using power unlawfully to curb unwanted social behavior or political speech is serious business.
Unless it's happening to muslims or brown people or whatever. Then, the same people mewling about Chick-Fil-A's repression have suspiciously an opposite sort of concern. Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:I feel the need to point out that Jerry Greenfield was wed to his wife in 1987 and that while Ben Cohen has not publicly said he was gay I doubt he would ever care enough about what bigots think to stay in the closet. Although your anecdote does show some of your own character and views.[/QB]
Ad hominem attacks rarely show intelligence. I was using an extreme example from the conservative side of the argument - one I've heard in real life, by the way - and you automatically attack me and say it says something about my character. The example has *nothing at all* to do with my personal beliefs, thanks.
YOUR response shows YOUR character: judgmental and arrogant. That's funny, considering you are arguing for the side of "tolerance"...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: YOUR response shows YOUR character: judgmental and arrogant. That's funny, considering you are arguing for the side of "tolerance"...
Given what you've posted on this board so far, would you claim not to be a judgmental and arrogant person?
And yes. We are arguing for the side of tolerance. We are also tolerant of intolerance, and you'll note no intent to make homophobic attitudes illegal. What we aren't going to be is polite. We'll be treating homophobic attitudes the exact same as, say, racism, or people who a generation or two ago would have been whinging about how marriage is not an institution for interracial couples.
Which is about where anti gay marriage attitudes will be a few decades from now anyway; the dustbin of stigma and history. Your religion, as usual, will adjust to compensate, so there won't be any big loss. It'll just become a better religion than it was. We all win!
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote: Donald A. Perry, the vice president of corporate public relations for Chick-fil-A, died of a heart attack on Friday morning, Columbus Georgia's WRBL News 3 reports.
The company confirmed the news in a statement to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And yes. We are arguing for the side of tolerance. We are also tolerant of intolerance, and you'll note no intent to make homophobic attitudes illegal. What we aren't going to be is polite. We'll be treating homophobic attitudes the exact same as, say, racism, or people who a generation or two ago would have been whinging about how marriage is not an institution for interracial couples.
Oh, I wouldn't go quite so far as all that. There are certainly plenty of folks who, as is so very human, don't have much respect for or knowledge of what freedom of speech really means-not just the freedom to say (and to hear, more importantly) things that are disagreeable but things that really, really, really revolt you. There's a strong whiff of that in this discussion, actually, though thankfully respect for freedom of speech does win out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: YOUR response shows YOUR character: judgmental and arrogant. That's funny, considering you are arguing for the side of "tolerance"...
Given what you've posted on this board so far, would you claim not to be a judgmental and arrogant person?
And yes. We are arguing for the side of tolerance. We are also tolerant of intolerance, and you'll note no intent to make homophobic attitudes illegal. What we aren't going to be is polite. We'll be treating homophobic attitudes the exact same as, say, racism, or people who a generation or two ago would have been whinging about how marriage is not an institution for interracial couples.
Which is about where anti gay marriage attitudes will be a few decades from now anyway; the dustbin of stigma and history. Your religion, as usual, will adjust to compensate, so there won't be any big loss. It'll just become a better religion than it was. We all win!
This. I am so tired of people thinking using "tolerance" as a get-out-of disdain-free card. "Wah! You are not being tolerant of my intolerance! You are equally as bad!"
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My tolerance for conservative religion ends when they attempt to interfere in the personal business and lives of my best friends and their two daughters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: This. I am so tired of people thinking using "tolerance" as a get-out-of disdain-free card. "Wah! You are not being tolerant of my intolerance! You are equally as bad!"
Often times this is accidentally made into 'since you are the side professing tolerance you are hypocritical if you are expressing just half as much dismissive disdain of our views as we express of yours.'
but if you take their attempted riposte at face value you can point out to them that it accidentally expresses that they are holding their opponents to a standard of decency and they get to be jerks about it wait this does not score their side any good cred whoops
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the problem is actually less what they do and more what we do to ourselves. We start to think that all beliefs are equally worthy as if we had no ability to make value judgements.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Not defending Dan Cathy. For anything, ever. He's very rude to people when he plays in those golf tournaments. Just the "service" people, though. Not, like, quality people. Also, this company had approved a fellow to open a franchise, up to the point where they had a party for him to welcome him to the Chick-FilA family.
Where Mr. Cathy met the man's wife, discovering that she was black. *Faints* Oh my LAWD!
The next week he got a letter in the mail stating his franchise was being denied after all, with no explanation other than he was "not a good fit for Chick-Fil A." Of course, this is not proof of racism, either, and certainly not enough to spend a bunch of money suing them. But, certainly not cool.
So CFA is not a good fit for Boston or wherever. Them's the breaks.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And if I had to guess, I'd say the Mayor's statement had it's intended effect. A TON of people who were not aware of his companies borderline illegal acts, and his beliefs and contributions to anti-gay groups, are now aware of it.
And people who were not aware of the Mayor's views now are, so he scored political points in his own city.
Mission accomplished.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: Not defending Dan Cathy. For anything, ever. He's very rude to people when he plays in those golf tournaments. Just the "service" people, though. Not, like, quality people. Also, this company had approved a fellow to open a franchise, up to the point where they had a party for him to welcome him to the Chick-FilA family.
Where Mr. Cathy met the man's wife, discovering that she was black. *Faints* Oh my LAWD!
The next week he got a letter in the mail stating his franchise was being denied after all, with no explanation other than he was "not a good fit for Chick-Fil A." Of course, this is not proof of racism, either, and certainly not enough to spend a bunch of money suing them. But, certainly not cool.
So CFA is not a good fit for Boston or wherever. Them's the breaks.
Do you have a link for that story? I tried working some Google magic, but can't seem to find it.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
That's because it was never in the news. I've known local people (I live in the Atlanta area) who have been avoiding CFA well before this for no other reason than Dan Cathy is kind of a dick.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I celebrate the idea that being openly supportive of LGTB issues is now a way to score political points. Yay!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In regards to several of Samp's posts above.
It made me very happy to read that, thank you for saying it better than I could.
Edit to add. And you were much more polite than I would have been.
[ July 29, 2012, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I did enjoy the content of Cathy's radio broadcast that triggered this brouhaha. I am of course biased, but his tone of voice didn't sound like the mournful regret of a friend, but rather the strident antagonism of an enemy making a thinly veiled threat. Just speaking of the tone of his voice there, and of course others will hear it differently.
The content, though, is also fun. Appealing to the infinitely loving God for mercy, because our society is in the process of supposedly beginning to disagree with Him. Mercy from what? It seems likely that the mercy being sought is from the badly hidden sadism that is at the heart of this far-right evangelical nonsense: God loves you so much if you don't do what he says, and legislate as he would have you do, everlasting torture and damnation.
I think it would be nice if while digging into how wrongheaded and hateful his stance on homosexuality is, we could get to the heart of *why* it is, but it's probably too soon for that.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: That's because it was never in the news. I've known local people (I live in the Atlanta area) who have been avoiding CFA well before this for no other reason than Dan Cathy is kind of a dick.
Yup
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
Let me state before I say anything that I am a Christian and my beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin and I think it's wrong. However, I think that you have every right to live as you choose, that it doesn't make you any less a person, and that you have the right to not be discriminated against. And beyond that, Christ calls me to love, I may think you're in the wrong but it doesn't mean I love you any less for it. I have friends and even family that are homosexual that I care about, I think they are wrong but I don't care about them any less because of it. As for SSM, I have understanding for both sides and I haven't decided which I support but that is another discussion entirely.
And one final note before the main body of my post, while I have read the entirety of this thread, I have not heard Mr. Cathy's radio broadcast or even the letter that started this.
Now with my views, hopefully, clearly stated:
Is it really so surprising that a Christian company (of which the privately owned CFA is) that is chooses to be closed on the third busiest day of the week for restaurants, is unsupportive of homosexuality? CFA abides by the law, it does not discriminate against anybody, if it has please show me the legal case that was filed against them, I refuse to listen to stories from a friend of a friend who heard it. Too often those tales are distorted from the truth or even plan made up. Not only should companies be able to have a stance on something, they are legal entities that actually do have rights.
I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
Everybody has a right to believe what they believe, they have the right to say it and you have the right to disagree and even voice that opinion. That is part of what makes America great.
Also, if we are going to have truly open and free discussion we need to use less high-inference language or loaded words. When we do we taint the conversation and color the perspective of people rather than win a discussion (as if most discussions could be won) by merit.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's the problem, Vasslia....a lot of these people threat gay people like they are less, not worthy of making their own choices. That they need to be operantly conditioned to not be gay, even.
The reasons that people compare it to racism is that there are far more parallels between them than differences. Both groups are discriminated against, are treated as children not capable of making life choices for themselves, and have basic rights barred from them because of who they are....when in fact if they were not gay the things they are asking for are so common that we would be SHOCKED anyone would bar US from them.
I understand why you feel what you do, and why you object to the comparison, but I don't agree at all.
And there is a huge difference between believing something personally, and donating MILLIONS of dollars to bigoted causes. Not to mention unofficially discriminating against minorities and gays when awarding franchises.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is it really so surprising that a Christian company (of which the privately owned CFA is) that is chooses to be closed on the third busiest day of the week for restaurants, is unsupportive of homosexuality? CFA abides by the law, it does not discriminate against anybody, if it has please show me the legal case that was filed against them, I refuse to listen to stories from a friend of a friend who heard it. Too often those tales are distorted from the truth or even plan made up. Not only should companies be able to have a stance on something, they are legal entities that actually do have rights.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html Not exactly a bastion of liberalism and left-leaning spin, keep in mind. Anyway, just because a legal case hasn't been filed isn't a good reason to refuse to believe any discrimination happened. It's a good reason not to believe it's been proven though, but in any event read the article and then let us know-do you believe social, religious, and sexual preference factors play no role in who is permitted to be an operator? The reason I'm inclined to believe Olivet's account stands a good chance of accuracy (having no doubt at all that she related it as told) is because her judgment seems thoroughly reliable to me, but as much as that is that her account fits with what I read in the article.
Now, as for companies having the right to a political stance-of course they do, and already politicians are beginning to back off. That's not in dispute, though I will say it is cynically amusing to hear so many conservative Christians make a full-throated defense against infringement on freedom of speech, when God literally forbid that we, for example, burn an American flag, restrict teacher/administrator led prayer in schools, or take God out of the Pledge of Allegience.
quote:I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
If, as is medically and psychologically possible, homosexuality is not actually a voluntary choice but something someone is born to, then I'm afraid there is no difference between disapproving of homosexuality and disapproving of one's skin color. But even if homosexuality, the difference is hardly 'huge'. Academically perhaps, but out here in the real world you're not going to convince me, and I'd be surprised to hear you really believed it yourself, that many people are really able to practice this love the sinner hate the sin nonsense you're describing. If this tolerance and love for people in spite of 'bad choices' was really so prevalent, so thoroughly practiced by anyone, well you tell me: how many openly homosexual people do you know who regularly attend church with their partners?
Don't kid yourself, and don't ask anyone else to believe it: if it's an important matter, and especially if it's actually (supposedly) commanded by God, in practice there really isn't a huge difference between thinking someone else's consensual private adult sexual choices* are wrong, and thinking they are fundamentally inferior. If you continue to insist there is this huge difference, why not ask one of these gay friends or relatives of yours which folks they think regard them as inferior?
*which simply, regardless what your religion tells you, are really none of your business anyway, thanks.
-------
As to your first two paragraphs...well, alright, if you feel God instructs you to feel in such contradictory and arbitrary ways, alright. You've as much right to that as Cathy does to his homophobic outlook.
But you cannot say 'homosexuals ought not be discriminated against' and 'I have understanding for both sides.' One side believes it is a religious command to discriminate, even if it also takes care to construct mental jungle gyms to avoid admitting it.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
It's kind of you to say that you trust my judgment, but anecdotes are not evidence. That article you linked to would count as evidence, and it is in keeping with my experience. The CFA vetting process for franchisees is just like that, from what I've been told. That process is not subject to the same discrimination laws as the employer/employee relationship. CFA franchises are really cheap, and the parent company lays out all the funds for the location. As in that article, they are pretty explicit about the kind of folks they want as franchisees.
However, it is possible that the franchisee said or did something at the welcome party that set off CFA's sphincters other than merely having a wife of the wrong color. We will never really know. They have the right to reject franchisees for whatever reason, and otherwise violate Wheaton's Law in the name of Jesus. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: how many openly homosexual people do you know who regularly attend church with their partners?
I know quite a few.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Out of how many openly homosexual people you know of, period, along with the unknown number of closeted homosexuals who don't come out, was the intended but unsaid remainder.
And in any event, if I'm not mistaken your particular brand of Christianity is known to be quite a bit more inclusive and welcoming than the norm, yes?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The "norm" is changing rapidly. And even in less inclusive denominations like mine, openly gay people attend quite regularly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
Do you maintain that homosexuality is a choice?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, just because a legal case hasn't been filed isn't a good reason to refuse to believe any discrimination happened.
There's been a few. One person, for instance, got fired from chick-fil-a because they wouldn't participate in the morning prayer circle, and when they asked why? Well, because I'm a Muslim, so. And was readily dismissed shortly thereafter.
