Support NeoGAF

[Cipherr]

LMAO

They always have friends..... Why in the HELL is that always the 'go-to'?

 

[DBT85]

What is it about gay people that is so fucking terrifying to these morons?

Like, do gay people in the US burn children and have horns or something? Are your gay folk different from our gay folk?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

What is it about gay people that is so fucking terrifying to these morons?

Like, do gay people in the US burn children and have horns or something? Are your gay folk different from our gay folk?

You answered your own question, they are morons.

Now imagine all the morons that elect these morons.

This country is full of morons.

 

[mreddie]

Kicking and screaming.

 

[titiklabingapat]

This has always confused me about all this hate:

Why do they hate on LGBT people so specifically? What is it about dicks in butts that is so abhorrent to them?

Many of them are self-loathing homos. I wish I was kidding. This is a scientifically quantifiable too.

 

[Plinko]

After all that our country has been through, after all the emotional, physical, and mental harm we have seen racism and discrimination cause, after all the crucial civil rights victories over the past decades, we have one entire party of politicians who are seriously considering LEGALIZING DISCRIMINATION.

I cannot begin to describe how sad I am about this.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

What is it about gay people that is so fucking terrifying to these morons?

Like, do gay people in the US burn children and have horns or something? Are your gay folk different from our gay folk?

They cannot stand that a group they use as a scapegoat is daring to actually live life happily.

So they are doing all they can to discriminate against them. It's basically 'holier then though, so i'm better then you' in action.

 

[Link]

After all that our country has been through, after all the emotional, physical, and mental harm we have seen racism and discrimination cause, after all the crucial civil rights victories over the past decades, we have one entire party of politicians who are seriously considering LEGALIZING DISCRIMINATION.

I cannot begin to describe how sad I am about this.

It's cool, though. Lincoln and MLK were Republicans.

 

[Aquamarine]

No you don't. You know gay people that refrain from punching you in your disgusting bigoted face because they're much better people than you.

Also, thoughts, Republicans?

Representatives with social issue shortcomings are the eternal weakness of the Republican party.

Legalising discrimination is clearly the wrong way of going about this and there are many moderate Republicans who won't have any of it.

I am one of them. It's very disappointing to see this ignorance continue to propagate on a state level.

 

[Meowster]

So should I be worried that people are going to actively discriminate against me even more than before once gay marriage rightfully passed nationwide in a few months? Or will they just forget it all?

 

[Link]

Social issue shortcomings is the eternal weakness of the Republican party.

Legalising discrimination is clearly the wrong way of going about this and there are many moderate Republicans who won't have any of it.

I am one of them. It's very disappointing to see this ignorance continue to propagate on a state level.

But will you still vote for them?

Their fiscal policies are shit too, btw.

 

[Pelydr]

After all that our country has been through, after all the emotional, physical, and mental harm we have seen racism and discrimination cause, after all the crucial civil rights victories over the past decades, we have one entire party of politicians who are seriously considering LEGALIZING DISCRIMINATION.

I cannot begin to describe how sad I am about this.

Fucked, ain't it? Actually it's just really, really depressing.

 

[RoninChaos]

All of this reeks of the idea of the war against Christianity. Stupid racist old men are trying to fuck it up for everybody.

 

[Jackpot]

Theoretically yes, but in practice this is only meant to deprive the LGBT community of participation in society. Few businesses would turn away divorced people, single mothers, people who wear clothes from two different fabrics, etc.

I wish more people would challenge them on this. Either they have to campaign to turn away divorcees as well (and God says a lot more about them than he ever does about gay people) thereby killing their political careers, or admit that the religion thing is bullshit and it's just hate.

 

[Link]

All of this reeks of the idea of the war against Christianity. Stupid racist old men are trying to fuck it up for everybody.

Can't wait to see these people's reactions when a Muslim refuses to serve a Christian.

 

[Cragvis]

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people.

But now just change one little detail around, and all of a sudden it goes from acceptable to abhorrent for them:

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to black people.
“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to Jewish people.

Their sheer hypocrisy astounds me.

Thats the thing, they believe being gay is a CHOICE, being black isnt a choice or being jewish. but to them they think people can just switch the gayness on and off, thus its not being discriminatory to them.

Thats how dumb they are.

 

[gigantor21]

I know folks will claim basically #NotAllRepublicans on this, but even the so-called "moderates" will appoint judges who will uphold these laws when challenged in court. Claiming that you don't agree or that you're working on the party doesn't negate the fact that you're enabling and voting for second-class citizenship.

The party needs one or two more electoral curbstompings to get the message.

Yeah. I could by that "NotAllRepublicans" argument if there was a sizable pro-LGBT wing of the party or something, but far too many are either cheerleading this mess or not engaging the issue at all--and thus enabling the first group in their silence, regardless of how they feel about it privately. Not very encouraging.

