Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

No, and your inability to distinguish at all between a person being accepted and everything or anything they choose to do being fundamentally and unilaterally excluded from all moral debate is precisely the problem to which I was pointing; so thanks for underscoring it, whether or not your self-parody was intentional.

Oh boy.

 

[HUELEN10]

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






Their sheer hypocrisy astounds me.

But that is what is actually reality though, at least in some instances.

Did you know that in many states, private Christian schools can refuse you service if you are outside thier religion and/or don't sign a statement of faith?

Not saying it is good or bad, but that is what is happening right now; there are some places where you can't go/do shit because of who and what you are.

 

[Wilsongt]

Fuck these chucklefucks. Fuck them. They need to die out already.

 

[HylianTom]

The alarmism and self-righteousness in some of these comments is... alarming. I'm sure the legislation is likely a mixed bag, some good protections of religious liberty and some pandering, but the idea is correct that we need to establish a solid ground for proper hearing of disputes between religious belief and civic actions when these genuinely conflict.

It is an enormous leap and frankly absurd to suggest that courts -- who would, under this kind of legislation, still hold the last rule of interpreting whether a genuine and established religious conviction is at stake -- would allow for something like business owners rampantly refusing to serve gay customers in any capacity. What is obviously the aim is to protect cases like the recent high-profile incidents of Christian bakers. And there is a tremendous amount of difference between turning away a customer in general and turning them away from a narrow case of a creative service rendered to celebrate an event that has a long and broad history of being directly contrary to religious faiths, even seen as a kind of parody of a beloved sacrament to many people.

Look at the case of florist Barronelle Stutzman, who is known to have: (1) employed LGBT persons; (2) faithfully served this particular gay customer in question for years fully knowing his orientation; (3) only refused service for the single case of creating elements for his wedding ceremony; yet who know stands to lose everything for a single polite refusal. The idea that there should be a carefully established protection for cases like this is absolutely evident. It should not astonish anyone that beliefs about the use of sexuality are something central to nearly all faiths; it is only the enormously strong, recent, and generally elite Western ideology of consumerist freedom which contends that sexual practices can never, under any circumstances, be debated legitimately in the moral realm.

I'm going to be a bit self-righteous because we've all seen the results of discrimination and hate over the years. Incited violence, countless suicides, bullying, promotion of laws overseas that jail people for simply identifying as queer.. sorry to say, I don't particularly feel very magnanimous when it comes to these folks' feelings. In fact, considering all the shit the other side has put LGBT folks through over the years - and considering all the shit they're still plotting to undermine upcoming court rulings - I think they're getting off rather goddamn light.

Would I personally want to force a baker to make me a cake? Hell no. But I also wouldn't want to force people to drive over to the next town for accommodations. (And a side note: it must be really damn nice to take that right for granted.)

We had the debate on public accommodation laws several decades ago. If she wants to form a private wedding cake club and set membership rules in that manner, she still has that workaround as a remedy. Boo-hoo.

 

[metalslimer]

No, and your inability to distinguish at all between a person being accepted and everything or anything they choose to do being fundamentally and unilaterally excluded from all moral debate is precisely the problem to which I was pointing; so thanks for underscoring it, whether or not your self-parody was intentional.

lol

Look at the case of florist Barronelle Stutzman, who is known to have: (1) employed LGBT persons; (2) faithfully served this particular gay customer in question for years fully knowing his orientation; (3) only refused service for the single case of creating elements for his wedding ceremony; yet who know stands to lose everything for a single polite refusal. The idea that there should be a carefully established protection for cases like this is absolutely evident.

It is not even close to evident. It's just a nicer version of the person has _____ friends card not to mention the fact that is completely illegal. Your argument is insane is basically if things get too bad the courts can decide on it.

Of course this is not surprising from the person who thinks people are flip flopping their sexualities at a whim.

 

[benjipwns]

We had the debate on public accommodation laws several decades ago. If she wants to form a private wedding cake club and set membership rules in that manner, she still has that workaround as a remedy. Boo-hoo.

Or: "I'm not taking new clients/jobs right now, sorry."

 

[ivysaur12]

Or: "I'm not taking new clients/jobs right now, sorry."

It was very stupid of her to explicitly give her reasoning, from a practical standpoint. If you're going to discriminate against people, you have to be sneaky.