And they had chick-fil-a dead to rights on this one. They settled out of court. For a lot.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't ask about trends, I was asking about how comfortable folks think homosexuals are identifying with various Christian communities. That question can be answered literally ('I know plenty'), or it could actually be addressed by admitting, "You know, generally speaking, homosexuals don't feel welcomed in church."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm really surprised that this is actually happening. No politician should be sticking their nose into this kind of PR nightmare. Sure, they might not agree with something that a CEO said, but so what? Isn't this the exact same thing that happened fifty years ago when blacks were told they couldn't open up businesses because they were a certain skin color? Are we going to start telling Muslims that they can't own a company in a city because they have a certain belief system?
As I see it, this issue shouldn't even be an issue. In being so vocal, the mayor is actually helping to push progress backwards. Homosexuals deserve rights, but to tell a business owner that you're going to fight against them opening up any future stores in your town (the people's town, actually, since you serve the people) is just silly.
OSC doesn't believe in gay marriage, but does that mean the United States should stop selling his books? Should Chicago stop selling them in its stores?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't ask about trends, I was asking about how comfortable folks think homosexuals are identifying with various Christian communities. That question can be answered literally ('I know plenty'), or it could actually be addressed by admitting, "You know, generally speaking, homosexuals don't feel welcomed in church."
In all the mainline Protestant denominations and (I think)in the Roman Catholic Church there are movements which congregations can associate themselves with to indicate that they are welcoming of persons of all sexual orientations. The Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordain openly gay clergy. Plus of course groups like Metropolitan Community Churches which was started specifically as a gay-friendly denomination. I have no idea whether, generally speaking, homosexuals feel welcome in church. I suspect it has a lot to do with the particular church they are or want to be a part of.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: In all the mainline Protestant denominations and (I think)in the Roman Catholic Church there are movements which congregations can associate themselves with to indicate that they are welcoming of persons of all sexual orientations. The Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordain openly gay clergy. Plus of course groups like Metropolitan Community Churches which was started specifically as a gay-friendly denomination. I have no idea whether, generally speaking, homosexuals feel welcome in church. I suspect it has a lot to do with the particular church they are or want to be a part of.
I don't deny there are quite a lot of that sort of movement going on, which is of course a good sign. But would you deny that when they happen, they begin and in many cases continue in the teeth of opposition from various leadership and the rest of the various congregations?
I'll put the question another way: would you say that it was likely or unlikely an openly homosexual person would be welcomed wholeheartedly with open arms, as just another ordinary human sinner and without being made to feel somehow excluded, were they to enter a random church found somewhere in America?
I realize of course it's a guess, but I'm baffled by what I perceive is resistance to the claim that, no, churches aren't generally accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons, as opposed to an abstract concept. I could very well be misunderstanding you, though.
-----------
quote:I'm really surprised that this is actually happening. No politician should be sticking their nose into this kind of PR nightmare. Sure, they might not agree with something that a CEO said, but so what? Isn't this the exact same thing that happened fifty years ago when blacks were told they couldn't open up businesses because they were a certain skin color? Are we going to start telling Muslims that they can't own a company in a city because they have a certain belief system?
Have you kept up on this story, even a little? It doesn't sound like it. They haven't exactly been met with widespread legal support for their stance, these few local politicians. As for Muslims...I, well, I'm stunned that you would make that an example.
Right now, as we speak, Muslims are specifically barred from building churches in two American cities. This very second. One of them has been a substantial media thing for years.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Just FYI, the United States doesn't sell OSC's books. Stores could decide not to stock them, but the city could not impose that. Cities do have some lattitude about what sort of businesses they allow within city limits, and have for some time. ESPECIALLY for moral reasons. Not that this hasn't been a mixed bag for the overzealous politicians. I'm just saying it is not without precedent.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Have you kept up on this story, even a little? It doesn't sound like it.
I've been following it as much as I can, but if you know more then by all means, tell me what I'm missing. From what I've seen, it sounds like a few politicians are telling the owner of a company that they are going to do everything they can to make sure that company isn't able to open up shop in that town, specifically because of their religious beliefs.
quote:As for Muslims...I, well, I'm stunned that you would make that an example.
Right now, as we speak, Muslims are specifically barred from building churches in two American cities. This very second. One of them has been a substantial media thing for years.
Just because that's happening, it doesn't make the example any less correct. I used that as an example because I think it's wrong to bar anyone from doing something based solely on their religion. It's a complete coincidence that it actually happened. I could have just as easily used Christians or Jews, blacks or whites, as examples and the point would still stand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: In all the mainline Protestant denominations and (I think)in the Roman Catholic Church there are movements which congregations can associate themselves with to indicate that they are welcoming of persons of all sexual orientations. The Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordain openly gay clergy. Plus of course groups like Metropolitan Community Churches which was started specifically as a gay-friendly denomination. I have no idea whether, generally speaking, homosexuals feel welcome in church. I suspect it has a lot to do with the particular church they are or want to be a part of.
I don't deny there are quite a lot of that sort of movement going on, which is of course a good sign. But would you deny that when they happen, they begin and in many cases continue in the teeth of opposition from various leadership and the rest of the various congregations?
I'll put the question another way: would you say that it was likely or unlikely an openly homosexual person would be welcomed wholeheartedly with open arms, as just another ordinary human sinner and without being made to feel somehow excluded, were they to enter a random church found somewhere in America?
I realize of course it's a guess, but I'm baffled by what I perceive is resistance to the claim that, no, churches aren't generally accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons, as opposed to an abstract concept. I could very well be misunderstanding you, though.
Even the RC has gay and lesbian outreach programs. The UCC is very gay -friendly as a good chunks of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans. Those are three of the major denominations. There are even gay friendly Baptist congregations. I would guess that the welcome would largely depend on the surrounding community. In Chicago, I'd bet the chances of a gay person being welcomed to church are at least as good as being welcomed to the neighborhood bar.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've been following it as much as I can, but if you know more then by all means, tell me what I'm missing. From what I've seen, it sounds like a few politicians are telling the owner of a company that they are going to do everything they can to make sure that company isn't able to open up shop in that town, specifically because of their religious beliefs.
There are some city politicians, mayors coucilmembers alders and such, across the country who have made various statements across a wide range of displeasure from 'don't align with our city's values' (and yes, Jeff, a city politician does have some claim to speak for the city's people) to 'we will prevent CFA from obtaining the necessary permits to open a business here'. Where it's done the latter, support has sprung up for CFA from a variety of sources-including the ACLU (question: is that news met with surprise, or lack of surprise?), and some of them have back off. A few seconds with Google will give you a fairly thorough timeline.
Where it tends towards the other end of the spectrum, though, the whole 'not welcome' stuff, that's both far from uncommon and a much stickier question of freedom of speech.
quote:Just because that's happening, it doesn't make the example any less correct. I used that as an example because I think it's wrong to bar anyone from doing something based solely on their religion. It's a complete coincidence that it actually happened. I could have just as easily used Christians or Jews, blacks or whites, as examples and the point would still stand.
The way you used the example pointed strongly to an ignorance of something very relevant: that Muslims *are* barred from building where they like, and that the same people who support CFA while condemning their politics opposed that, too. The tone of your example didn't acknowledge that it was already happening-and particularly that some of those most in support of CFA on supposed freedom of speech laws are also in opposition to a so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Church going Christians being proportionally more common in urban areas?
Yes, the welcome would largely depend on the surrounding community. That's the whole point. The question is, which community do you believe is more common: the one which embraces a homosexual congregants with open arms and an unflinching kindness, or the many shades of the other kind?
As for the bar, that wasn't the comparison being made. The comparison being made and the question being asked wasn't between a group of liberal (and in the case of RC, semi-separatist) Christians and a random bar, but between Christians and Christians.
It's a strange conversation if it's being claimed that most Christians will treat open homosexuals the way you describe. We've only just now gotten to the point where SSM has a majority approval rating.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Vasslia:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
Do you maintain that homosexuality is a choice?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Their spicy chicken sandwiches are delicious.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Spicy chicken sandwiches are a choice. Controversial, I know.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Vasslia:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
Do you maintain that homosexuality is a choice?
I find "disagreement" with homosexuality to be different from racism. But only because racists don't "disagree" with race. They actually put *too much* stock in it. In the sense of segregation and discrimination, racial and sexual discrimination are on a par with each other. Both being fairly equally baseless, unfair, socially destructive, and immoral.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Spicy chicken sandwiches are a choice. Controversial, I know.
Well, I'm usually tempted to order two. But I'm not sure if two sandwiches of the same spiciness should be lying in a bag together.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
How I get my kicks on a weekend: get take-away from KFC, eat in the parking lot of CFA.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I realize of course it's a guess, but I'm baffled by what I perceive is resistance to the claim that, no, churches aren't generally accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons, as opposed to an abstract concept. I could very well be misunderstanding you, though.
-----------
In my experience (though of course I have no data to back it up) most churches are more accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons as opposed to an abstract concept. Churches that have official disapproval of same-sex relationships "on the books" make exceptions for Mary, who plays the piano for choir practice, and her partner JoAnn, who runs the food pantry. In fact, that's what is eroding the support for anti-homosexual policies -- knowing actual same-sex couples.
For your earlier question, of course I have no idea. Regional and denominational differences are so great that I don't know how one would even begin to guess what the result would be at a randomly chosen church anywhere in America. But neither do you.
The "resistance" you're sensing isn't to the reality that homosexuality is a divided and divisive issue in Christianity -- of course it is. It's to the assumption that one side of the divide is how it really is and the other side is an easily dismissible minority.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In my experience (though of course I have no data to back it up) most churches are more accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons as opposed to an abstract concept. Churches that have official disapproval of same-sex relationships "on the books" make exceptions for Mary, who plays the piano for choir practice, and her partner JoAnn, who runs the food pantry. In fact, that's what is eroding the support for anti-homosexual policies -- knowing actual same-sex couples.
I think I see the way I miscommunicated here. The question I'm trying to ask isn't 'are exceptions made', which I think you more than most would have pretty thorough experience in seeing. My point is that, for example, a church that does make an exception for Mary but also has disapproval of homosexuality on the books, as it were, isn't exactly an example that ought to be used for your side of the discussion, though it's not entirely fitting for mine either. In this hypothetical example, for instance, do you think Mary is unaware she's considered an exception, a pioneer of sorts? Doubtless she is grateful to be accepted with love and good faith by her fellow congregants, but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that if she is officially deemed an outsider by the rules, she probably won't feel entirely included.
In your experience of Christianity in general, would you say that most churches have, on the books so to speak, sexuality inclusiveness? I don't mean in a particularly liberal sect or region, but across the board. That hasn't been my experience, though yours in that area is much broader than mine, professionally and personally. Whereas anyone reading this has already thought of quite a few examples in the other direction, examples of churches and Christian leadership who are openly antagonistic and exclusive of homosexuality, both in opinion and official rule.
It's too soon to claim Christianity, as it is officially preached and practiced, as an inclusive religion with respect to homosexuality. Thanks largely, IMO, to external forces as usually is the case with religious reform, it has become quite a lot less exclusive in that respect over the last generation-exactly like the rest of the country. But even in spite of that, Alex the homosexual Christian stands a pretty poor chance of leading a congregation as a recognized leader when compared to Joe the heterosexual Christian, and that's not even considering Alexandra.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Read through the first page so apologies if anyone else has already stated an opinion along thes e lines but:
As a Canadian from a Commonwealth perspective of a struggle for "responsible government" I've observed that the common conception is that businesses operating in canada have an obligation to work towards the public good. If they not only do not do so, but work in contrary and contradiction towards the public good, the state has a legitimate interest in their regulation should they break the social contract.
Our constitution if you recall, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the Notwithstanding Clause, which allows any provincial government to suspend non-core democratic freedoms for duration of 5 years which it can renew indefinitely.
The basic idea is that there are some rights, such as the right to vote or language rights that are inalienable, but other rights are not; and while viewed as a "right" there are reasonable limits to what those rights provide to citizenry.
So if even normal people dont nessasarily have every right, why should businesses? They're not people and should not have more rights than people, and so if my towns mayor wishes to deny them the right to do business in my town he can.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The "resistance" you're sensing isn't to the reality that homosexuality is a divided and divisive issue in Christianity -- of course it is. It's to the assumption that one side of the divide is how it really is and the other side is an easily dismissible minority.
Let me try and put it another way: I'm not saying that the 'other side' so to speak doesn't have a claim on Christianity, or that it's easily dismissed. Just that it is still the minority, and when speaking of Christianity in general in America, it's just unrealistic to suggest it's *not* a minority.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So if even normal people dont nessasarily have every right, why should businesses? They're not people and should not have more rights than people, and so if my towns mayor wishes to deny them the right to do business in my town he can.
As usual, rights denied to others aren't such a big deal and if the right denied is the right to believe or say something one personally disapproves of, so much the better!
Let's be quite clear about what you're really saying, stripped of all the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem reasonable: sometimes, government should tell private citizens and groups what they should think, and punish and reward as follows that instruction and obedience to it.
We've got limits to all rights in this country too. We just set the bar higher with respect to how much regard we give to an individual's right to speak and think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Church going Christians being proportionally more common in urban areas?