Also, I've always found the whole "but I have gay friends" excuse as offensive as "but I have friends who are black/Hispanic/Asian/etc."

 

[You Know Nothing]

The desperation is too much. Enjoy losing, fuckers.

What is it about gay people that is so fucking terrifying to these morons?

Like, do gay people in the US burn children and have horns or something? Are your gay folk different from our gay folk?

I haven't sprouted horns or burned any children... yet.

A ticking time bomb.

 

[Darksol]

Desperate, tenacious, clinging like a grain of sand
Watching its foundation wash away (wash away)
Drunk with the assertions they know they can’t defend
Confident that they might live again

- Live Again (The Fall of Man) by Bad Religion

 

[Princess Viola]

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people.

Do these people realize this is pretty much what racist cunts back in the 60s said when it came to refusing service to black people, right?!?!?

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/anticipating-nationwide-right-to-same-sex-marriage-states-weigh-religious-exemption-bills.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Some of these quotes though.

Am I no longer the inevitable poster? The NYT article seems pretty even-handed, though it mischaracterizes the Arizona bill.

From my first link (though the similarity of the different bills to the RFRA and existing state laws may vary by bill, natch):

The . . . bill[s are] largely identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, enacted in 1993 by a unanimous vote of the (Democrat-controlled) House and a vote of 97-3 in the (Democrat-controlled) Senate, and signed into law by Bill Clinton. [They are] also similar to the state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts enacted by 19 other states (by Wikipedia's count) in the years since 1997 (and most before 2005), when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Act could not apply to state laws. Nevertheless, the federal Act has been applied by the Supreme Court with respect to federal laws and regulations (remember Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), so it's unlikely that a federal constitutional challenge to the state laws would succeed.

And from my second link:

SB1062 did not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It said that business people could assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases were not even mentioned, although they would have been included), that they would have to prove a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them would then have the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona would make the final decision. As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts would have become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion, and more open to the government’s claim of compelling interest.

. . .

RFRAs leave resolution of these issues to the courts for two related reasons. First, it is impossible for legislatures to foresee all the potential conflicts between the diverse religious practices of the people and the diverse array of government regulations. And second, when passions are aroused on all sides, it becomes extraordinarily difficult for legislatures (or governors) to make principled decisions about whether to allow exceptions for unpopular religious practices. Courts can generally devote more time to the question, hear the evidence from both sides, and be more insulated from interest-group pressure.

 

[benjipwns]

Why people want to be served by bigots who hate them against the will of the bigots has always baffled me.

Non-bigots provide enough bad service unintentionally as is.

 

[ivysaur12]

Am I no longer the inevitable poster? The NYT article seems pretty even-handed, though it mischaracterizes the Arizona bill.

From my first link (though the similarity of the different bills to the RFRA and existing state laws may vary by bill, natch):

I thought it was assumed at this point and didn't need to reiterated.

 

[Link]

Why people want to be served by bigots who hate them against the will of the bigots has always baffled me.

Non-bigots provide enough bad service unintentionally as is.

This is a poor argument and you know it. For one, you don't always have a choice with where you shop/eat if you're looking for something specific. Also, a lot of rural areas have limited choices within reasonable distance.

 

[ivysaur12]

Am I no longer the inevitable poster? The NYT article seems pretty even-handed, though it mischaracterizes the Arizona bill.

From my first link (though the similarity of the different bills to the RFRA and existing state laws may vary by bill, natch):



And from my second link:

Per usual, I find that you're assessment of the bills to not be considered discriminatory because it does not specifically mention gay and lesbian persons to be naive, at best. Poll taxes did not mention people of color, yet their purpose was to target poor people who were predominately African American. Just because they also might have happened to target poor whites is irrelevant.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is a poor argument and you know it. For one, you don't always have a choice with where you shop/eat if you're looking for something specific. Also, a lot of rural areas have limited choices within reasonable distance.

If libertarians knew it was a poor argument they would stop espousing it.

His comment can be summed up by saying, "gay people should just leave the south if they don't want to be discriminated."

 

[creationtheory]

Gotta leverage that sweet sweet religious bigotry.

 

[benjipwns]

This is a poor argument and you know it. For one, you don't always have a choice with where you shop/eat if you're looking for something specific. Also, a lot of rural areas have limited choices within reasonable distance.

Still don't understand how that ensures you non-discriminatory service rather than just hiding it from you. Unless the self-satisfaction of punishing people who don't want to serve you through proxies outweighs that. I suppose that could make it a net positive.

 

[Metaphoreus]

you're assessment

Am not.