 

[FoneBone]

No, and your inability to distinguish at all between a person being accepted and everything or anything they choose to do being fundamentally and unilaterally excluded from all moral debate is precisely the problem to which I was pointing; so thanks for underscoring it, whether or not your self-parody was intentional.

so just to be clear, you think "moral debate" over homosexuality is 100% legitimate and acceptable and should be protected by the state when it entails denying services to LGBT individuals? .....ok then.

 

[Sushi Nao]

Plenty of people still fly Confederate flags.

So, no.

There's Canadians so lacking in self-awareness that they proudly sport Confederate flags

 

[benjipwns]

Or recommend another baker for "that style of cake" they want or some bullshit. There's an endless number of ways to not serve discriminate against someone.

There's Canadians so lacking in self-awareness that they proudly sport Confederate flags

Few people actually fly the Confederate flag. The stars and bars are the Army of Northern Virginia's flag. (Which is why it was on the General Lee.)

 

[ivysaur12]

Or recommend another baker for "that style of cake" they want or some bullshit. There's an endless number of ways to not serve discriminate against someone.

Exactly! I mean, we'll still know what's up, but it's much harder to prove. Proving actual, tangible discrimination is not the easiest thing when a lot of it is more subtle. She was… not.

 

[Amir0x]

It's sad that we have to even still consider that form of prejudice a protected right. I mean whatever you want to believe in your own mind, but if you own a business open to the general public you need to serve everyone equally.

 

[Gotchaye]

... it is only the enormously strong, recent, and generally elite Western ideology of consumerist freedom which contends that sexual practices can never, under any circumstances, be debated legitimately in the moral realm.

This strikes me as obviously untrue. There are all kinds of sexual practices that your typical modern liberal thinks can be "debated legitimately in the moral realm". There are also practices that the typical modern liberal doesn't think there can be reasonable debate about by virtue of the practices' obvious immorality.

In the first category are debates around things like age of consent laws and college sexual assault policies. You could probably find quite a bit of disagreement as to when cheating is permissible, and there's definitely a lot of disagreement as to how bad it is, exactly. There's disagreement about the ethics of prostitution.

The easy example of sexual practices in the second category is spousal rape. There are some other pretty obvious examples, but this one is particularly useful because until relatively recently it was widely accepted, or at least it was taken as something on which people might reasonably disagree. You're going to find deep moral disapproval of this among liberals (among almost everyone at this point).

So I don't think this works. What's happened is that people have started understanding sexual ethics under a consent framework rather than what now seems to typical liberals to be a patchwork of prejudices based on notions of purity and disgust. There's room to think that certain patterns of behavior are self-destructive, and perhaps immoral for that reason, but there's a feeling that the case for this needs to be made based on modern psychological grounds - empirically rather than with armchair natural law arguments.

 

[Drensch]

Uh, no, rape is illegal buddy.

What if my religion says that people must submit to my advances? The laws against rape are unfairly burdening my religious beliefs.

 

[benjipwns]

What if my religion says that people must submit to my advances? The laws against rape are unfairly burdening my religious beliefs.

Which is why we don't encode laws based on specific religions silly.

 

[hachi]

lol

It is not even close to evident. It's just a nicer version of the person has _____ friends card not to mention the fact that is completely illegal. Your argument is insane is basically if things get too bad the courts can decide on it.

It's astonishing to see the specific belief in gay marriage become, overnight, the one absolute cornerstone of any and all respect for gay persons, as if one must agree that committed homosexual relationships fit under that specific term, else you are opposing everything about their existence. Else, you cannot possibly stand with them at all. Where is the perspective here? The relatively recent push for marriage covers over a long history of deep antagonisms on the subject within the LGBT community. There were traditionally at least two dominant camps among queer-theory advocates and intellectuals, and neither conforms to this current shape of the debate.

Many advocates openly opposed the existence of marriage in its entirety, seeing it only as an institution of heteronormativity. These considered their own gay community not merely as a set of couples who happen to be same-sexed, but more as an external challenge to the entire set of norms that fall under the cultural umbrella of marriage: its elevation of single-partner relationships over all alternative or multiple partner arrangements, the public insistence on lifelong commitment as an obligation to one's family rather than an acknowledgement of temporary sexual connections, and even the compulsion to make the establishment of a new family always part of the same conversation as choosing your sexual partner -- all these were at times seen as restrictions on human sexual freedom, all brought into a compulsory and unified whole under the name of marriage, and through the way this particular institution makes sense of gender differences by bringing each half of a couple under a set of names attached to a long history of meanings (husband, father, wife, mother). You hear an echo of this again today, increasingly, in cases of pushing for more recognition of open marriages and alternate arrangements. According to this older thinking, to bring gay couples under the practice of marriage (or even to suggest it as a norm for them!) would be nothing short of betraying themselves and their rather different modes of forming relationships, by asking them to mimic the lives and morals of straight couples only in order to gain their approval or stamp of normalcy.