Yes, the welcome would largely depend on the surrounding community. That's the whole point. The question is, which community do you believe is more common: the one which embraces a homosexual congregants with open arms and an unflinching kindness, or the many shades of the other kind?
As for the bar, that wasn't the comparison being made. The comparison being made and the question being asked wasn't between a group of liberal (and in the case of RC, semi-separatist) Christians and a random bar, but between Christians and Christians.
It's a strange conversation if it's being claimed that most Christians will treat open homosexuals the way you describe. We've only just now gotten to the point where SSM has a majority approval rating.
Seventy-four percent of US Catholics approve either SSM or civil unions. Whatever the official policy. More than half don't believe that sexual activity between people of the same sex is sinful. That compares to slightly less than half of the general population.
Certainly, it is a struggle. It is not nearly as one-sided a struggle as you imagine.
The largest Lutheran denomination ordains non-celibate gays and lesbians. The same is true of the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. In any of those churches you might walk in to find the minister is openly gay.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't imagine it's a one sided struggle, or even that your particular side in it is losing. Just that the field is not yet mostly in your possession yet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor is it in this country outside of the churches.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The largest Lutheran denomination ordains non-celibate gays and lesbians. The same is true of the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. In any of those churches you might walk in to find the minister is openly gay.
Do any of those sects break into the top five Christian groups in the US? Possibly Lutherans but not, I think, by much. Which has been the point from the start.
quote:Nor is it in this country outside of the churches.
I agree. I wasn't comparing Christians to anyone but themselves.
[ July 30, 2012, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think as much as some people would hate to admit it and battles still rage, the war has already been won. Just like there were Japanese soldiers living in caves never knowing or accepting the end of WWII, people will still try and make homosexuals into second class citizens, but as a culture, acceptance of gays is over the hump, no pun intended.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So if even normal people dont nessasarily have every right, why should businesses? They're not people and should not have more rights than people, and so if my towns mayor wishes to deny them the right to do business in my town he can.
As usual, rights denied to others aren't such a big deal and if the right denied is the right to believe or say something one personally disapproves of, so much the better!
Let's be quite clear about what you're really saying, stripped of all the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem reasonable: sometimes, government should tell private citizens and groups what they should think, and punish and reward as follows that instruction and obedience to it.
We've got limits to all rights in this country too. We just set the bar higher with respect to how much regard we give to an individual's right to speak and think.
Does not the government already tell you not to do a variety of actions that infringe upon the public good on behalf of the citizenry that elected it? This isn't the government telling people how to think, but regulating the interchange of ideas to insure on the whole the discourse benefits the public good. Its not banning such thought, its regulating it; and preventing the spread of businesses who use their profits to damage the public good is a form of regulation, especially on the local level.
A town elects its mayor to represent their interests, letting a business that supports practices the community doesnt condone because it is in contradiction of the social contract is a legitimate use of the position.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Does not the government already tell you not to do a variety of actions that infringe upon the public good on behalf of the citizenry that elected it? This isn't the government telling people how to think, but regulating the interchange of ideas to insure on the whole the discourse benefits the public good. Its not banning such thought, its regulating it; and preventing the spread of businesses who use their profits to damage the public good is a form of regulation, especially on the local level.
Actions, yes. Even some words that advocate actions. But not speech and ideas. Even within the confines of your own argument, you're contradicting yourself. It is absolutely government regulating thought, unless you take that to mean very literally the thoughts between one's ears, unwritten and unspoken. The government decides which thoughts and ideas might someday be harmful to society as a whole, and then decides how they should be communicated-of at all. Even under your own reasoning, that is definitely banning and restricting unwanted thoughts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The largest Lutheran denomination ordains non-celibate gays and lesbians. The same is true of the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. In any of those churches you might walk in to find the minister is openly gay.
Do any of those sects break into the top five Christian groups in the US? Possibly Lutherans but not, I think, by much. Which has been the point from the start.
quote:Nor is it in this country outside of the churches.
I agree. I wasn't comparing Christians to anyone but themselves.
Then I don't understand your point. What point were you trying to make with your statement about openly gay people not being welcome in churches?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Do any of those sects break into the top five Christian groups in the US? Possibly Lutherans but not, I think, by much. Which has been the point from the start.
The ELCA is number seven.
Edit to add:
Presbyterian Church (USA) is #10, Episcopal Church is #14, United Church of Christ is #21.
*All numbers according the the National Council of Churches 2011 Church Yearbook.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Then I don't understand your point. What point were you trying to make with your statement about openly gay people not being welcome in churches?
My point was that Christians (as well as most everyone else) have more work before them than behind them when it comes to homosexuals being accepted and feeling welcome. I'm not sure what I said that suggested I felt gays simply weren't welcome among Christians, period, anywhere.
Dkw's numbers, which I think we can all agree are quite reliable, seem to support that-the groups you highlighted for inclusiveness are themselves not even close to being the most numerous yet.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The UMC, which is #3, is split about 50-50 on the issue. The Roman Catholic Church, which is #1 (by a huge margin) seems to be about the same, according to Kate's numbers.
Actually, half of the Roman Catholic Church in the US is still larger than the next largest denomination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Catholics are the most numerous and I showed you data about how Catholics in general feel about gay issues.
What you seemed to suggest is that gays and lesbians would be less welcome in churches than elsewhere. If that is true, it is not by much of a margin.
Sure, an openly gay couple may be unwelcome in a random Baptist church, but they would probably be just as unwelcome in the country western bar down the street from the church and more likely to get beat up.
[ July 30, 2012, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dana, this article has the numbers I was citing. There are a variety of polls on this that I have seen, but they are all pretty consistent.
quote:The UMC, which is #3, is split about 50-50 on the issue. The Roman Catholic Church, which is #1 (by a huge margin) seems to be about the same, according to Kate's numbers.
Actually, half of the Roman Catholic Church in the US is still larger than the next largest denomination.
Quite a lot of exceptions and qualifications need to be made before the RCC can be counted as accepting of homosexuals. When Catholics in America are, they're doing so in defiance of their leadership. At the very best, that's a wash as far as acceptance is concerned, and since that defiant acceptance is far from universal...
quote:What you seemed to suggest is that gays and lesbians would be less welcome in churches than elsewhere. If that is true, it is not by much of a margin.
I'm baffled as to where I did so, and by this point I've said precisely that I'm *not* saying that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well you ask the question here:
quote:If this tolerance and love for people in spite of 'bad choices' was really so prevalent, so thoroughly practiced by anyone, well you tell me: how many openly homosexual people do you know who regularly attend church with their partners?
And when Dana responded that she knew quite a few, you seemed to take that as an aberration which isn't the case.
Edit: In other words, you seem to believe that churches are particularly unwelcoming places for gay people.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure, an openly gay couple may be unwelcome in a random Baptist church, but they would probably be just as unwelcome in the country western bar down the street from the church and more likely to get beat up.
Two phenomenally disheartening facts/opinions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure, an openly gay couple may be unwelcome in a random Baptist church, but they would probably be just as unwelcome in the country western bar down the street from the church and more likely to get beat up.
Two phenomenally disheartening facts/opinions.
Yep.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Catholics are the most numerous and I showed you data about how Catholics in general feel about gay issues.
When my best friend came out, his parents joined a local Catholic group in support of parents with gay children. It is surprisingly open minded, and encouraging in asking the parents to open their hearts to their children.
Though the choir that was invited to sing one evening included our religion/drama teacher from high school who molested one of our classmates. Unrelated, and way off topic, but it sort of shows how forgiving a religion they are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And when Dana responded that she knew quite a few, you seemed to take that as an aberration which isn't the case.
Edit: In other words, you seem to believe that churches are particularly unwelcoming places for gay people.
Alright, I can see how you might have read that question that way, though not my repeated clarifications. I don't believe churches are 'particularly' unwelcoming towards homosexuals, just that they're unwelcoming more often than not. The Catholic church, for example, cannot claim to be welcoming of homosexuals regardless of how many anecdotes you can bring to to the discussion.
The question wasn't a solicitation for anecdotes, it was an attempt to gauge perceptions of the welcome most homosexuals would receive generally, not just among the most liberal and inclusive sects in the country, themselves not even a majority.
If, for example, the RCC were to (almost certainly never while this Pope presides) drop its anti-homosexual stance, then you would begin to be able to make a claim for the whole, rather than smaller parts. Had my question been about, say, one of the groups dkw mentioned or one of those Catholic support groups, it would be a very different matter.
----
Oh, I don't know, Stephan, the church isn't so forgiving of some 'rogue' priests and nuns for example. Kmbboots can tell you a lot more about that than I can. Without trying to speak for her, as a liberal Catholic even by American standards (if you'd rather reject the label, I'll drop it with apologies), she's in a good position to speak of how the forgiveness of Catholics isn't the same thing at all as the forgiveness of the church, necessarily.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I didn't give you anecdotes; I gave you survey results. The Vatican may not be welcoming, but, for the most part, the Church is. In more parishes than not, openly gay people are welcome and made to feel welcome. We have a long way to go on official stances, but generally the folks in the pews (and especially in the choir*) are welcome and welcoming. Additionally, there are specific "official" programs for gay and lesbian outreach.
*I am reasonably certain that there would be very little music in Catholic churches if they were all straight.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I didn't give you anecdotes; I gave you survey results. The Vatican may not be welcoming, but, for the most part, the Church is. In more parishes than not, openly gay people are welcome and made to feel welcome. We have a long way to go on official stances, but generally the folks in the pews (and especially in the choir*) are welcome and welcoming. Additionally, there are specific "official" programs for gay and lesbian outreach.
You gave both, in fact, and we cannot forget that American Catholics aren't 'the Church', or even 'the Church in America'. Again. A welcome made in spite of the boss's inhospitality is, by definition, not an unqualified welcome, even when it is on the part of those offering it totally sincere.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You think the Pope is the boss?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tony Danza was clearly the boss.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Tell that to Alyssa Milano.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You think the Pope is the boss?
I do, and so does nearly everyone else, even in the more liberal in Catholic terms United States. It's not the uncomplicated authority of an autocrat, that's certainly true, but tell me: when a priest or a nun (never, you know, a priestess and a male nun) decides to begin a doctrinally dubious service or preaching, who decides whether they'll be disciplined and to what extent, and what happens if that decision is defied? When a priest somewhere rapes a child, or covers up or fails to investigate such, who decides whether they'll be told to head back to the Vatican or must remain in the states? Is it a local cardinal or lower level local official, or does that decision come from elsewhere? Where do your priests have to go to ascend in leadership roles, and who vets them? When a given local church is deciding what language to speak at Mass, are they making that decision on their own or in submission to or in defiance of someone else?
Oh, he's the boss alright. He's not the absolute boss, it's true, but it's his name on the letterhead, his name signing the checks, his name deciding who stays and goes, all of that so to speak and not meant literally, of course. You can't have it both ways-if you don't wish to be tarred with the bad brush of some of the (awful sometimes, IMO) things he does, then don't be associated with them-or him. Until then? Well, none of you other Catholics have your own countries or your own special cars or your own diplomatic services, and more's the pity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that perhaps you are underestimating the distance between what the Pope decides and what churches - especially here - actually do. You may also be overestimating what the Pope can actually do and what he actually knows about.
To take your example. If a particular sermon was blatantly contrary to doctrine, it might come to the attention of the local bishop. The bishop, depending on the circumstances might have a talk with the priest. The bishop might weigh the consequences of moving a particular priest. If the priest is popular - and a lot of the priests who ride the edge are* that may be more of a fight than he wants to take on. If a particularly noteworthy priest takes a very public stand that is unquestionably contrary to Vatican rules and the CDF cannot get them to change his mind or shut up, the CDF (not usually the Pope) may move toward excommunication.** But even this takes time and has a huge cost. And sometimes it would make them look really bad. ***It is likely to spur more dissent rather than quell it. There is a danger in taking a hard line. Just how hard can they squeeze while maintaining the illusion of control before losing the western Church? It isn't like the Pope waves his crozier and people fall in line.****
*See Fr. Michael Pfleger
** See Fr. Roy Bourgeois
*** See Fr. Thomas Doyle
****See Nuns
Edit to add: The Vatican doesn't sign the checks. The archdiocese or the order might but they are well aware that the money that pays those checks comes in very large part from the American churchgoers. Rome is well aware of that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Tony Danza was clearly the boss.
I have worked with churches in the past, and still do to a small amount today. When I started I was worried, and the liberal folks working with me were very worried, that the people at the churches--the nuts and fanatics--would sense my liberalism, my non-Christian thoughts, and my non-conservative ways, and would attack.
They certainly would never do business with me.
They certainly would never be friendly.
But then I started working with them and I discovered that I was the one who had fallen for the prejudiced view that all Christians were Pat Robinson combined with Rush Limbaugh.
Actually the same motives that bring them to work in the church--love of others, dedication, the desire to help--are the same motives I find in most liberals.
So yes, there is a view that all Christians are one great evil empire. That is completely wrong.
