• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rick Santorum cites Westboro Baptist Church in debate over Indiana law

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Perfect Blue

Banned
3c715eac-bd61-4fb4-8382-4ead7f015695-620x372.jpeg


The former and possibly future Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday offered a provocative analogy in defense of a controversial Indiana law that opponents say opened the way for discrimination by businesses against gay and lesbian customers and employees. Appearing on CBS, Santorum said the Indiana law was meant to protect the same kind of autonomy for businesses that a hypothetical gay owner of a print shop would wish for if he was hired to create a placard for the Westboro Baptist Church reading “God hates fags”.

“It’s a matter of accommodation,” Santorum told CBS. “Tolerance is a two-way street. If you are a print shop, and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church – because they hold those signs up? Should the government force you to do that? “And that’s what these cases are all about … And that’s where we just need some space to say, let’s have tolerance be a two-way street.” Such placards are ubiquitous at rallies staged by the Westboro Baptist Church, a notorious Topeka-based group that pickets funerals and other events.

Santorum, formerly a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, said that Indiana’s so-called religious freedom law, signed and then amended earlier this month by Governor Mike Pence, was not discriminatory. “This is acceptable language … it’s a good bill,” Santorum said. “I’m not a legal scholar, but I can tell you the way that the previous laws have been ruled [on], that they have not provided any type of legal protection for [discrimination].”

The Indiana law established that the state could not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except in cases of a “compelling government interest”. Proponents of the law praised it for allowing “Christian bakers, florists and photographers” to decline participation in “homosexual marriage” on religious grounds. Legal scholars, however, judged it to differ from a comparable federal statute in a way that invited discrimination. In response to national outrage over the law last week, Pence announced in a chagrined news conference that he had asked for a legislative patch while insisting that the original legislation was not discriminatory.

The governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, amended a similar law this week.

Later in his CBS appearance, Santorum was asked whether he was running for president in 2016, having shown strongly in the Republican primaries in 2012. “I have no announcements to make today,” he said.
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-baptist-church-indiana-religious-freedom-law

lol holy crap. I've seen this dumb argument before but now an actual politician is using it? wow
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
Fuck nuance. This two way tolerance street is such nonsense.

The only equivalence that could be made is that if a gay person was actively refusing service on the grounds that the customers are Christian. And last I checked, that's illegal.

But you don't exactly see Christians fighting to remove their protected status class in the name of defending other people's beliefs.
 
T

ttimebomb

Member
I don't get it. He makes a good argument, doesn't he? Gay owner of a shop would want to refuse service to one who is printing material that antagonizes him. Not that I agree with him.

If I owned a shop like this I'd print whatever for whoever is willing to pay and not let it affect my conscience.
 
C

Christine

Member
Santorum's analogy is on point for one of the most salient arguments his side tends to make in this debate. The United States' freedom of speech protections are broadly interpreted as shielding people and corporate endeavors against compelled expression.
 
2

23qwerty

Member
ttimebomb said:
I don't get it. He makes a good argument, doesn't he? Gay owner of a shop would want to refuse service to one who is printing material that antagonizes him. Not that I agree with him.

If I owned a shop like this I'd print whatever for whoever is willing to pay and not let it affect my conscience.
Click to expand...

One is hate speech the other... isn't
 
M

Miles X

Member
ttimebomb said:
I don't get it. He makes a good argument, doesn't he? Gay owner of a shop would want to refuse service to one who is printing material that antagonizes him. Not that I agree with him.

If I owned a shop like this I'd print whatever for whoever is willing to pay and not let it affect my conscience.
Click to expand...

Nope.

There is a big difference between gays not wanting to cater to HATEFUL customers, vs christians not wanting to cater to gay customers (Who are doing no harm).

And if you talk about their religious beliefs, well that has zero place in politics.
 
S

Shaanyboi

Banned
ttimebomb said:
I don't get it. He makes a good argument, doesn't he? Gay owner of a shop would want to refuse service to one who is printing material that antagonizes him. Not that I agree with him.

If I owned a shop like this I'd print whatever for whoever is willing to pay and not let it affect my conscience.
Click to expand...
Not even close. Promoting hate speech vs. celebrating a wedding aren't even remotely comparable.
 
C

Catdaddy

Member
Any politician with any sense would not even mention Westboro in any sort of semi-positive/legal light, no matter the context.. they thrive on having attention and dumby just gave them some.
 
L

linkboy

Member
Catdaddy said:
Any politician with any sense would not even mention Westboro in any sort of semi-positive/legal light, no matter the context.. they thrive on having attention and dumby just gave them some.
Click to expand...

I've got a hunch that Santorum would have no issues with sitting through a service there.
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
ttimebomb said:
I don't get it. He makes a good argument, doesn't he? Gay owner of a shop would want to refuse service to one who is printing material that antagonizes him. Not that I agree with him.

If I owned a shop like this I'd print whatever for whoever is willing to pay and not let it affect my conscience.
Click to expand...

You can refuse service on any grounds so long as the grounds is that they aren't being refused for being a member of a protected class.

Technically, you can refuse to serve someone for being gay or for just being ugly or because you don't like the color of their shirt.
None of those things are protected (at least under federal law.)

The gay civil rights movement is about giving their sexuality the same protected status as a person's skin, religion, or ethnic background.

Much like a Christian baker should be allowed to deny an Atheist customer who wants a cake that says "Fuck Jesus", a gay person should be allowed to deny a Westboro Baptist Church member for making a "Die Fag Die" Cake.