Others in the community believed much the same negative things about marriage as the first, but reversed the meaning of making marriage encompass same-sex relationships: by altering the composition of marriage and putting gay couples alongside straight ones, they hoped that all the troubling things marriage brings together into one whole (a connection between sex and taking on parental roles, the symbolism of gender difference, for some even the compulsion to lifelong commitment) could be disassembled, so that marriage could be reformed and transformed into something non-compulsory, open, unshackled, purely based on sexual partnership, and entirely non-gendered. But these are two different camps.

So, many queer advocates and intellectuals have (until a more recent strategic shift) almost always carried a very negative appraisal of the entire concept of marriage, and have actually proclaimed far more sharply than even the right-wing that the concept of marriage inherently encompasses a set of symbols that go well beyond a sexual partnership and that are morally normative and gendered in meaning all the way down; hence their opposition, and the frequently recurring view that pushing for gay marriage would mean selling out to a shadow of heteronormativity.

In light of that, and in light of all the prominent persons on that side of the issue who legitimately opposed marriage entirely from an LGBT perspective, it's absolutely absurd to insist that there can be no business or person who can claim to ethically support (or employ) LGBT persons while also opposing the extension of marriage or at least opposing participation in it for religious reasons. It only betrays a lack of any perspective beyond the current ideological moment in time.

 

[XT Vengeance]

I always wonder if these people know that they will clearly be viewed as hateful and ignorant in the future, as in "what, there were hateful people like that in the past?"



What kind of stupid fuck do you have to be to say this kind of crap? seriously.

A lot of people seem to think that ideas have rights. Religious belief is an idea you choose, it is not infallible, and it should be questioned when it does something that is wrong. A lot of people seem to think that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, when they in fact are the ones persecuting others.

 

[metalslimer]

In light of that, and in light of all the prominent persons on that side of the issue who legitimately opposed marriage entirely from an LGBT perspective, it's absolutely absurd to insist that there can be no business or person who can claim to ethically support (or employ) LGBT persons while also opposing the extension of marriage or at least opposing participation in it for religious reasons. It only betrays a lack of any perspective beyond the current ideological moment in time.

Thanks for the useless lecture, but I'm pretty sure many gay people don't give two shits about what the "intellectuals" have to say.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

"queer advocates?"

What a weird phrase to use, especially since a lot of people consider it derogatory.

 

[hachi]

"queer advocates"?

What a weird phrase to use, especially since a lot of people consider it derogatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

That has been the established academic term for this part of the debate for quite some time. I've attended many lectures involving queer theory at various academic conferences; it is an active, even preferred term.

Thanks for the useless lecture, but I'm pretty sure many gay people don't give two shits about what the "intellectuals" have to say.

For the most part, I agree with you. I think there is nothing but good intentions on many sides of this (including gay couples seeking marriages, and those standing with them), but those good intentions are often caught up in much larger agendas that reach well beyond the implications aimed at by the individual.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

If you'd like to parse out that this was discriminating against the act of gay marriage instead of ones sexual orientation, I don't see that holding water..

Because it doesn't hold water. It's a crock of shit. Which brings me to...

And there is a tremendous amount of difference between turning away a customer in general and turning them away from a narrow case of a creative service rendered to celebrate an event that has a long and broad history of being directly contrary to religious faiths, even seen as a kind of parody of a beloved sacrament to many people.

I'll tell you what's really alarming: how you nonchalantly promote legal discrimination.

None of that long, broad history stuff is recognized by law so it's irrelevant, as it should be. "Sacredness" isn't a consideration unless you want to live in a theocracy. Honestly, your special pleading to faith is so blatant I can't believe you thought it was reasonable to post.

Some people see gay marriage as a "kind of parody", based on faith, and, because of that, they should be able to serve gay people but only when they feel like it? Am I reading that right?

As ivysaur touched on: who cares that the refusal was specifically because the flowers were for a wedding??? The specificity is irrelevant. "I will only provide service to people if I agree with their reasoning" is the same as, "I will only provide service to certain people." How is that not obvious?