Then again, those who would cry the loudest that the Left is being prejudiced against Christians by portraying them as conservative lock-stepped pushy army of God are the ones who wish to make Christianity a lock-stepped conservative pushy army of God.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To take your example. If a particular sermon was blatantly contrary to doctrine, it might come to the attention of the local bishop. The bishop, depending on the circumstances might have a talk with the priest. The bishop might weigh the consequences of moving a particular priest. If the priest is popular - and a lot of the priests who ride the edge are* that may be more of a fight than he wants to take on. If a particularly noteworthy priest takes a very public stand that is unquestionably contrary to Vatican rules and the CDF cannot get them to change his mind or shut up, the CDF (not usually the Pope) may move toward excommunication.** But even this takes time and has a huge cost. And sometimes it would make them look really bad. ***It is likely to spur more dissent rather than quell it. There is a danger in taking a hard line. Just how hard can they squeeze while maintaining the illusion of control before losing the western Church? It isn't like the Pope waves his crozier and people fall in line.****
Much of this is actually an illustration of how the Pope *is* still the boss...except that American Catholics haven't quite realized that they don't, in fact, actually have to listen to him. At some point the 'illusion' of control becomes a form of control in itself, such as for example local authorities have to try and persuade a 'radical' to moderate or quiet down to avoid trouble. The Pope is well on the way to not being the boss of American Catholics anymore, but the day ain't come yet. When you can tell me a story about a noteworthy local priest preaching something in opposition to the Vatican, and he *doesn't* have to do that dance, then I'll credit your argument that the Pope ain't boss more highly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did you look up my examples? Cardinal George suspended Fr. Pfleger; it lasted less than a month. The Cardinal tried to move him out of St. Sabina's; Fr. Pfleger is still there.
Fr. Tom Doyle has been a thorn (a very expensive thorn, too) in the Vatican's side for almost 30 years and nothing the Vatican has done has been able to shut him up. (Heh. If you think my attitude toward Rome is dismissive...Tom has said publicly on several occasions that the Church needs bishops like a duck hunter needs an accordion.) In addition to his support of victims of sexual abuse, he is Fr. Bourgeois's lawyer.
The LCWR is meeting next week and we will see what their response to the Vatican "crackdown" will be. Given Sr. Pat Farrell's media tour (including the Colbert Report) I will be surprised if meek submission is in the air.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* And are these examples representative of the RCC in America, or are they unusual?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*sigh* Well, the LCWR represents about 83% of the women religious in this country. Is that enough to be considered representative? The examples I gave are extreme because a priest has to be pretty extreme to get negative attention from the CDF. That was my point. Most of the decisions you talk about when it comes to disciplining a priest would come from the order for a religious priest or from the bishop for a diocesan priest. The examples I gave show how blatant and public the "transgression" needs to be for action to be taken and that the bishops and orders cannot take those actions without consequence.
[ July 30, 2012, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: RCC in America...the LCWR represents... the CDF
Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, perhaps we should put the PC on the CP, because if it leaks to the VC, he might end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.
BTW, Tony Danza WAS the boss. These days I think it might be Paul Teutel Sr.
Either way, Alyssa Milano is all kinds of hot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. Translation
CDF - Congregation for the Faith
LCWR - Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Thanks. I thought I had just missed it elsewhere in the thread (and I probably still have LOL)
Thanks for giving us the key
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You didn't miss it. I guess I had just harped on them for so long people would know.
Edit: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful used to be called the Inquisition. Our current Pope used to be the Prefect. Cardinal Levada was Prefect until recently and now he is charged with "supervising" the nuns. Cardinal Levada has a seriously crappy record when it comes to dealing with sexual abuse by priests. Google him, too.
[ July 30, 2012, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're still wrong about Who's the Boss, though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I think as much as some people would hate to admit it and battles still rage, the war has already been won. Just like there were Japanese soldiers living in caves never knowing or accepting the end of WWII, people will still try and make homosexuals into second class citizens, but as a culture, acceptance of gays is over the hump, no pun intended.
The true litmus for the hump, i think is not the level of acceptance among the general public, but the level of intolerance for holdouts, or for tacit disapproval. That is: it is becoming politically unacceptable to *not* positively affirm gay rights- which is one reason why Obama's line on this issue has changed. There is a vast social and political pressure being applied across all levels of society, and remaining on the fence on this issue is becoming a serious liability.
Anybody with a decent amount of sense and perspective sees where this is going, which is not backwards. And so the last rats are fleeing the neutral ship, so to speak. And I'm happy to see those with hatred in their hearts sinking their political ambitions in the meantime. As I said, this has always been different from racism- social commentators centuries ago had pinpointed the ideologically fatal flaws of segregation, but racism is an indemic social disease that never really goes away. But we've gone from not recognizing homosexuality as an inherent human characteristic, to having positive affirmation of it as a political imperative in 4 decades. That's an easy demonstration of why this issue is not as tough as racism is. Unbound from class, language and history, homosexuality is a thing we can learn to see differently. it's a thing that can be accessible, as a concept, to anyone. That's why in 50 years, the industrial world won't *have* a gay rights debate, but racism will still be a major issue.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You're still wrong about Who's the Boss, though.
Agreed. Abed cannot be questioned.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That is an interesting point Orincoro.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Tony Danza was clearly the boss.
Ah, but Charles was in charge.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Still is, to hear him tell it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
James Brown is the Boss. He paid the cost. Told you so.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So Huckabee's "Homophobic Chicken Day" is well under way, but the week isn't even over yet.
There is still Friday to look forward to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chick-Fil-A Sued For Firing Woman So She Could Be A ‘Stay Home’ Mom
quote: Claims from the court document filed by Honeycutt’s attorney include:
“On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Honeycutt that she was being terminated so she could be a stay home mother.”
“Howard routinely made comments to the Plaintiff suggesting that as a mother she should stay home with her children.”
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it's true, and time will tell but it looks like they're throwing a good bit of paper at the thing that looks pretty bad, then it's doubly nasty behavior since given she does have a kid to support, it's not as though she was in a position to say, "Boss, why don't you go *#%+ yourself?" when he begins to ask such unnecessary, intrusive, private-life related questions. In workplace appropriate language, of course, though if he said that he hardly merits it.
Conscience time for CFA lately. Clearly their religious morality dictates they should say things like 'gays shouldn't marry' and dip their oars into the culture war. It is also in alignment with their beliefs that women *should* be home raising children.
Now that more national heat is on, though, causing them time and trouble and money to stick up for such beliefs...well I have the craziest idea that those ideas will fade quietly into the sunset as far as sticking up publicly for them is concerned.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I doubt it. I would bet that the national attention is going to feed a persecution complex.
Posted by Mama Squirrel (Member # 4155) on :
::twitch::
----------
I drove past a CFA on my way to and from Costco during my lunch today. Traffic was backed up going into the parking lot. At 11:40 AM there was a line out the door on one side of the building. At 12:45 the line was halfway around the building. I can't even imagine what it will be like at dinner time. I know at least a couple of the churches in town were encouraging people to go there today.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Ugh. So, my niece is either lesbian or bi - I haven't asked, because it doesn't make a substantive difference to me - and her father's brother has been posting CFA rah rah stuff on Facebook. he doesn't go to church. He's a drug addict, or was when I met him. He's ultraconservative but has no problem accepting his own food stamps or whatever. It's all, "My life sucks, but at least I'm not a fag!"
I don't care what CFA does with its money. But I kind of want to kick this particular man in the groin.
[ August 02, 2012, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Olivet 2.0 ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
People of Chick-Fil-A's We Hate Gays Support Day is like the new People of Wal Mart
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Worse even, if nothing else The People of Walmart don't as a whole support the subjugation innocent people.
Wow, CFA has lead me to defend Walmart. Touche.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I just can't stress how surreal it is; we have executives who openly politicized a chicken sammich place (and reminded us that they really are a bigoted institution, one which legitimately gives money to organizations classified as hate groups by the CPLC) and the end result is a bunch of chunky middle-merica' types lining up for butter-fried fast food cause they hate gay marriage and want to show it.
Could anything be more american. How can you not love our new 'traditional values' zeitgeist. This is felony level violation of poe's law.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In Utah CFA could have fired the woman without even stating a reason.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
This is an article that I discovered during the general facebook uproar on my feed, caused by the unique intersection of nice bigots and pro-gay people.
I enjoyed it immensely, and offer it here for multiple reasons. Somebody earlier made a comment about loving gays, but being on the fence about gay marriage. And also, I wonder how this informs the dialogue of CFA, given that so many nice bigots think they are being persecuted for saying things just like everybody else.
I apologize if I repeated a post, or if this is ridiculously out of context.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: big·ot [big-uht] noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
quote: nice [nahys] adjective, nic·er, nic·est. 1. pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit. 2. amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: This is an article that I discovered during the general facebook uproar on my feed, caused by the unique intersection of nice bigots and pro-gay people.
I enjoyed it immensely, and offer it here for multiple reasons. Somebody earlier made a comment about loving gays, but being on the fence about gay marriage. And also, I wonder how this informs the dialogue of CFA, given that so many nice bigots think they are being persecuted for saying things just like everybody else.
I apologize if I repeated a post, or if this is ridiculously out of context.
Thanks for posting this. I will go so far as to quote a bit.
quote: Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.
Nice is different than good, but opposing legal equality for others is neither. It’s simply unfair.
So be fair.
It’s probably best to be fair and also kind, but fairness is the important part. As long as you’re fair, no one else will really care whether or not you’re particularly kindly about it. But if you’re not fair, then kindness isn’t even a possibility.
It’d be terrific if Scott’s heartfelt plea for “a hermeneutic of grace” toward Christians who oppose legal equality had also thought to include such a presumption of grace toward the human beings whose legal equality those Christians continue to deny.
But you know what? Forget about all that. Forget about grace and graciousness. Forget about niceness. Forget about kindness, civility and charity.
It’d be great if those could come along later, but they’ll have to wait. None of those matters a bit right now because none of those is what’s missing right now.
What’s missing right now is the bare minimum, the essential first-step starting point of simple legal equality — simple human equality. I don’t care if Scott grants it churlishly, spitefully or reluctantly, but until she grants that then all her talk of graciousness, kindness and civility is empty talk and clanging cymbals.
Scott wants to carve out a space in which she can be unfair, but still kind. Such a space does not exist and cannot exist.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dan Cathy, CEO Chick-Filet, 2012. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about”
Nathaniel Green, Chicago Ward Rep, 1902. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what a woman's place should be, to allow that fragile and emotional woman an independent vote, and thereby granting her such unnatural power.”
Reverend Thadeus Pike, Minister, Salem N.C 1858. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to demean the traditional institution of Slavery as upheld and protected in the Bible.”
Johnathon Williams, Councilman 1778. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what God ordained governance should be and to ever question his authority as bequeathed to our King.”
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wow. What are the chances that all 4 of them would use exactly the same wording in such a painfully ironic way?
And what are the chances all 4 of them would employ such equally poor syntax?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: Awesome. My support for equality is so right, I don't have time for petty 'niceties'. Sounds just like the rhetoric used to silence dissidents during war. "There's no time for civil behavior, we're at war! Get in line, or you will be removed."
Edit: Anybody that's telling me to put off charity until later is peddling poison, I don't care what belief they are espousing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you missed the point of the article, BB: namely, that even people who oppose same-sex marriage politely are not being nice or charitable. When you deny rights to someone, it does not help that you smile sadly and kindly when you do it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you missed the point of the article, BB: namely, that even people who oppose same-sex marriage politely are not being nice or charitable. When you deny rights to someone, it does not help that you smile sadly and kindly when you do it.
I understand that completely. But people who are being genuinely kind can be reasoned with. It's a desirable trait. People who are right but militant have a sort of scorched earth, "I'm building a better world I will never get to see because I became the neccessary monster the world needed me to become."
It's misguided and self serving. Like early Christians looking to get martyred so they antagonized their neighbors. I'm sure the author thinks it's clever to craft these friendly bigots and rail against them, but guess what, they are playing fair. They are discussing.
If you can't prove you are right, you can portray your opposition as wrong and incapable of seeing that wrongness so you need to just step over them for everyone's including their good.
The more thngs change the more they remain the same. It's a different cause but the same rhetoric.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you can't prove you are right, you can portray your opposition as wrong...
Isn't that EXACTLY what the religious anti-SSM argument does, in fact, by insisting that the divine arbiter of universal rightness has told them that they're right?
To my mind, the only way to combat this is to make them realize that it's not actually a religious issue at all -- and this does sometimes require some rudeness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Tone arguments are also rhetoric though.
For people who find themselves on the more-privileged side in any particular interaction, they are often interacting with people who are having a distinct and clear social wrong forced on them by people intent on promoting or furthering prejudiced behavior and attitudes. They have had their personhood maligned and their perspective erased. They have been told what "they" are according to a religious view that should have jack to do with civil rights but which they expressly state is and has to be the foundation of our laws. Including laws which expressly discriminate against them.
They have the right to be angry about this. They have the right to be hostile to a worldview that dehumanizes and attempts to socially stigmatize them in clear and obvious ways. These are people who not only have the right to be confrontational and pissed off about assaults on their rights and their personhood, but who often are needing to be confrontational in order to speak to privilege and mainstream attitudes and have anything register about the fact that this is not an academic difference or a "live and let live" situation.