As I explained in the Michigan thread:

There are a number of problems with framing these laws as anti-gay or as providing a "license to discriminate." First, the laws are far too broad to permit such pigeonholing. They apply to government actions across the board, not merely those that require non-discrimination against gays. Maybe providing religious exemptions from otherwise generally applicable laws is a good idea, or maybe it's a bad idea, but that decision should be made by considering the law as a whole, not one (merely possible, as will be seen) application of the law. (Here are a few ways in which the Texas RFRA has been applied over the years, for instance.) Second, it's not even clear that these laws provide private parties with a defense against private plaintiffs suing to enforce civil rights legislation. For example, New Mexico has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act much like the one passed by the Michigan House. Yet, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the NM RFRA did not apply in a suit between a lesbian couple and a photographer who refused to photograph the couple's commitment ceremony, because the NM RFRA applied only to suits in which the government was a party.

Finally, it should be noted that these laws do not dictate a winner; they describe a method of analysis in which the courts should engage. (And the Laycock article I linked to above claims that 18 states have mini-RFRAs already on the books, while an additional 12-13 interpret their state Constitutions to provide similar protections, meaning that a majority of states already have these sorts of laws in place.)

 

[Brazil]

Do these people realize this is pretty much what racist cunts back in the 60s said when it came to refusing service to black people, right?!?!?

Eh, they're probably racist too.

 

[FoneBone]

Per usual, I find that you're assessment of the bills to not be considered discriminatory because it does not specifically mention gay and lesbian persons to be naive, at best. Poll taxes did not mention people of color, yet their purpose was to target poor people who were predominately African American. Just because they also might have happened to target poor whites is irrelevant.

It's also disingenuous given that the backers of these laws are pretty open about gay rights legislation/court verdicts as their primary impetus.

 

[DxGonzalo]

Wait so if my religion is atheism, Judaism, or Islam, can I choose not serve Christians due to my religious beliefs?

 

[slit]

This will be round 2.

 

[ivysaur12]

Am not.

:-(

 

[Camjo-Z]

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”

Come on guys, he's making sense here. He's not against gays, he just thinks they should shop in certain, specific stores! Perhaps they could have their own schools, and bathrooms, and water fountains as well! I guess you could say they're... seperate! Seperate but equal! How could that go wrong?

 

[Aquamarine]

Wait so if my religion is atheism, Judaism, or Islam, can I choose not serve Christians due to my religious beliefs?

Good idea.

See a cross on their neck? Why, that's grounds for immediate expulsion from my restaurant.

After all, as a Satanist, it's my religious right to ban Christians from any of my establishments.

They don’t have a right to be served in every single store. People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Wait so if my religion is atheism, Judaism, or Islam, can I choose not serve Christians due to my religious beliefs?

If you could prove that you hold a sincere religious belief that serving Christians is immoral (and I doubt you could), then you could (maybe) raise a RFRA-like law as a defense to a lawsuit alleging illegal discrimination on the basis of religion. Doesn't mean you'd win, though.

 

[slit]

Good idea.

See a cross on their neck? Why, that's grounds for immediate expulsion from my restaurant.

After all, as a Satanist, it's my religious right to ban Christians from any of my establishments.

They don’t have a right to be served in every single store. People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.

It's awful out there.

It's getting to the point now where I can't even slice open the necks of goats and poor their blood into my chalices without Christians walking by and complaining I won't serve them.

 

[benjipwns]

Wait so if my religion is atheism, Judaism, or Islam, can I choose not serve Christians due to my religious beliefs?

In a sane world, yes.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The people in this country seriously need to learn the first amendment - freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, of religion... is not about allowing you to do whatever you want on religious grounds, or let the media do whatever it wants, or let you say whatever you want, however you want, to whomever you want - it's about individual expression, open communication, and information dissemination.

There are legal restrictions on making threatening, false, or hateful speech. But we still don't understand that using religious beliefs to impose restrictions on others or refuse service in a place of public accommodation (like a business) are not okay, nor do we seem to understand that using the media to distort information on a society-wide level (such as in matters of medicine or public policy) is poisonous to any society or democracy which is meant to either serve the public interest, or is reliant on the input and contributions of the public.

And I don't think we ever will - this country has had yellow journalism embedded into its very core, traceable all the way to the reporting on the Boston Massacre (and earlier!) - and religion is too sensitive of an issue for anyone to stand up and say "No, fuck your religious beliefs, it's not okay to have slaves/segregate/restrict someone else's abortion/not allow gay marriage/refuse jewish doctors to having admitting privileges or residency/etc. Your beliefs are you own, and no one can take those beliefs away, but you can't use them to impose your will from a position of authority or public accommodation."

 

[adamsappel]

By their logic, they could also refuse to serve divorced people correct? Nonsense.

The SC will simply strike down whatever law they pass.

This will sadly take a few years, but bills like this just guarantee that the SC will one day make sexuality a protected class.