 

[metalslimer]

For the most part, I agree with you. I think there is nothing but good intentions on many sides of this (including gay couples seeking marriages, and those standing with them), but those good intentions are often caught up in much larger agendas that reach well beyond the implications aimed at by the individual.

Would you call it....the homosexual agenda

 

[benjipwns]

Would you call it....the homosexual agenda

No, the HOMOSEXUALIST agenda.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-revolution-of-the-family-the-marxist-roots-of-homosexualism

I have been asked recently “what is homosexualism?” I started using the term in my writing on these issues a few years ago when it became clear that we were dealing not with a group of people, but with a particular ideology that is often held by people who are not themselves homosexuals.

A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.

Many people are scratching their heads and asking how we have suddenly found ourselves at the point where two men can be “married,” a woman can be called a “husband” and a man, a “wife,” and children are reduced to political bargaining chips in the adoption wars, when it seems just yesterday we were only talking about equal rights. Since when do “equal rights” mean deconstructing, dismantling, these foundational social concepts?

If we read them closely, however, the activists themselves have begun to explain it in quite straightforward terms. For them, it has never been about “equal rights” but about the re-writing of our entire social order. The “gay rights” movement has always been, in Peter Tatchell’s own words, “revolutionary, not reformist.”

...

Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/pete...-propaganda-words-from-glsen-web-/62203927310

One of the biggest ways radical homosexualists brainwash is by making up new words. This is at the heart of their Orwellian propaganda war. Direct from the GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), here's a dictionary of what THEY want you to believe certain words or phrases mean. Thankfully you have this list so you'll know better when you hear these phrases; you can recognize them and debunk them. It's from what's called the "GLSEN Lunchbox resource," just waiting for unsuspecting young minds to eat up and swallow.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100909

Although I've been critical of WorldNetDaily in the past (for running an anti-Catholic commentary), I have to commend WND's Joseph Farah for recognizing the sad and ugly fact that the conservative movement has been infiltrated by, and capitulated to, the homosexual lobby.

Farah, who's taken some heat recently for disinviting Ann Coulter to WND's upcoming national conference because she's headlining a GOProud event, believes it's important to expose and resist the agenda of these faux, pro-sodomy "conservatives." And I agree.

Even more disturbing than the homosexual lobby's infiltration into the conservative movement is their infiltration into the public school system.

Below is a significant portion of the text of an excellent talk given by Laurie Higgins, director of the Division of School Advocacy for the Illinois Family Institute, at the recent Americans for Truth conference. Higgins' talk illustrates just how badly the homosexualist agenda has infected (ahem) the public school system.

If you're pro-life, pro-family and a true conservative, you'll want no part of the pro-sodomy crowd. (Please note that I'm not referring to those with the homosexual inclination who are struggling to live chaste lives; rather, I'm referring to those who promote homosexual activity as morally acceptable.)

 

[hachi]

Would you call it....the homosexual agenda

No. I actually long stood for gay marriage in the past because the larger things at stake (or the larger "agendas" or ideologies that are really taking root) are not something to do fundamentally with homosexuality. I'd say that the introduction of no-fault divorce was a far greater blow to the elevation of marriage; if the gay community wants to fully come out in support of all the things that heterosexual marriage has long elevated (lifelong exclusivity, negative appraisal of any and all open or adulterous relationships, etc) then there is some real good in that. But often the introduction of gay marriage is being tied to sets of beliefs and ideologies that really disparage those ideals, openly, and use this as part of a set of changes to make marriage something quite different. The push for things like polyamory is closely allied to the same arguments, and that's a problem.

So I don't think this works. What's happened is that people have started understanding sexual ethics under a consent framework rather than what now seems to typical liberals to be a patchwork of prejudices based on notions of purity and disgust. There's room to think that certain patterns of behavior are self-destructive, and perhaps immoral for that reason, but there's a feeling that the case for this needs to be made based on modern psychological grounds - empirically rather than with armchair natural law arguments.

While I agree that consent is the central operative word today (though its use carries a ton of complex presuppositions), you give a mischaracterization of all the other (religious or cultural) positions on sexuality. I think part of the problem is how deeply liberal (and of course I mean liberalism, not liberal in the cheap sense, before someone jumps on it) you are framing even the other side of the debate. You suggest: opposition can't be for anything but self-harm or self-destruction, otherwise it must just be old notions of purity. I think that excludes the entire middle, which is where sexual practices are construed as primarily being part of the structure of communal living and social formation. Marriage, for instance, has always been deeply connected with the preservation of clear lines of single paternity and stable family formation; the obligation to remain sexually exclusive in marriage has had as much to do with that, particularly in the sense of any state's interest in it, as it has ever had to do with purity.