Often, people who have the privilege of being listened to and taken seriously level accusations of "incivility" as a silencing tactic, and label as "incivil" any speech or behavior that questions their privilege.
To anyone who basically says "We would listen to you if you said it more nicely" the only response is thus: If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to "ask nicely."
- a heavily appropriated Tone Argument 101 Lesson
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, Tom is correct. You have the argument backwards. I am not encouraging uncivil bahaviour; I am pointing out that whatever their tone or motivation, people who oppose SSM are already behaving uncivility.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: And did you like it when the religious did it? You are welcome to try and help them see the areligious nature of this issue as you say. You are not welcome to tell them their beliefs are invalid so their conscience is some sort of second rate conscience that our Constitution disenfranchised in favor of the correct first rate conscience possessers.
I tell my fellow believers all the time this is a secular issue, and that their religion allows and even requires they get out of the way. But the moment we turn them into lesser beings with all the changes in our behavior that that allows, we lose.
It's "tutsi cockroaches" it's "heretics" it's "heathens" it's "lesser races" it's "foreigners". It may not go to the same extreme but it's on the same damnable road.
Sam: There are precious few times when anger is needed, but there are many times when we are right to be angry, that when we tear up that voucher we become better people.
Be passionate, be firm, be unyielding in what's right. But if you throw away the keys and try to kick in the door the other side can do the same thing. You may lose, and if you win, it's an empty victory. How can you cluck about tolerance as you sit on the body of a man you broke?
There comes a time where both sides are pointing their guns and one side has to make the decision to not fire and lower their weapon while the other remains poised for the kill.
I'm not speaking from a position of privelege. My religion is still not free to follow its precepts. I understand it's freaking hard to be oppressed and be told to keep it civil. I'm not advocating people who support SSM keep silence or not advocate, or even not try to defeat laws that oppress them. But always keep the moral high ground by showing that they won't become what their opponents have become. Intolerant foot soldiers who hear the call 'no quarter!' and obey.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: That's just a convenient pretext for justifying uncivil behavior.
What's more it's not even true much of the time. A person against abortion may feel human beings with all the rights that come with that are being murdered. Are they justified in saying those who permit it are smiling baby killers that aren't really nice?
You can't frame your opponents position for them then hand it to them and expect them to see their opinions drawn out the way they see them. They could just as easily (and they do) say that those marching for gay rights are for all their good intentions agents of the devil trying to win one more victory on the battlefield of God being a part of this country.
Laugh all you want but many of them feel compelled to oppose gay marriage because it's what God expects them to do and they absolutely believe he expects that of them and that if they don't they are not loving him as they should. In that mindset they cannot always hear you at first, but if you throw out the niceties, then they feel confirmation they really are fighting for God because here comes God's enemies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If someone really, for genuine non-meaning-to-be-hateful religious reasons, marched against the right to interracial marriages or women's suffrage, how concerned would we as a society be with not ruffling their feathers-either because it would simply be wrong to do so, or inefficient, or what have you?
Or would we, instead, chastise those who say cursed them in screams in the street, but not those who firmly tell them, in spite of their denials, "I realize you don't agree, but marching against interracial marriage is a shameful thing, and frankly I've too much respect for the truth, myself, and incidentally you as a fellow human not to tell you as much to your face, even and perhaps especially if it upsets you. If you've the right to upset interracial couples by insisting they shouldn't be allowed to legally marry, and be considered a respectful and decent person, then I certainly have the right to tell you that belief is terrible, and also be considered a respectful and decent person."
You can't have it both ways, BB. If someone marching against SSM, for example, may also be a decent and respectful person, telling them to their face, even angrily, is also potentially decent and respectful.
--------
On a semi-related note, I am so freakin' go*%#€ned tired of having to walk on eggshells for the sake of the feelings of people who think 'God says so' is just cause to set laws that govern *my* life. I furthermore think that much of this 'be respectful' business is, frankly, mere rooting for the home team. We aren't required for civil discussion to look with respect and restraint on a culture which demands its women be not much more than slaves to their husbands, and there are more than a few right this minute which do. We're almost entirely united with an upright, outturned open palm of the hand to that hateful nonsense, and are quite prepared to tell advocates that the hand will become a fist if necessary. Even though the justification-'God says so'-is exactly the same, except that it's over there in a culture alien to us.
That isn't to equate opposition to SSM to support for women as chattel. On obviously the latter is much worse. It's to compare the justifications, and our willingness to regard such beliefs and practices with open contempt. It's far, far past time to have another serious discussion about tone: that they will not be allowed to claim to be treated badly when they're in the minority when they thought nothing of treating badly when in the majority.
That's not a call for 'shoe's on the other foot now, get ready for it!' either. It's a simple reminder, "We remember how you behaved when you knew you could have things your own way, and we won't permit you to pretend to have behaved differently."
Clearly, given all this, I feel differently about the potential usefulness of anger, and believe that you couldn't scratch a worthwhile social movement that didn't, even when respectable to a saintly degree, arouse outrage and bitter hurt feelings on the part of the privileged, or a movement which wasn't motivated substantially by angry outrage over injustice.
Don't personally insult, shout at, much less threaten someone who wishes to legislate religious intolerance. But tell them to their face, "This is a terrible thing you're advocating, and we will stop you through the law if we can, and we're not going to permit you to claim love for homosexuals and put a period on that sentence."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, can you show me the practical difference between a nice, apologetic vote against SSM and a hateful one?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I know you didn't ask me boots, but...
"Effing queers! How dare they try and besmirch our normal traditions with their faggyness!"
"I don't mind if the gays have civil unions with the same legal power as marriage, but I believe strongly that marriage should only be between a man and a woman in the eyes of God."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you c,an tell which is which when the votes are counted?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes, using my super powers. Those who cast hateful votes will be visited by the Nut Kicking Fairy.
Votes are binary, they always simplify things into Yay or Nay, Heckle or Jeckle...which is one of my major problems with the system, because difficult, morally complex problems rarely if ever are solved with black and white solutions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So you understand that your answer was incorrect.
A "nice" apologetic, "I only vote this way because god says so" vote does exactly as much damage to the rights of gay people and their families as the clearly hateful ones.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If your argument is that morality can be determined by result alone without taking into consideration circumstances then I'm afraid you are in for an up hill battle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A "nice" apologetic, "I only vote this way because god says so" vote does exactly as much damage to the rights of gay people and their families as the clearly hateful ones.
It's perhaps even dehumanizing to LGBT folks in another way as well: few would think there was a 'nice' way for example tell a woman she shouldn't be allowed to vote, or a Jew not be allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, so on and so forth. But with SSM, there is an assumption that this same sort of thing can be done nicely-as though the supposedly kind-hearted intent behind it can be totally divorced from the action itself.
We wouldn't think twice of frank skepticism of such a proposition in those other cases, and I see no reason why this one would be any different.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:If someone really, for genuine non-meaning-to-be-hateful religious reasons, marched against the right to interracial marriages or women's suffrage, how concerned would we as a society be with not ruffling their feathers-either because it would simply be wrong to do so, or inefficient, or what have you?
Being civil does *not* mean "not ruffling their feathers".
What you are failing to realize is that by always being civil, always treating your opponents humanely will only infuriate those who are blinded by hate, and their behavior will chase those who can be converted over to you. Those who are infuriated will also eventually calm down and realize what they are becoming, and some of them will feel the sting of their consciences again.
If somebody is marching against SSM, I can march in support of it. I can shout slogans and cheer with those who are with me. I can passionately defend my beliefs, I can tell them just how damaging I feel their beliefs are. But I do not have to give into the pride that carries that conviction into resentment and hate.
I never heard a word spoken in hate or anger from Gandhi, and he helped free his country from a nation that often responded with deadly force.
My Lord who I have sworn to emulate, allowed himself to be taken, beaten, and crucified, without uttering one word of contempt.
Yes he wrathfully cleared the temple of money changers, I have not said that anger is always wrong. But I am convinced that it be used in isolated instances, and never as a general motivating factor. I also think that it is possibly the easiest emotion to misuse, and it has been misused to horrifying effect.
Kate: Why should the vote itself matter? What matters is winning hearts and minds so that they then stop voting for the wrong effect. Not shouting them into their houses where they feel they can no longer participate in society, so they need to form isolated cabals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Those who are infuriated will also eventually calm down and realize what they are becoming, and some of them will feel the sting of their consciences again...
I used to think this happened, but I've come to believe that consciences are more easily purchased than stung.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you missed the point of the article, BB: namely, that even people who oppose same-sex marriage politely are not being nice or charitable. When you deny rights to someone, it does not help that you smile sadly and kindly when you do it.
This has been the line for the "compassionate" bigots for the past little while now. Almost more pernicious, as it is a frank attemt to disguise political motivations behind personal niceties. Also, it's a way of recruiting political support from those genuinely uncomfortable with bigotry. Those with the conscience to regret homophobic views can stand behind a wall of "toleration," that demands that one's political actions not be questioned in light of one's interpersonal behaviors.
I also think there's an interesting correlation to be seen between the "pro-life" and "Traditional Marriage" campaigns that hasn't been much discussed. I've seen posts on Facebook that encourage likes for "traditional marriage." It occurs to me that this concept was created along the same lines as "pro-life" as a political viewpoint, with the major difference that "pro-life," ie, anti-abortion, is a genuine appeal to a former legal status quo, whereas the notion of "traditional marriage," is a more or less whole cloth historical fabrication meant to stand in for a status quo that is actually: "no gays allowed." But this approach, while fallacious for a variety of reasons, has the advantage of appealing to the same reasoning that pro-life appeals to: there existed a status quo that nature ordained: abortion was at one time not possible- and there can be little argument that abortion is not natural to the human condition (though contraception may very well be). So those supporting "traditional marriage," can view their advocacy of a status quo paradigm to be in support of a naturally occurring order, similar to "pro-life." That traditional marriage concepts are a fabrication is difficult to explain, and even harder to convince people of. That gay pair-bonding is in fact a naturally occurring phenomenon and indemic to the human condition is not something society has yet fully accepted. So people can be "compassionate," and yet still feel that their arguments are based in sound reasoning, rather than the denial of natural rights.
[ August 03, 2012, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
quote:What you are failing to realize is that by always being civil, always treating your opponents humanely will only infuriate those who are blinded by hate, and their behavior will chase those who can be converted over to you. Those who are infuriated will also eventually calm down and realize what they are becoming, and some of them will feel the sting of their consciences again.
No, I realize it happens, I just think you're overstating its effect here. As it is right now, there are tons of examples of frothing hateful anti-SSM agitators in this country, but comparatively few stories of folks being so repelled by them that they change their own personal beliefs. Generally, the frothing fringe is safely ignored as 'other' by moderates, and when it's not, they take what they like and approve of that, and wag their fingers at what they don't.
As for the drawbacks of what you call civility but could also be called meekness, passivity, timidity, and reluctance: it doesn't get your point of view out there nearly as well, so to speak. Be firm, be forceful, don't personally insult with anything except the truth-but don't be afraid to go loud, either.
quote:If somebody is marching against SSM, I can march in support of it. I can shout slogans and cheer with those who are with me. I can passionately defend my beliefs, I can tell them just how damaging I feel their beliefs are. But I do not have to give into the pride that carries that conviction into resentment and hate.
Largely I agree with this, but I take issue with the criticism implied...well, actually outright stated in the last bit. 'Resentment' is to be avoided because it comes from 'pride'? Nonsense. I cannot disagree with that strongly enough. Among those who take a proper view of human rights and what should be the laws of our country-no second class citizenship for non-harmful adults, no 'God says so' laws-it is appropriate to resent it. It is in fact natural. Those things are a violation of rights, and we should feel what, a reluctant stoic sadness and resolve? No. I think you'll also find that your example Gandhi was hardly free from resentment himself, neither personally nor in his rhetoric, if you look.
quote:I never heard a word spoken in hate or anger from Gandhi, and he helped free his country from a nation that often responded with deadly force.
My Lord who I have sworn to emulate, allowed himself to be taken, beaten, and crucified, without uttering one word of contempt.
I don't understand how anyone could claim never to have heard a word spoken by Gandhi in anger. Speaking for himself, it doesn't seem he would deny it:
quote:I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world. – Mahatma Gandhi
But as for Gandhi, you are aware of his answer to a question about how he felt Nazi Germany ought to be opposed too, yes? I don't offer this as a condemnation of all he said and did, but as a cautionary tale that he cannot simply be ingested whole-you have to pick and choose.
As for Jesus, well, considering his supposed status as ruler of the Universe and utter certainty in his own resurrection and eternal life, his martydom...wasn't, actually. For the rest of us humans, it's not 'dead' if you come back and live again, because nobody ever, ever does that. Plenty of Christians will claim it will happen, in a constantly fluctuating 'End Times', or that it has happened in a dim and distant and poorly reported past, but never that it is happening.
Within the confines of that particular story, I respect the idea of the ruler of the universe being willing to suffer indignity and torment for his children, but I don't respect it in the way I would if an actual human being underwent that same suffering for humanity-but with only ordinary human hope death wouldn't be forever, instead of certainty it wouldn't.