I could see a Christian Baker not wanting to write a message on a cake that says, "We Support Gay Marriage!". But simply baking a cake that says "Congratulations" is not the same thing. At that point, you're just denying service to them based upon their sexuality. And yes right now that's legal. But the LGBT community is arguing that should change.

Basically, Christians are just fighting for their right to live in the stone age.
 
T

ttimebomb

Member
Shaanyboi said:
Not even close. Promoting hate speech vs. celebrating a wedding aren't even remotely comparable.
Click to expand...
But if you believe gay marriage is an evil thing? I dunno I think his analogy is solid.

Again he's wrong I just don't think the current counterarguments are good.
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
linkboy said:
I've got a hunch that Santorum would have no issues with sitting through a service there.
Click to expand...

Santorum is a religious nut, but he's not anywhere that nutty.

Santorum and company believe gays are icky and immoral and should not be getting married.

If the Westboro Baptist Church could get away with it, they'd actually try to get away with killing gays and denying them basic essential services. They are full blown theocratic.
 
J

justjustin

Member
ttimebomb said:
I don't get it. He makes a good argument, doesn't he? Gay owner of a shop would want to refuse service to one who is printing material that antagonizes him.
Click to expand...
The difference is the gay owner is refusing service based on the individual's request. "God hates fags" is not a belief shared by all religious people, it's a personal and hateful one the store owner may not want to accommodate. It is no different than "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

And if it's okay to "religiously" discriminate against all gays, then logically Muslim's could refuse women who don't wear a headscarf. The crazy lady wouldn't go to jail for drowning her children in the bathtub because it was her religious belief that armageddon was coming. You could attach any wacky belief to your religion and argue you should have unlimited "religious freedom."
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
If the printing company agreed to print signs that say "God Hates Fags" for gay clients, but not for the WBC, then he'd have a point. If they refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs for anyone, then they aren't refusing service to anyone. It's sort of sad to see a person in a position of some political leadership, however stupid he may be, misunderstand such a basic issue.
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
ttimebomb said:
But if you believe gay marriage is an evil thing? I dunno I think his analogy is solid.

Again he's wrong I just don't think the current counterarguments are good.
Click to expand...

If you believe gay marriage is immoral, don't attend one and don't get gay married.

But baking a cake and writing congratulations on it is not violating your beliefs.
 
S

Siegcram

Member
ttimebomb said:
But if you believe gay marriage is an evil thing? I dunno I think his analogy is solid.

Again he's wrong I just don't think the current counterarguments are good.
Click to expand...
Faith is a choice, sexuality isn't.

If you opt into bigoted beliefs, society has no obligation to accommodate you.

However, you can't discriminate against inherent characteristics of people because your personal man in the clouds said so.

And general point of advice, if you're finding yourself agreeing with Mr. Ass-juice Supreme, seriously re-examine your position.
 
P

PlayALLtheGames

Banned
shadowsdarknes said:
Santorum is a religious nut, but he's not anywhere that nutty.
Click to expand...

Is he not? Or does he just have to temper his nuttyness?

What if the vast majority of the U.S. were right-wing, evangelical Christians? What if Santorum didn't have to worry about a video of him saying something we might consider crazy being circulated all around the internet and the backlash and the media coverage? What if he could speak completely freely in a country that was, actually, a "Christian nation"?

I expect he might be willing to say stuff you'd never expect him to say today. I expect that would be the case for all the "nutty but not that nutty" right-wingers.
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
TheGeoKing said:
A Republican comparing homosexuals to a hate group? Who would have thought... This would be rather hilarious if so many people in this nation didn't subscribe to their nonsense beliefs. It's more frightening than funny.
Click to expand...

Well he's previously known for comparing homesexuality to beastiality so maybe this is step up!
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
PlayALLtheGames said:
Is he not? Or does he just have to temper his nuttyness?

What if the vast majority of the U.S. were right-wing, evangelical Christians? What if Santorum didn't have to worry about a video of him saying something we might consider crazy being circulated all around the internet and the backlash and the media coverage? What if he could speak completely freely in a country that was, actually, a "Christian nation"?

I expect he might be willing to say stuff you'd never expect him to say today. I expect that would be the case for all the "nutty but not that nutty" right-wingers.
Click to expand...

It's hard to say either way.

I agree with your points. And I do think he's a nut. But I do think he's a bit more practical than the Westboro.

I remember one of Santorum's highest ranking staff members was gay.
http://www.queerty.com/rick-santorums-gay-ex-staffer-is-his-biggest-apologist-20120106
I couldn't see a devout Westboro member hiring someone like that.

Of course, it could all be a clever ploy, but I just don't see Santorum as that extreme. There's the far religious right in Santorum, and then there's the dangerous fringe hate groups.
 
J

JDSN

Banned
Shit is so dumb its not even tolerated in this message board, why is a candidate for the most important job in the world saying that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty Is Direct Attack On LGBTQ+ US Citizens
2
2K
EdibleKnife replied
  • Locked
Judge blocks Indiana genetic abnormality abortion law
3
2K
SchrodingerC replied
  • Locked
Appeals court accuses Indiana Gov Pence of ‘discrimination’ against Syrian refugees
10
2K
Htown replied
  • Locked
Westboro Baptist Church will picket Jays vs. Royals game against Canada....
13
2K
Switch Back 9 replied
  • Locked
Indiana won't let transgender man change name
15
3K
Butterfly Witch replied
Top Bottom