Many perspectives would see the shape of human community and family as being by far the most important topic in sexuality, and would say that personal fulfillment has nothing to do with it, and is even an antagonistic principle to social order. Those are not perspectives built only upon ritual purity, nor on individual principles of harm. And the relationship to empirical data is much more complex when you legitimately recognize this as a discussion of the ought rather than the is of humanity, something these religions have long histories of working out theologically, and yes that does deserve respect.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

No, the HOMOSEXUALIST agenda.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/pete...-propaganda-words-from-glsen-web-/62203927310


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100909

YES.

 

[adamsappel]

Are you saying that the Golden Rule is bad or something? I guess I don't understand where this perversion is supposedly happening.

Because in practice it's less "I will treat him as I would like to be treated" and more "I know this guy would cheat me if he were in my position, so I'll cheat him first." Libertarianism is especially foolish for assuming all actions are rational.

 

[benjipwns]

The push for things like polyamory is closely allied to the same arguments, and that's a problem.

Why?

Because in practice it's less "I will treat him as I would like to be treated" and more "I know this guy would cheat me if he were in my position, so I'll cheat him first." Libertarianism is especially foolish for assuming all actions are rational.

I'd say it pretty explicitly assumes that it doesn't matter.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Because in practice it's less "I will treat him as I would like to be treated" and more "I know this guy would cheat me if he were in my position, so I'll cheat him first." Libertarianism is especially foolish for assuming all actions are rational.

"Rationality" doesn't need to be assumed in Libertarian philosophy. And the most commonly bashed is "Rationality" in economic terms, which is defined as:

-If presented with choices, an individual either prefers one option to another or is indifferent between choices.

-If they prefer option A to option B and option B to option C, they prefer option A to option C.

-You want more of something you like.

-Preferences between choices don't change completely due to very small changes.


And this definition of rationality seems super reasonable to assume. If you want to talk about Randian or Austrian libertarian philosophy and their view of rationality, whatever, sure.

 

[benjipwns]

I think people often take "rational" to mean "not absurd" instead of merely "capable of reasoning" or "logically derived from premises" which is how libertarian/Austrians tend to use it.

The idea that an irrational conclusion can be reached by rational thinking isn't one that would most Austrians would find unusual.

 

[A Link to the Past]

To some extent, I welcome lawmakers and businesspeople to try and push legalization of LGB discrimination with respect to who they serve. When all is said and done, what do they expect is going to happen? The answer to that is "the same as when Minnesota tried to criminalize gay marriage." The more people push LGB people, the harder they suffer as a result. Please, destroy your business and/or political career.

(left out the 'T' because trans protection laws/laws that target trans people negatively are huge, huge issues and trans people aren't in a position in the US where they can be expected to soldier through a hateful society)

 

[block tower]

american taliban strikes again.

 

[RM8]

No. I actually long stood for gay marriage in the past because the larger things at stake (or the larger "agendas" or ideologies that are really taking root) are not something to do fundamentally with homosexuality. I'd say that the introduction of no-fault divorce was a far greater blow to the elevation of marriage; if the gay community wants to fully come out in support of all the things that heterosexual marriage has long elevated (lifelong exclusivity, negative appraisal of any and all open or adulterous relationships, etc) then there is some real good in that. But often the introduction of gay marriage is being tied to sets of beliefs and ideologies that really disparage those ideals, openly, and use this as part of a set of changes to make marriage something quite different. The push for things like polyamory is closely allied to the same arguments, and that's a problem.



While I agree that consent is the central operative word today (though its use carries a ton of complex presuppositions), you give a mischaracterization of all the other (religious or cultural) positions on sexuality. I think part of the problem is how deeply liberal (and of course I mean liberalism, not liberal in the cheap sense, before someone jumps on it) you are framing even the other side of the debate. You suggest: opposition can't be for anything but self-harm or self-destruction, otherwise it must just be old notions of purity. I think that excludes the entire middle, which is where sexual practices are construed as primarily being part of the structure of communal living and social formation. Marriage, for instance, has always been deeply connected with the preservation of clear lines of single paternity and stable family formation; the obligation to remain sexually exclusive in marriage has had as much to do with that, particularly in the sense of any state's interest in it, as it has ever had to do with purity.