But in any event, Jesus isn't a motivating figure for me, and I won't get into the potential pitfalls of emulating him as a model of civil rights agitation. That's a different discussion.
quote:Kate: Why should the vote itself matter? What matters is winning hearts and minds so that they then stop voting for the wrong effect. Not shouting them into their houses where they feel they can no longer participate in society, so they need to form isolated cabals.
Now, hold on. The answer here is simple: the votes matter because they matter. 'Hearts and minds' have never, in all the millenia of human history, accomplished a single thing. Returning to Gandhi, it's safe to say tens of millions of Indian hearts and minds were bitterly opposed to British rule without changing the fact of that rule. And because 'hearts and minds' alone don't actually do anything, if the actual participation in government does accomplish something, and it's bad, having one's heart and mind free from hate and contempt is only a partial excuse at best.
A vote against SSM isn't just a belief. A coworker of mine refused to acknowledge that, after he made the mistake of asking how I felt about CFA. It was a mistake because I wasn't going to let him, in conversation, escape the fact that beliefs are fine, but they stay between one's ears, and I had no problem with his belief except to think it wrong-and since he was sure I would writhe in hellfire forever, he was hardly in a position to be upset about that. But when his belief motivates an action, I will criticize his action if I feel it's bad. That's another thing that's been claimed and in my opinion twisted by anti-SSM folks: the sanctity of belief. In our tradition, we have a lot to say about respecting people's beliefs, meaning don't criticize someone's beliefs if they're just their own personal beliefs.
Which is fine. But when you (general 'you', BB) vote on something, your belief has migrated out from between your ears and becomes a fair target to be challenged, and if it then moves into my life and dictates what I can and cannot do in my own personal life out of your personal sight and without impacting you, then no, I'm not going to respect your beliefs. You don't get to ask for respect if you're unwilling to give it.
This particular guy was an idiot, though. Reasons why we shouldn't permit SSM: our country wasn't founded that way (as a black man, a profoundly stupid argument), a society that was 100% homosexual couldn't survive, and if we allow SSM, homosexuality will sharply increase in future generations. After the usual decisive counter-arguments to those silly claims, he retreated to 'I respect your beliefs, you should respect mine', even after I asked, "But you vote on this belief, yes? And if I voted on a belief that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, would that just be a 'belief'?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
BB, you're still missing the point of the article.
It's not about whether proponents of SSM should be nice.
It's about whether polite opponents of SSM are being nice.
The argument about whether proponents should be polite or confrontational is a separate issue, and not relevant to the point the article was making.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: There are precious few times when anger is needed, but there are many times when we are right to be angry, that when we tear up that voucher we become better people.
Be passionate, be firm, be unyielding in what's right. But if you throw away the keys and try to kick in the door the other side can do the same thing. You may lose, and if you win, it's an empty victory. How can you cluck about tolerance as you sit on the body of a man you broke?
The door analogy does not work.
Whether unintentionally or not, 'I might listen to you if only you were nicer to us about concerted intent to discriminate against you' is one of the most patronizing and useless things to tell gay people, likewise as it has been for women and for racial minorities.
Warning them about how they ought to be nicer to people fighting to discriminate and deperson them — because you want to protect them from being bitter — is really not that far behind. And I say that knowing that you really honestly (and as an all together too rare example in this world) only mean the best and have good intentions, BB.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Be passionate, be firm, be unyielding in what's right. But if you throw away the keys and try to kick in the door the other side can do the same thing. You may lose, and if you win, it's an empty victory. How can you cluck about tolerance as you sit on the body of a man you broke?
If I didn't know you, BB, and trust as Samprimary says to your genuine good intent, this paragraph above would perhaps make me wonder. Proponents of SSM aren't just fighting for a utopian society of equals where prejudice and bigotry have no place. They're struggling, in short-term, to put paid to state sanctioned prejudice and second-class citizenship. If they achieve that, but hurt too many feelings by being too mean, it will still be a victory. Your paragraph would make me question just what you feel their priority ought to be: achieving equal rights for themselves, or achieving equal rights and making sure they do so while remaining kind and nice to their opponents?
But even if they take no thought for the dignity of their opponents, those opponents when they lose still won't be 'broken'. Their rights will still be completely intact. They will not have been materially harmed in even the slightest way. The only way they will have been harmed, if proponents are too contentious, is by having their feelings hurt.
Since they're totally willing and even eager to do that or see it done already to proponents of SSM, much less to gays themselves, their feelings and sensibilities frankly matter less. They still matter, sure, but frankly as a secondary concern. It's decades too late for them to be complaining about being treated meanly, or for moderates on their side of the fence to insist on a right to be spoken to with respect.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:It's not about whether proponents of SSM should be nice.
It's about whether polite opponents of SSM are being nice.
If there exist people who really honestly think that God has banned homosexuality, and who believe homosexual acts will lead people to hell, and might believe God sends typhoons against cities supportive of homosexuality, then these people are indeed being very *nice* when they try to prevent homosexuality from becoming culturally accepted. To not oppose SSM, would be in those circumstances a deriliction of duty.
Stupid but indeed nice. They try to save people from hell. And from typhoons, too, I guess.
quote:If I didn't know you, BB, and trust as Samprimary says to your genuine good intent, this paragraph above would perhaps make me wonder.
Well, sure. Politics is the mindkiller: To say anything even remotely *nice* or even just *lenient* about the opposition, makes the primal mind want to associate such statements with the devil itself.
Yeah, SSM is about ensuring the acceptance of homosexuality and preventing gay people from being treated as second-class citizens. At the same time, universal healthcare is about ensuring poor people's health. And gun control may be about making the streets safe for our children (or perhaps gun availability will make our streets safe, one of the two). And certainly the invasion of Iraq would prevent or cause lots and lots of misery. And environmental issues are about the future of mankind. And economics ensure that people don't die of starvation. And the police/judicial system is about safekeeping the lives and properties of people.
Yes, same-sex marriage matters. SO DOES EVERY OTHER POLITICAL ISSUE. To treat it as if someone holding a different belief is beyond the pale, just because this one issue really really matters, effectively means that every political opposition on any issue whatsoever is beyond the pale.
Because all politics matter a lot.
And if you start with the attitude that your opponent is the devil, just because they disagree with you on an issue that really REALLY matters the end result is that you prevent any discussion of politics whatsoever. Which is the effective end of democracy, as happens in any nation where an issue cannot be discussed because it's beyond the pale to hold an opposite opinion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Reasonable people can disagree.
When one claims that any disagreement on a particular subject makes the other person wrong or evil that you have declared yourself unreasonable.
Should homosexuals be able to marry? I feel quite strongly they should, but am unwilling to arbitrarily assign the opposition negative motivations simply because they disagree.
Morality needs to be able to be discussed and compared without condemnation if we are to grow as a society.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: When one claims that any disagreement on a particular subject makes the other person wrong or evil that you have declared yourself unreasonable.
Wrong in so many ways.
I call someone wrong for disagreeing with me that the earth is round. Have I declared myself unreasonable?
I call someone evil for wanting to repeat the holocaust in the name of racial purity. Have I declared myself unreasonable?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, you write as if "reasonable people can disagree" is an absolute. It is not. Nor does it mean that both sides are right and we can leave it at that. It is an empty phrase used by peopke who are in the wrong.
Reasonable people cannot disagree about whether the Holocaust was a good thing. Reasonable people cannot disagree that slavery was right. Once, they in ignorance, did argue those things but they were wrong and the world is better for knowing they were wrong and shunning those arguments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
beat you to holocaust reference, OHHH.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Two usages of the word "disagree" so different to each other, that human languages would really be better if they had two different words for them.
When there's a disagreement on a factual question, you can call the other person stupid or ignorant.
When there's a disagreement in terminal values, you can call the other person evil.
People often confuse the two: If, e.g., someone honestly thought that SSM will harm society, and you think that it will benefit it, using the same criteria to judge what "harm" and "benefit" means; then that's just a factual disagreement. If you shared the same beliefs about the consequences, you would also be reaching the same conclusions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The shape of the earth is -not- a moral question (it might have been at one time).
So, if someone argued that some good had resulted from the holocaust, they are automatically wrong and evil? I don't buy it for a second. If someone were to argue that genocide is a good thing in and of itself, then likely you should stop talking to them immediately and leave the premiss as quickly as you can without putting yourself at risk.
We are not talking about organized mass murder here, we are talking about morally -challenging- topics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't think that concentration camps were morally challenging 75 years ago? Or slavery 150 years ago? Or segregation 50 years ago? You don't think that "reasonable people" disagreed?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You don't think that concentration camps were morally challenging 75 years ago? Or slavery 150 years ago? Or segregation 50 years ago? You don't think that "reasonable people" disagreed?
Not to mention genocide isn't, actually, so morally challenging a question that it's open and shut even right this moment. In the past generation, multiple genocides have been attempted, all of them lacking the unanimous prompt reprisal by force that would indicate. There have been folks on Hatrack, even, who feel genocide can and has actually been justified in the past.
But anyway, 'is it a hard question' isn't actually what you or Ssmprimary asked in the first place but rather 'are there positions on which just, reasonable people cannot disagree?' Like you, I feel there are, but they generally have body count attached and unless the question asked is one such as 'is genicide bad', the widespread agreement we as humans flatter ourselves exist, doesn't.
To get closer to real-world, less widely acclaimed as evil examples, concentration camps. Of course it's not politic to say 'well, there was a reason', but even today it's not just a totally open and shut case to the extent everyone agrees.
To seek further clarification, I would be surprised if either you or Samprimary were suggesting 'if you disagree on SSM, you're a bad person' or even 'you cannot possibly arrive at opposition to SSM in an honest, non-hateful way.' I certainly don't mean and never said or even suggested such.
What you can do, however, is examine a given position, try and evaluate it, and reasonably conclude that however good and reliable an individual's personal reasons for coming to believe in that position, there are in fact no good and reliable reasons to do so. With the example of SSM, one can indeed believe in the (contradictory) notions that God loves all of His children, and will also damn to everlasting torment any practicing homosexuals, and therefore it isn't just decent but extremely good within that frame of reference to attempt to keep as many people as possible from being practicing homosexuals.
There are certainly people who do really manage to believe that God deems a homosexual as so wretched and despicable as to be good only for the fire-but don't themselves hold personal contempt for or animosity to them on their own behalf. But I don't think anyone here would claim that's a very common outlook, and for good reason. Upon reading that proposition, most likely anyone considering it quickly thought of quite a few open hellfire for gays types, but had to strain their brain to find someone to even *consider* thinking weren't personally prejudiced or hateful.
For them, they arrive at their position for a real, powerful altruism and it cannot be said they are bad people. But we may certainly and without reluctance point out they believe an inconsistent, irrational, and terrible thing and that not intending us any harm doesn't mean we should treat them as though they were doing none.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is a line between reasonable disagreemet is appropriate and when armed liberation is called for. When people are being killed, enslaved and deeply repressed it is not the time for disagreement, it is the time for action. And while gays -should- have the ability (and I predict soon will) marry as they see fit, we are talking about the dying gasp of society's intolerance toward our gay brothers and sisters.
If the topic at hand was "should we make it illegal to murder gays" then I would not be calling for a calm and reasoned discussion.
Yes gays should be able to marry, but the holocaust and slavery were orders of magnitude (not just one) worse repression then this current issue. (The Nazis shipped gays off to die along with Jews just for the record.)
There are causes where it is appropriate to strap on an assault weapon and go in guns a blazing (both literally and figuratively) and discussion boards are rarely the right place. And the way I see it, when it comes to this particular topic, majoritativly you have two types who oppose SSM. One, haters, and you hating back is not going to change their minds or make our side look good for that matter, and two, those who believe what they believe because of a religious or "moral tradition" belief.
This second group are the ones who can change their minds. And railing at injustice, with anger and shaken fists is not going to get the job done.
But mostly it's simply a matter of societal acceptance. The mainstream culture has accepted gays, the war is over. We won. Who cares if there is a subculture who doesn't like it? They will more then likely not like it to their graves while their children are raised in a culture of acceptance and fewer and fewer of those beliefs will exist until they attain that weird hater cult status that will never die, like skin heads and other extremest groups.
What I don't get is why people are this up in arms about marriage vs civil union and there are still genocides going on in the world, there are still children dying of hunger and thirst. Want to get your moral outrage on, there are more important topics at hand.
[ August 04, 2012, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Aris: There's nothing wrong with the substance of your post other than your addressing Rakeesh. You are not currently permitted to comment on his posts or address him. Please refrain from doing so.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Skirting past several caveats that don't interest me, because I'm self-absorbed like that:
I feel the need to reiterate. This article is not about whether or not LGBT people should be nice.
I know that my experiences as a gay Christian have shaped me such that I work a great deal towards reconciliation between the evangelically-minded, "traditionally"-modeled Christians of the 21st century and those more progressive, specifically on the issue of LGBTQQIAA rights and acceptance. And, towards this, always try to engage with Christ-like love those who disagree with me.
As a Christian, I do believe strongly in loving my enemies (A term that Jesus uses, thus justifying the word's usage if you subscribe to Biblical infallibility), and extending friendship to them. But that does not mean for one second that they are any less my enemies. It does not mean that they have been anything like a friend to me.
This is what I always want to say to people who oppose equality and claim that they have gay friends. I think that in the vast majority of cases, they know gay people who have extended civility and kindness to them. That doesn't change the fact that they've been piss poor friends in return.