 

[Link]

Still don't understand how that ensures you non-discriminatory service rather than just hiding it from you. Unless the self-satisfaction of punishing people who don't want to serve you through proxies outweighs that. I suppose that could make it a net positive.

This is akin to saying women should avoid bars and college campuses to make sure they don't get raped.

Bordering on victim-blaming, really.

 

[slit]

The people in this country seriously need to learn the first amendment - freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, of religion... is not about allowing you to do whatever you want on religious grounds, or let the media do whatever it wants, or let you say whatever you want, however you want, to whomever you want - it's about individual expression, open communication, and information dissemination.

There are legal restrictions on making threatening, false, or hateful speech. But we still don't understand that using religious beliefs to impose restrictions on others or refuse service in a place of public accommodation (like a business) are not okay, nor do we seem to understand that using the media to distort information on a society-wide level (such as in matters of medicine or public policy) is poisonous to any society or democracy which is meant to either serve the public interest, or is reliant on the input and contributions of the public.

And I don't think we ever will - this country has had yellow journalism embedded into its very core, traceable all the way to the reporting on the Boston Massacre (and earlier!) - and religion is too sensitive of an issue for anyone to stand up and say "No, fuck your religious beliefs, it's not okay to have slaves/segregate/restrict someone else's abortion/not allow gay marriage/refuse jewish doctors to having admitting privileges or residency/etc. Your beliefs are you own, and no one can take those beliefs away, but you can't use them to impose your will from a position of authority or public accommodation."

A lot of people don't understand it because they don't want to. It's the misguided and asinine Libertarian philosophy that takes nothing but selfishness into consideration and then tries to warp it into some altruistic golden rule.

 

[benjipwns]

This is akin to saying women should avoid bars and college campuses to make sure they don't get raped.

Bordering on victim-blaming, really.

Uh, no, rape is illegal buddy.

A lot of people don't understand it because they don't want to. It's the misguided and asinine Libertarian philosophy that takes nothing but selfishness into consideration and then tries to warp it into some altruistic golden rule.

That's not libertarianism, libertarianism summed up is basically the golden rule.

 

[Amir0x]

“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. "And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”

Fuck you State Senator Joseph Silk.

You hear this guy he has gay friends!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Can we get a Republican party that actually likes minorities and science soon? Please? Does Clinton have to get like 62% of the vote in next election for it to happen?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Fuck you State Senator Joseph Silk.

You hear this guy he has gay friends!

I have gay friends, but fuck 'em if they want to get married and have the same benefits as me, a STRAIGHT person would have.

>

 

[slit]

That's not libertarianism, libertarianism summed up is basically the golden rule.

That's exactly what I'm saying. They try to change the definition.

This seems harsh but it's good for you. Like they're trying to get you to swallow nasty medicine.

 

[Amir0x]

Can we get a Republican party that actually likes minorities and science soon? Please? Does Clinton have to get like 62% of the vote in next election for it to happen?

So far Democrats are better at cutting the deficit, better at serving the economy and at least as good if not better than Republicans in dealing with foreign policy in terms of track record. Domestic and foreign, seems the modern track record is clear.

I'm not so sure what the purpose of the Republicans even is anymore. Democrats are basically a center, center-right party at this point with more progressive ideals for LGBT rights and environmental reforms and regulations, so it's not like we even have a truly viable liberal party in this country anyway. We just have a center/center-right party and a insanely far right party.

 

[esms]

The people in this country seriously need to learn the first amendment - freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, of religion... is not about allowing you to do whatever you want on religious grounds, or let the media do whatever it wants, or let you say whatever you want, however you want, to whomever you want - it's about individual expression, open communication, and information dissemination.

There are legal restrictions on making threatening, false, or hateful speech. But we still don't understand that using religious beliefs to impose restrictions on others or refuse service in a place of public accommodation (like a business) are not okay, nor do we seem to understand that using the media to distort information on a society-wide level (such as in matters of medicine or public policy) is poisonous to any society or democracy which is meant to either serve the public interest, or is reliant on the input and contributions of the public.

And I don't think we ever will - this country has had yellow journalism embedded into its very core, traceable all the way to the reporting on the Boston Massacre (and earlier!) - and religion is too sensitive of an issue for anyone to stand up and say "No, fuck your religious beliefs, it's not okay to have slaves/segregate/restrict someone else's abortion/not allow gay marriage/refuse jewish doctors to having admitting privileges or residency/etc. Your beliefs are you own, and no one can take those beliefs away, but you can't use them to impose your will from a position of authority or public accommodation."

Too true. It's the freedom to practice any religion an individual prefers without legal persecution, not a blanket license to discriminate against certain groups with a basis in a certain religion.

But nothing will ever change on that front. Not in the near future, at least.