Many perspectives would see the shape of human community and family as being by far the most important topic in sexuality, and would say that personal fulfillment has nothing to do with it, and is even an antagonistic principle to social order. Those are not perspectives built only upon ritual purity, nor on individual principles of harm. And the relationship to empirical data is much more complex when you legitimately recognize this as a discussion of the ought rather than the is of humanity, something these religions have long histories of working out theologically, and yes that does deserve respect.

So if I understand correctly, you used to support gay marriage, but not anymore because it could lead (why?) to other things you don't agree with. That's a pretty slippery slope. Also, you want to protect the traditional family by not allowing gay people to marry? Do you think gay people will eventually say "ah, whatever, I'm going straight and form a traditional family"? Apparently you do, because otherwise it's a completely irrelevant argument. You also seem to imply that heterosexual marriage leads to responsible parenthood and faithfulness, which is downright silly. I don't think I see your point, other than "I can think gay people deserve less rights, but I don't hate them, and you have to respect that" or something.

 

[Gotchaye]

In light of that, and in light of all the prominent persons on that side of the issue who legitimately opposed marriage entirely from an LGBT perspective, it's absolutely absurd to insist that there can be no business or person who can claim to ethically support (or employ) LGBT persons while also opposing the extension of marriage or at least opposing participation in it for religious reasons. It only betrays a lack of any perspective beyond the current ideological moment in time.

I don't really see why that's relevant. Like, you could find influential black thinkers who were generally opposed to integration and equal rights and all that in favor of black separatism or similar (this is really not my area). But there's basically no continuity between that strain of thought and a white person today refusing service to a black person. It's just not the case that religious opposition to gay marriage today is about protecting gay people from heteronormativity. It strikes liberals as being about not liking gay people. Someone who did (in a clearly sincere way) speak out against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is a terrible institution would probably be deemed kooky rather than bigoted, and if there were a large number of gay bakers who refused to bake wedding cakes for gay people because of their belief in something like gay separatism I think people would be more willing to let that go. It matters that people's actual reasons for opposing gay marriage strike so many as being so weak and as motivated by animus against gay people.

While I agree that consent is the central operative word today (though its use carries a ton of complex presuppositions), you give a mischaracterization of all the other (religious or cultural) positions on sexuality. I think part of the problem is how deeply liberal (and of course I mean liberalism, not liberal in the cheap sense, before someone jumps on it) you are framing even the other side of the debate. You suggest: opposition can't be for anything but self-harm or self-destruction, otherwise it must just be old notions of purity. I think that excludes the entire middle, which is where sexual practices are construed as primarily being part of the structure of communal living and social formation. Marriage, for instance, has always been deeply connected with the preservation of clear lines of single paternity and stable family formation; the obligation to remain sexually exclusive in marriage has had as much to do with that, particularly in the sense of any state's interest in it, as it has ever had to do with purity.

To be clear, I was glossing what I was calling the "typical liberal" perspective, about sexual ethics generally rather than marriage in particular. Marriage has served many purposes; I think pretty much everyone agrees that it has historically had a lot to do with property and inheritance.

But yes, obviously people don't understand themselves as taking positions on the basis of notions of purity and disgust. This is how liberals psychologize the disagreement. A certain kind of Catholic is going to be able to construct a really sophisticated argument that doesn't touch on disgust or self-harm. But mostly this sort of argument doesn't engage with liberal thought. The disagreement comes much earlier, and there's a general suspicion of the kind of argument being made. At some point the disagreement is just going to be intractable, if what we've ultimately got is different, strongly-held ideas about how we might even go about trying to discover what human flourishing looks like. I think the arguments should ideally be approached respectfully, but I think that if someone does engage with those arguments and doesn't find them the least bit persuasive, they can permissibly try to minimize (what they see as) the damage the ideology can do, without worrying too much about this making its proponents feel bad that they can't act out their ideology. I mean, ultimately we've just got to rely on our own moral compasses. We ought to be humble - we ought to recognize that we can go wrong, we ought to be open to competing views of the good, etc. - but at some point we can say "this deep and sincere belief you've got is just silly, insulting, and harmful, and you need to get over it". If the belief really does seem that silly - if there is no reasonable disagreement - we need to explain why nevertheless people seem to find it plausible.