Opposition against SSM and other civil rights promotes a nationally-endorsed prejudice against gays. It, however inadvertently, justifies physical violence against them and is one reason that LGBT youth are five times more likely to commit suicide and disproportionately populate the homeless. This is not removed from SSM. They are connected.
But even allowing for that disconnect: I may not be guaranteed the same job safety as a heterosexual; I cannot grant my hypothetical spouse citizenship; I cannot receive the same tax benefits to support my children; and I could be denied seeing my hypothetical husband on his deathbed - These are things that, when people support them through legislation, deal great violence to me. This violence may not be the same size or shape as WBC, or a man kicking in a Kentucky lesbian's teeth while calling her "dyke," but it's the same ugly color. That color is shaded by bigotry. And no amount of niceness is going to change its hue.
My friends don't demean me. They don't think me lesser. They don't deny me civil rights. For those that do any of those things, I may be their friend, but they will never be mine.
And here's why this distinction is important: I've, through my life, tried to engage civilly with people against SSM. And I finally found something out. These people, people I thought were reciprocating my kindness, never left thinking about what I had said. Instead, they left with some perverted sense of nobility and moral collateral - They had talked to a gay person, and because that gay person didn't yell or scream at them, they were being like Christ. They were nice. They didn't have to for a second reconsider their views. And when they later argued for oppression, they used me as a buffer. "No, see, I talked to this other gay guy, and he didn't hate me. So, I'm not the bad guy." And in some bizarre way, this seemed to strengthen their rhetoric.
No more.
The reason I like this article, and the reason I now tell every single person opposing SSM marriage that they are incapable of giving me their friendship is because when I haven't, I've had it used against me. And I will not - will not - have it used to bolster their views. Because these views affect so much more than me. They affect a lot of people, suffering even greater violence. Whatever moral tarnish I may suffer in their eyes, I cannot accept their friendship. I can only offer mine, and hope they change.
[ August 04, 2012, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: Emreecheek ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
JanitorBlade, apologies, I had thought that measure was valid for only that one past thread. I will obey.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The connection between SSM and violence prevention is debatable. Homosexuals have many civil right, atleast to me, a lot more important than marriage, and violence still exists.
Equality in all cases should be encouraged, but I'm not sure the opposition deserves to have that hung over their head: especially when they promote the opposite by tutoring, teaching, playing, crying, praying, and doing all kinds of contructive things with them. At one point in my life I was opposed to DADT, but opposed to SSM.
I used to be anti-ssm, not on a proactive level, but if you gave me questionare that I was forced to answer I would have chosen. But, even though I might not be the norm, marriage isn't a big right to me. I can easily see myself never getting married, and I bring this up because if we'd ever intersected in life, I would have felt that my friendship meant more than who could marry, because to me marriage was and is just a formality. One that has benefits that I don't think should exist (unless having/adopting0 a child, but a formality.) I couldn't/can't empathize with how important it is to some people. My friendship would have been strong, genuine, and in good-faith because to me it would have been a much, much bigger gesture. In that circumstance, you would (our atleast your article) feel different because you think pro marriage is a bigger gesture.
This is all pretty trivial, since I'm not anti ssm anymore but there it is. But I would feel more of a friend for helping you move, picking you up from a bar, recommending a good book, or even something like playing a game of basketball with you.
[ August 04, 2012, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And here's why this distinction is important: I've, through my life, tried to engage civilly with people against SSM. And I finally found something out. These people, people I thought were reciprocating my kindness, never left thinking about what I had said. Instead, they left with some perverted sense of nobility and moral collateral - They had talked to a gay person, and because that gay person didn't yell or scream at them, they were being like Christ. They were nice. They didn't have to for a second reconsider their views. And when they later argued for oppression, they used me as a buffer. "No, see, I talked to this other gay guy, and he didn't hate me. So, I'm not the bad guy." And in some bizarre way, this seemed to strengthen their rhetoric.
I wouldn't put it in such a deliberate way, but what you said cuts to the heart of my disagreement with (much of) what BlackBlade was saying.
For good, generally valid reasons, it seems to me people generally look at their own positions in a way such as 'is this decent, good, fair?' and don't take it much further than that. And 'nice' is often associated with those things-if someone can tell themselves they're being nice, they will also probably not think they're being unfair much less bigoted.
So if people can leave a conversation thinking they've been nice even if they're repeatedly challenged on being wrong, often the latter will crowd out the former-because people disagree about politics all the time, and most of us don't sweat that much. But if your belief is challenged as being mean-spirited, that needs to be shrugged off in a different way.
--------
quote:The connection between SSM and violence prevention is debatable. Homosexuals have many civil right, atleast to me, a lot more important than marriage, and violence still exists.
I doubt he meant that there was a straightforward point-to-point link, but rather that the current status of SSM and other policies in this country make it plain we regard them as not full citizens. Not just God or your preacher or that crass jackass you might know at work tell you there's something wrong with gays, the actual laws do. People don't get hitched to trucks and dragged to pieces because they're straight.
quote:I used to be anti-ssm, not on a proactive level, but if you gave me questionare that I was forced to answer I would have chosen. But, even though I might not be the norm, marriage isn't a big right to me. I can easily see myself never getting married, and I bring this up because if we'd ever intersected in life, I would have felt that my friendship meant more than who could marry...
Certainly there are things more important than marriage and higher priorities, but the notion that because there are worse things going on than denial of SSM means it's unimportant, much less that proponents are somehow misguided because they don't drop what they're doing and working on other things, is frankly absurd, umberhulk. We can multitask, and wield individually much more power to make change right here at home on this than abroad on other, more pressing issues. We won't be silenced or minimized because yes there are bigger fish to fry: if there are, tell the people trying to keep as much of their brand of Christianty in our government as they can that there's bigger things-it goes both ways.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm not saying should will be. That isn't what I was going for at all. I'm pro-ssm I'm just saying that the article seemed...I dunno...I want to say cynical...not sure if thats a good word, but it seems to shrug off good decent friendship as something meaningless and two-faced, if you're anti-ssm. I don't really agree with that.
Hope you get married (gay or straight) bro!
I was responding to this:
The reason I like this article, and the reason I now tell every single person opposing SSM marriage that they are incapable of giving me their friendship is because when I haven't, I've had it used against me. And I will not - will not - have it used to bolster their views. Because these views affect so much more than me. They affect a lot of people, suffering even greater violence. Whatever moral tarnish I may suffer in their eyes, I cannot accept their friendship. I can only offer mine, and hope they change.
And despite the fact that I'm pro-ssm marriage, I'm at odds with it.
[ August 04, 2012, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not saying you will be. That isn't what I was going for at all. I'm pro-ssm I'm just saying that the article seemed...I dunno...I want to say cynical...not sure if thats a good, but it seems to shrug off good decent friendship as something meaningless and two-faced, if you're anti-ssm. I don't really agree with that.
Hope you get married bro!
Sure thing, 'bro'!
You're missing the question being asked, which is for example to what extent and in what way can hypothetical Emreecheek (used only as a reference, not meaning to speak for you) consider hypothetical past-Umberhulk a friend to him if hypothetical past-Umberhulk remains quiet on the government denial of hypothetical-Emreecheek's personhood, still less if he actively supports it with votes, words, or money.
Although it may feel bad to hypothetical past-Umberhulk, it's hardly unfair of hypothetical-Emreecheek to think twice about the value of his friendship-whatever his own personal motivation, on the other end of things, personhood is being denied.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Well I would think twice about the value of his friendship, albeit to a less degree, because his friendship has more expectations attached to it than friendships that I tend to assume I'm accepting.
But regardless, fair enough.
Also, I really hate it when people capitalalize my screename. Please stop.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ah, didn't know that. Must've been grating with the use of your name repeatedly. No worries, happy to stop. Could do without the bro-ing myself, but not to the level of hating it.
quote:Well I would think twice about the value of his friendship, albeit to a less degree, because his friendship has more expectations attached to it than friendships that I tend to assume I'm accepting.
Yes, but...that's your friendship, not anyone else's. I'm not suggesting you should change what makes someone a friend to you. But consider this: you are 'at odds with' SSM (not sure what that means), *and* marriage isn't that important to you anyway. So it's doubly less likely to be something important to you, personally. Put yourself in the position of someone who is themselves homosexual, and thus unlikely to be 'at odds' with SSM, and also values marriage highly for themselves and their partner, and then perhaps reconsider just how justified your own hurt feelings are if they don't consider you a friend to them. Friends don't typically insert their own morality into the home loves and lives of other friends without some pretty compelling evidence that those things have a wider impact. No such evidence, aside from the religious evidence (which despite what you might be told, ought to be considered invalid for this discussion), exists.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I have, that's why I'm pro ssm.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Pretty much, what Rakeesh said. Like, three times.
I'd also add that requiring friends to consider me as equal, in my mind, does not constitute an expectation that is unique to me. That's an expectation I'd wager most people have.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I have, that's why I'm pro ssm.
Then why be 'at odds' with SSM? Why be hurt when homosexuals question the friendship of those who, while otherwise authentic, support or seek to continue their legally-sanctioned diminished personhood?
It's not about what is important to you personally, what you feel a bigger gesture of friendship is-unmitigated support of SSM, or otherwise thoroughly friendly words and actions. If you, or perhaps more appropriately you-in-the-past, are going to say to a homosexual, "You're not as worthy a human being as I am, you cannot be recognized in the eyes of your fellow humans in your consenting adult romantic relationship," then you're simply in no position to be hurt if they spurn or question your friendship. No opponent of SSM is. If a given person is sufficiently forgiving and kind hearted and decides to believe you're their friend despite working against their fundamental interest as a human being, well, alright. But that's their call, and no one else's.
You can oppose SSM, or you can suggest they should think of you as a friend. You can't do both, and it doesn't matter that plenty of people claim they can, perhaps even some people reading this post right now. They may do you (past you) the grace of forgiving or ignoring your fundamental work against them, but if they don't manage that level of virtue, if they look on your friendship with scorn and bitterness, who are you to blame them? Who is anyone?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
@ empree, haven't read Rakishi's post.
But, I mean, no one does to complete perfection. I'm treated differently than a girl. People think there's something wrong with me because I've been single all my life (I'm 24), either deliberately or not. Apparently people think I'm less worthy of having the health-medical benefits as a married person should have, and to me, that's as big or benign as my freedom to marry. You might responds that it's a choice to get benefits or not, and you would be right. But it's unfair to expect me to sacrifice my independance to get those benefits. I've been raised as the oldest son differently than all of my little brothers. I've been juedged and I judge other. There's more choice involved in all that, but it's judgerment, and one can argue that juedgement for choices is hurtful for things I never had control over, and it effects me, and I'm able to shrug it off. To me friendship transcends all that, and I have an ammount of l/g friends who have that attitude. And I love them for it.
Look, it's all fair, you can think and feel what you want. I was only trying to weigh my attitude towards friendship against yours, because yours is a little off putting to mine, and only wanted to offer mine to if anyone had an opinion on it.
[ August 05, 2012, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I have, that's why I'm pro ssm.
Then why be 'at odds' with SSM? Why be hurt when homosexuals question the friendship of those who, while otherwise authentic, support or seek to continue their legally-sanctioned diminished personhood?
You can oppose SSM, or you can suggest they should think of you as a friend.
Yes, I can, and have successfully, not that I'm entitled to it, or that I have to anymore.
[ August 05, 2012, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm treated differently than a girl.
And when you're treated as superior to a girl, that's not just different, it's bad.
quote:Apparently people think I'm less worthy of having the health-medical benefits as a married person should have, and to me, that's as big or benign as my freedom to marry.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps that a spouse may be covered by the other spouse's healthcare? That's hardly the same thing either-government doesn't step into your life and say 'you can't form the family you want' as a straight man, do they? So if you find someone willing to put you on their healthcare, there's already a way to do that...for you.
quote:But it's unfair to expect me to sacrifice my independance to get those benefits.
Unfair for who to have such an expectation?
quote:Look, it's all fair, you can think and feel what you want. I was only trying to weigh my attitude towards friendship against yours, because yours is a little off putting to mine, and only wanted to offer mine to if anyone had an opinion on it.
Yes, got that. What I'm questioning is why you're 'off-put' by the notion that because you don't think something that you personally don't value (marriage) and only dubiously approve of (SSM) shouldn't be considered important to them. I'm questioning why you're put-off when what is 'transcendent' for you isn't for someone else.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
NVM. misread that post, rakeesh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm treated differently than a girl.
And when you're treated as superior to a girl, that's not just different, it's bad.
quote:Apparently people think I'm less worthy of having the health-medical benefits as a married person should have, and to me, that's as big or benign as my freedom to marry.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps that a spouse may be covered by the other spouse's healthcare? That's hardly the same thing either-government doesn't step into your life and say 'you can't form the family you want' as a straight man, do they? So if you find someone willing to put you on their healthcare, there's already a way to do that...for you.
quote:But it's unfair to expect me to sacrifice my independance to get those benefits.
Unfair for who to have such an expectation?
quote:Look, it's all fair, you can think and feel what you want. I was only trying to weigh my attitude towards friendship against yours, because yours is a little off putting to mine, and only wanted to offer mine to if anyone had an opinion on it.