I'm willing to be convinced that I ought to treat the position respectfully to the extent that I ought to believe it makes sense to exempt people who hold it from anti-discrimination law, and I think I've exercised due diligence in deciding how respectable the position is, but I just don't see that it's very respectable.

 

[GaimeGuy]

To some extent, I welcome lawmakers and businesspeople to try and push legalization of LGB discrimination with respect to who they serve. When all is said and done, what do they expect is going to happen? The answer to that is "the same as when Minnesota tried to criminalize gay marriage." The more people push LGB people, the harder they suffer as a result. Please, destroy your business and/or political career.

(left out the 'T' because trans protection laws/laws that target trans people negatively are huge, huge issues and trans people aren't in a position in the US where they can be expected to soldier through a hateful society)

The difference is Minnesota is one of the most educated and politically engaged states in the country.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The difference is Minnesota is one of the most educated and politically engaged states in the country.

We're not that blue, though. There's a lot of conservatism going on in our state, particularly the Northwest.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's sad that we have to even still consider that form of prejudice a protected right. I mean whatever you want to believe in your own mind, but if you own a business open to the general public you need to serve everyone equally.

yep. if you want to hook yourself directly into the public ecosystem, you serve the entire public

 

[A Link to the Past]

yep. if you want to hook yourself directly into the public ecosystem, you serve the entire public

Agreed. They're not running a church.

 

[charsace]

This goes against what America is. No matter how much things improve people are still animals and that means a lot of us are still fucking dumb.

 

[keisuke999]

What if someone's religion forbids them from serving black people? Or "infidels"? This bill, if passed, could be abused so much.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What if someone's religion forbids them from serving black people? Or "infidels"? This bill, if passed, could be abused so much.

We're not dealing with novel legal issues. The bills in question are similar to existing law in some 30 states, as well as existing federal law. So we don't need to concern ourselves with hypothetical parades of horribles.

 

[benjipwns]

If somebody thinks I'm an "infidel" I really hope they tell me to leave instead of silently serving me food.

 

[RoninChaos]

The alarmism and self-righteousness in some of these comments is... alarming. I'm sure the legislation is likely a mixed bag, some good protections of religious liberty and some pandering, but the idea is correct that we need to establish a solid ground for proper hearing of disputes between religious belief and civic actions when these genuinely conflict.

It is an enormous leap and frankly absurd to suggest that courts -- who would, under this kind of legislation, still hold the last rule of interpreting whether a genuine and established religious conviction is at stake -- would allow for something like business owners rampantly refusing to serve gay customers in any capacity. What is obviously the aim is to protect cases like the recent high-profile incidents of Christian bakers. And there is a tremendous amount of difference between turning away a customer in general and turning them away from a narrow case of a creative service rendered to celebrate an event that has a long and broad history of being directly contrary to religious faiths, even seen as a kind of parody of a beloved sacrament to many people.

Look at the case of florist Barronelle Stutzman, who is known to have: (1) employed LGBT persons; (2) faithfully served this particular gay customer in question for years fully knowing his orientation; (3) only refused service for the single case of creating elements for his wedding ceremony; yet who know stands to lose everything for a single polite refusal. The idea that there should be a carefully established protection for cases like this is absolutely evident. It should not astonish anyone that beliefs about the use of sexuality are something central to nearly all faiths; it is only the enormously strong, recent, and generally elite Western ideology of consumerist freedom which contends that sexual practices can never, under any circumstances, be debated legitimately in the moral realm.

That's all well and good until you realize these people are practicing religion a la carte. They're taking the parts that allow them to discriminate and running with them while disregarding the bible as a whole so they can pick and chose who they don't have to serve. They aren't denying service to people who have been divorced of who are wearing two different fabrics, but yet "WE CANT SERVE GAY PEOPLE!" And point at their bibles. It's discrimination and it should be called out as such.

 

[mclem]

“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.”

Had, Joseph. Had. Pretty sure you'll find you don't have them any more.

 

[Peru]

No. I actually long stood for gay marriage in the past because the larger things at stake (or the larger "agendas" or ideologies that are really taking root) are not something to do fundamentally with homosexuality. I'd say that the introduction of no-fault divorce was a far greater blow to the elevation of marriage; if the gay community wants to fully come out in support of all the things that heterosexual marriage has long elevated (lifelong exclusivity, negative appraisal of any and all open or adulterous relationships, etc) then there is some real good in that. But often the introduction of gay marriage is being tied to sets of beliefs and ideologies that really disparage those ideals, openly, and use this as part of a set of changes to make marriage something quite different. The push for things like polyamory is closely allied to the same arguments, and that's a problem.

You've written many words on why anti-gay marriage does not mean anti-LGBT and yet you've managed to come off a lot worse than if you just wrote "I hate LGBT people": You've infused it further with the basest conservative ideology. You've added a political layer of reactionary thought to defend the emotional one.

 

[mclem]

How much insanely blatant homosexuality was there in biblical times that such specific and prolific anti gay stuff had to be written? Seems crazy to me that they would add this in just in case.

I don't know if it's more a stereotype, but wasn't it pretty widespread in ancient Greece and Rome? I wonder if part of it was just religious indoctrination to convey how those other major historical civilizations were Wrong.

Leviticus was also the same book that forbade eating shellfish and wearing clothes of two different fabrics, yet they conveniently pay no nevermind to that.

That's the thing that really irks me. I don't particularly like it, and wouldn't hold to it myself, but I can comprehend the existence of an argument for preserving religious freedom. But when you pick and choose which bit of your religion you care enough about to want to preserve, you absolutely forfeit that right, because it's no longer actually about religion at that point. You chose that specific bit for a reason.

 

[Seth Enosh]

I don't know if it's more a stereotype, but wasn't it pretty widespread in ancient Greece and Rome? I wonder if part of it was just religious indoctrination to convey how those other major historical civilizations were Wrong.



That's the thing that really irks me. I don't particularly like it, and wouldn't hold to it myself, but I can comprehend the existence of an argument for preserving religious freedom. But when you pick and choose which bit of your religion you care enough about to want to preserve, you absolutely forfeit that right, because it's no longer actually about religion at that point. You chose that specific bit for a reason.

The rules in Leviticus were ignored since the beginning of Christianity. Jesus specifically said that he was canceling the dietary rules and the book Acts of the Apostles (plus Paul's letters) talks about the earliest Christians' decision not to impose the Jewish law on non-Jewish Christians, this was a topic basically settled within 20-30 years after Jesus' death.

Christian sexual morality is not derived from the rules in Leviticus but from explicit scriptures in the New Testament prohibiting incest, fornication, divorce, adultery, lust, and also homosexuality. You'll usually only see Christians quote the Leviticus scripture alongside one of Paul's letters for that reason, because the laws in Leviticus are considered to not matter unless part of the "moral law" and what is in the moral law is known from other scriptures in the NT.

These distinctions are ancient and from when the morality of homosexuality wasn't really controversial at all.

Edit: if you're curious to learn more you can read Augustine's response to a similar critique of Christians for not following the Torah laws, around 400 AD: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140606.htm

 

[HiredN00bs]

Jesus specifically said he was cancelling the dietary rules?

lol

Learning what the Bible says about homosexuality and listening to actual homosexuals was the impetus of my transformation from evangelical Christian to atheist. The Bible is full of wicked ideas from top to bottom.

 

[RoninChaos]

Jesus specifically said he was cancelling the dietary rules?

lol

Learning what the Bible says about homosexuality and listening to actual homosexuals was the impetus of my transformation from evangelical Christian to atheist. The Bible is full of wicked ideas from top to bottom.

You were an evangelical and are now an atheist? That's fascinating. I usually hear about atheists or people who aren't sure about god turning to faith. If you don't mind my asking, what else pushed you down the path you're on now? It's been my experience that when people have their faith or stances challenged they double down. What was different for you?

 

[Servbot24]

I might have missed something but shouldn't private entities be able to serve who they want? If they discriminate they deserve immediate public backlash, but if I'm selling something don't I have the right to say "I don't like you and I don't feel inclined to do business with you"?

Morally it is reprehensible. But legally it definitely seems iffy to me.

And just because I already feel the heat coming I feel the need to restate, I find discrimination of any kind to be despicable and in no way excuse it under any circumstances.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

So I wonder if these religous protection laws would protect the right of followers of Khorne to spill blood in the name of the blood god?

Or, in a more reastic sense, for radical Islamists - like ISIS to wage Jihad. If you give one group of religous nutters rights to terrorize a minority, why discriminate against other nutters who want to terrorize people?

These politicians are appealing to their low brow base, but giving religous people a free pass as being a dick does not fix anything.