Yes, got that. What I'm questioning is why you're 'off-put' by the notion that because you don't think something that you personally don't value (marriage) and only dubiously approve of (SSM) shouldn't be considered important to them. I'm questioning why you're put-off when what is 'transcendent' for you isn't for someone else.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Okay, I misread that post two posts ago. Not the one the recent one immediately follows. \
I'm off-put my that notion because I value friendship a different way. It's not anything more complicated by that. It was an emotional reaction.
My choice reference my attitude towards marriage (was probably confusing and ill-advised), was only to flesh one of the reason I used to be anti-ssm.Because I didn't relate to how depressing it would be for some people. I fully dissaprove of anti-ssm. I don't know if it's possible to half-disaprove of it...
I can't form the family I want, because the family I want, in the way were using it the term is only made up of one person (and a dog) I don't have close knowledge of all the finance-health benefits afforded to married couples, but I know DOMA prohibits a lot benefit laws (a thousand) from l/g civil unions (that are allowed otherwise). If one person on Earth has those, everyone should. And a little brother of my choosing should be able to share my plan (if i had one) 100%.
[ August 05, 2012, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
someone posted this, thought it was apropos to the zeitgeist i was talking about earlier:
"End its silence," say what? These culture war issues have been the most prominent political causes of American Christianity for decades now, to the exclusion of nearly everything else Jesus of Nazareth preached about. The narrow focus on social issues has only served to alienate young people from the churches, too. Heck, just look at that audience. A bunch of gray-haired, scowling white people. Whatever Christianity's future is, it won't look like this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It speaks to how much power such groups think they should wield in the actual, real world. They don't have it, and that is why they feel they have been 'too silent'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here is some more related to the issue of "civility" in the argument. In an article with the ace title of Chick Fellatio.
quote:This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue.
Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.
All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”
[sarcasm]Because people following their religion and trying to vote their conscious is -exactly- like a bully beating a kid to death.[/sarcasm]
There are some bigoted, hate mongering jack asses out there, but simply being opposed to gay marriage does not make you one of them in and of itself.
Is voting against SSM repression? Yes. Is it a mild and gentle form of oppression? Yes. Should gays be able to marry? Yes! Does voting against SSM make you a bigot? Only if you want the word bigot to mean next to nothing.
There are evil pricks in this world who deserve to be stood up to as the monsters they are. But quite a few people on the other side of this issue deserve nothing more then a pat on the hand and a sad head shake.
quote:Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.
Being neither homosexual or openly homosexual, I'm in a poor position to have much of an opinion on the link between state-sanctioned second-class citizenship, and violence from citizens to other citizens. But while I think he should've explained this comparison better, since it falls short as it stands, I do wholeheartedly agree that there is a link, and so in that sense it's valid. I don't think anyone could look at any victimized class of people and not find, somewhere, a government endorsement or other. South Africans, African-Americans, Indians, Native Americans, Jews, Irish, Quakers, Mormons, Tibetans, on and on and on and on, they go hand in hand-civil violence towards the group, and overt government disapproval of that group.
So in that sense, the author is exactly right-the fight isn't over. The kids are still fighting on the playground, and if they both stopped this very instant, one would be able to walk away and marry a consenting adult of their choice when they grew up, and the other one wouldn't. So in that sense, the author is exactly right-the struggle is still going on, and when fence-sitters say otherwise there's a good chance they're selling something.
I hadn't heard of the guy before, Samprimary. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Stone Wolf, the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
It's worse than a bully. Most bullies aren't in favor of killing the person they bully.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And I'm sure that would clearly put him into bigoted A-hole group, but "mutual tolerance" isn't only about the president of an evil chicken empire.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Mild, maybe, but there isn't anything gentle about it, Stone. There can be good intentions, and the intolerance can be coupled with other-wise displays of tolerance. But calling discrimination gentle is an oxy-moron.
That said, as I was reading the recent post, I thought about Breaking Bad and laughed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
There is nothing ungentle in the definition of discrimination hulk. When compared to being stoned to death, having civil unions instead of marriages -is- gentle. It's still discrimination, don't get me wrong, but it is also quite gentle compared to some of the horrible things that can and have happened to humans who do not fit in with the majority crowd.
[ August 05, 2012, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Yeah, I get what your saying, but just because I don't break your arm, I wouldn't call giving you a bruise gentle under any circumstances. Not that it's a big deal.
How much impact will legalizing marriage have on children? The uniqueness to orientation based discrimination, is that some of it's rooted in that people feel some intrinsic repulsion to varying degrees of sexual imagery between two people of their sex, and I figure that's probably reciprical for some gay men feeling about lesbian, or heterosexual imagery (or how lesbians feel about a man's body) It's a little similar to the intrinsic repulsion we have to sex-in-general before we hit puberty. I imagine that would effect the prejudices of some kids before they grow up, no matter how accepting society is. Can we stop it?
[ August 05, 2012, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
We have not already won the war. Were you be facetious there, Stone Wolf? And, I'm sorry, are you arguing that the justifiability of the word bigot is dependent upon the severity of the desired oppression from said bigot?
We have not won the war. Anymore than feminists in the 80's had won the war, even though media frequently told them they had.
I'm in Kentucky. It's clear to me just how not-won the war is. I wonder sometimes if the complacency I sense from others sometimes is due to their region - In New York, I suspect, it's a lot easier to believe the war won.
But it's not won. Far from it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, I get what your saying, but just because I don't break your arm, I wouldn't call giving you a bruise gentle under any circumstances. Not that it's a big deal.
No kidding. When measured against some of the worst possible violence and hatred humans do to one another, most intolerance and discrimination comes off as seeming quite mild. It's another not uncommon diversionary tactic by opponents and fence-sitters, or reluctant supporters that I've seen more and more often that the reality of shifting public opinion really sits in: there's worse things, the fight is won, the benefits of marriage aren't really that substantial, why can't you settle for 'civil unions', etc.
I suspect we would find, if polled, proportionally fewer people directly impacted by this discrimination who would label it 'gentle', as you say, umberhulk.
quote:I'm in Kentucky. It's clear to me just how not-won the war is. I wonder sometimes if the complacency I sense from others sometimes is due to their region - In New York, I suspect, it's a lot easier to believe the war won.
No kidding. There's someone who used to post on these boards who lives not far from where a lesbian couple were beaten by three children in front of their own house. The majority always labels the struggle over before it really is. There are honest reasons to do so, but not well-thought-out reasons.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
Not quite accurate. Although there there are certainly things on that page which will cause further outrage, they did not lobby against condemning the law.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While it is probable that the attitudes of the area I live in (SoCal) do affect my beliefs, the war that is won that I refer to is the acceptance of the main culture. While many battles and skirmishes will fight on as y'all struggle for legal equality, the main hurdle has already been cleared. The war is over though the battles rage on. My children will never know any other world than the one which has accepted gays as normal. They will not question if the belief that some people are just gay is ordinary or acceptable.
As to the people who still strive to subject gays currently, they will die all too soon, and most of their (some hateful, some not so much) ideas on the subject will die with them.
This is how the world changes. It is not with a sudden epiphany that makes a bigot sit up in the night from a sound sleep with wide eyes, saying "Oh no, gays are people too and deserve to be treated with the same love and respect as everyone!"
It is with the group collective acceptance which guides the impressionable youth...and the death of the older generation.
As to the word "bigot"...if all it takes to qualify someone for this distinction is to vote in a way that causes unfair laws to be or remain on the books then I'd guess that 40-90% of the country are bigots.
I'm not saying you shouldn't fight the good fight. You should. With my support. As a freedom lover. Because to put it bluntly, I don't care about gays, in and of themselves. I care about injustice, and protecting the freedoms which this country's most important ideals. It is unjust that y'all can't marry who you see fit. But again it is a question of degree. There are those who are called by their beliefs to see homosexuality as a sin, and just like they would vote against gambling or nude beaches, they will vote what their morality guides them to vote.
Are they wrong? Yes. I think so. I'll be voting against them. Are they bigots? Not to my way of thinking.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and to clarify my position: When I say I don't care about gays, I mean, I have no vested interest in the on going battle for equality of homosexuals, as I am not gay myself nor do I have any close personal friends or family who are. Not that I -don't care- at all, just that my feelings on the matter are outrage in general, not specific to anything that has touched my life at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by vegimo:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
Not quite accurate. Although there there are certainly things on that page which will cause further outrage, they did not lobby against condemning the law.
quote:FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC’s efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
Even in their own defense, they say 'we didn't try and block passage of the condemnation, just change the condemnation such that homosexuality is not a right consenting adults should enjoy anywhere in the world'. It's a quibble. Their leadership has repeatedly, if anyone cares to look, endorsed worldwide criminalizing and enforcement of such laws of homosexuality. I see no reason to trust their wavering semi-endorsement of the Ugandan law (wrong, in their eyes, only in degree) because even they aren't sufficiently dead to all shame to be able to openly call for the deaths of gays.
As Christians, though, even by their own telling of it the critical thing with respect to this Ugandan law wasn't a full-throated expression of revulsion, but rather an effort to make sure homosexuality isn't regarded as a human right.
So a little digging on FRC deepens my agreement with you, Emreecheek. The 'war' is hardly over while there are still serious battles being fought, but then to those apathetic to it the war is in a sense not happening ever.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and to clarify my position: When I say I don't care about gays, I mean, I have no vested interest in the on going battle for equality of homosexuals, as I am not gay myself nor do I have any close personal friends or family who are. Not that I -don't care- at all, just that my feelings on the matter are outrage in general, not specific to anything that has touched my life at all.
I would count that as caring.
FYI, you *do* have a vested interest in the battle for equality, as the evolving interpretation of our constitution and the role of government in private and public life are affected, rather profoundly, by how this issue evolves. Those fighting for marriage equality are fighting a battle for the continued relevance and vitality of our constitutional tradition. That, our ought to care about- as how we treat our protected groups can and will affect you in the future, be it through your friends, your children, or whatever. One or more of your children may be homosexuals- you have a vested interest in their rights to pursue equality in society.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
When a minority (or any group) can successfully subjugate the equal rights of peaceful law abiding people based on their preference of books, assume that you and everyone like you are next.
That is how the whole anti-gay rights movement has always made me feel. So I do have a stake in gay equality. I believe in equality for all peaceful people and that means taking a stand even if I'm not the one being threatened.
[ August 06, 2012, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by vegimo:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
Not quite accurate. Although there there are certainly things on that page which will cause further outrage, they did not lobby against condemning the law.
I knew it was Uganda, but I wrote Libya despite that. Sorry.
They DID lobby against approving the bill, which would have condemned killing gays for being gay. Split hairs however you want, that's still disgusting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is how the whole anti-gay rights movement has always made me feel. So I do have a stake in gay equality. I believe in equality for all peaceful people and that means taking a stand even if I'm not the one being threatened.
Especially when you consider that the book preference in question condemns quite a lot of things that others think are quite alright, for no other reason than their book says so. Historically, folks with such motivations are never, ever satisfied with just the one policy victory, since their book always has something else to work towards. Which people tend to forget when deciding just how big a fight that given issue should be, and tell themselves the fight is minor or over when, if one looks at it for only a moment or two, will see it's neither
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
And I have the choice to covet my neighbors wife or not (I just did), and on a legislative level, anyone should be allowed to get married. If it's not mutually understood to be a vow before and to Jesus Christ, Christian churches shouldnt be expected to ceremonialize them, but they should never be pushing for legislation to make them impossible on a community level.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Good news. Now if you really like Chick-Fil-A sandwiches but have a moral aversion to spending money there you can by chicken offsets! Kind of like carbon offsets.
quote:And I have the choice to covet my neighbors wife or not (I just did), and on a legislative level, anyone should be allowed to get married. If it's not mutually understood to be a vow before and to Jesus Christ, Christian churches shouldnt be expected to ceremonialize them, but they should never be pushing for legislation to make them impossible on a community level.
It's funny you should mention that in light of that story of the church that refused and later apologized for refusing to marry, was it an African-American couple or an interracial couple?
No lawsuits were filed. No police came to the door. They didn't lose their tax statue, or have a city official sternly mention they might have to leave. It's not an uncommon opposition to SSM claim that somehow, some way, if it's legal it will be compulsory for churches that oppose it. No one ever has much to say about how, for a good reason: it wouldn't happen. It's a scare tactic.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
African American. Not interracial. I remember being surprised that it wasn't interracial.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And I have the choice to covet my neighbors wife or not (I just did), and on a legislative level, anyone should be allowed to get married. If it's not mutually understood to be a vow before and to Jesus Christ, Christian churches shouldnt be expected to ceremonialize them, but they should never be pushing for legislation to make them impossible on a community level.
It's funny you should mention that in light of that story of the church that refused and later apologized for refusing to marry, was it an African-American couple or an interracial couple?
No lawsuits were filed. No police came to the door. They didn't lose their tax statue, or have a city official sternly mention they might have to leave. It's not an uncommon opposition to SSM claim that somehow, some way, if it's legal it will be compulsory for churches that oppose it. No one ever has much to say about how, for a good reason: it wouldn't happen. It's a scare tactic.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)