Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-17-2012, 07:43 PM   #286
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Martha, I'm not sure what I've said to engender more hostility from you (thought this seems par for the course when it comes to you and me), but whatever it is, I apologize. Maybe you should just put me on ignore.
No. If I want to ignore you, I will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I don't think I'm dodging anything -- simply trying to answer as best I can. The question in particular was about churches that don't allow interracial marriage. As far as I know, that's not a national issue, or frankly much of a regional one, so it seems a bit abstract. In any event, whether I support such a decision or not is moot.
It was a national issue at one point, and when I, and others, have asked you about it, you dismiss it as irrelevant, like you are now. It's not abstract at all; it was huge in 196whatever, and I've asked you about the Loving ruling, because it was a ruling, not a vote, and you dismissed it as unimportant. YET, when there's ruling about marriage equality, you get upset, because people didn't get to vote on it.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 07:43 PM   #287
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
In my eyes? Sure. Have they invited God into the equation? No. Does that matter? Not to them.
OK, that's what I needed to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I'm not sure why you would infer that from what I said (again, I simply described marriage as a religious institution, which is how many people see it, which I think is what is fueling much of the national debate). I wasn't referring to atheists or anyone else
Well, the way you worded your posting, it sounded you were referring to atheists. If I misunderstood, apologies.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 07:48 PM   #288
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 12:52 PM
The NPR link doesn't work for me.

So maybe someone can summarize their point?

Nathan, you did seem to dodge my question. There will be some churches that won't perform them, but there will be plenty that will. To me that is freedom, no one is forcing anything.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-17-2012, 07:53 PM   #289
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
No. If I want to ignore you, I will.
Then, as I've asked you privately, would you consider modifying your tone? I understand that you're passionate, but I'm getting some hostility that I'm not sure is warranted.

Quote:
I've asked you about the Loving ruling, because it was a ruling, not a vote, and you dismissed it as unimportant.
I'm not sure when we've had that interaction -- must have been in another thread a while ago. The scope of Loving was limited to the issue of interracial marriage, and five years later, the Loving ruling was specifically not extended to Baker v. Nelson. The case isn't unimportant, but so far, its ramifications have not been yet extended as far as you're talking. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 07:57 PM   #290
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The NPR link doesn't work for me.

So maybe someone can summarize their point?

Nathan, you did seem to dodge my question. There will be some churches that won't perform them, but there will be plenty that will. To me that is freedom, no one is forcing anything.
I'll just post the article. Sorry for the length.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

Quote:
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty


June 16, 2008

As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.

The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.

Act One: A Love Story

Harriet Bernstein, mother of two and grandmother of six, realized a few years ago that she was drawn to women. She lives in Ocean Grove, N.J., a quiet beach town known as "God's Square Mile," because the land is owned by a Methodist retreat center, formally known as Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

Eight years ago, she went on a retreat with Jewish gay men and lesbians in the Poconos Mountains and met her future wife.

"I took a chance and went up for a weekend of cross-country skiing and ice skating," Bernstein recalls. "And I saw this lovely lady across a crowded room, as they say in South Pacific, and immediately decided she was somebody I wanted to get to know. And I did."

"We came together like magnets," Luisa Paster adds. "We had all our meals together. We went cross-country skiing. And we exchanged phone numbers at the end of the weekend."

Bernstein and Paster formalized their union last year, a few months after New Jersey legalized civil unions.

Bernstein fetches the wedding album and flips past photos of the rabbi, the cake (adorned with two brides), and various shots of the two outdoorsy, gray-haired women smiling as they stood on the boardwalk in their white tunics and pants.

Paster then reads the invitation to their civil union, emphasizing the ambiguous wording.

"Location to be announced," she reads. "That's because we had to send out the invitations before we had final word on whether we could use the pavilion."

Act Two: The Conflict

The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

"A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s," says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator.

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."

The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.

"We were crushed," she says. "I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful."

Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. "We were so stunned, we didn't know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done," she says.

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."

The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.

Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.

"And that potentially affects every religious organization in America, not just Christian organizations, but every religious organization. And I get calls from Jewish rabbis who are equally concerned — people from across the spectrum who think it's a battle worth fighting. And we agree," Hoffman says.

Act Three: A Nationwide Story

As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.

Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."

Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.

"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.

The defendants' attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he's gay. But it's different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don't believe, he says.

"It's a very different situation when we're talking about promoting a message," Lorence says. "When it's 'We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,' that for me is a very different deal. It's compelled speech. You're using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you."

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock's more than $6,600 attorneys' fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

In the meantime, they wonder whether all the hassle is worth it and whether they should get out of the photography business altogether.

Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it's hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples.

"They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."

And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples "would win in a walk."
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 08:16 PM   #291
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Then, as I've asked you privately, would you consider modifying your tone? I understand that you're passionate, but I'm getting some hostility that I'm not sure is warranted.
I think the hostility is from your smooth willingness to deny tax-paying, law-abiding, consenting adults the same rights you have.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 08:27 PM   #292
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I think the hostility is from your smooth willingness to deny tax-paying, law-abiding, consenting adults the same rights you have.
As a matter of fact, I supported "No on 8."

I supported it because of my boss and his partner of 20+ years. I supported it because of my friends Heather and Tere who have been married for 10 years and are trying to make it work. I supported it because of every gay kid who's ever been bullied at school. I supported it because of all the dickheads who called me "fag" in high school. I supported it because of my friend Dave who committed suicide as a freshman rather than put up with the harassment, and my friend Brian who spent his entire high school experience in the closet. I supported it because of all the ignoramuses who have tried to co-opt the God I believe in and reduce Him to what they think is right.

But at the same time, I was damn conflicted. I was conflicted because of people who look down their self-righteous nose and snivel at everyone who doesn't agree with them. I was conflicted because of people who can't fathom anyone who thinks differently and who might want to live out their Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion without being harassed or berated or mocked or stalked or derided. I was conflicted because I can't label who thinks differently from me a "hater."

I argue contrary points on this board sometimes. I do it because we're supposed to think different. I do it because we're supposed to empathize with the person on the other side of the table. I do it because we're supposed to see through someone else's eyes, not just our own. I do it because I hate group-think with a passion. I do it because the truth is more complicated than we like it to be. I do it because I like straddling the fence and trying to figure out how to bring people together.

Does that satisfy you? Or should I be smoother about it?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 08:33 PM   #293
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:52 PM
The liberals on this forum are so aggressively insulting and dismissive against anyone that doesn't share their ideological viewpoint that I'm almost tempted to re-examine my pro-gay marriage stance.

Almost, but not quite.

Even though its advocates among the far left bigot fraternity don't do the cause for gay marriage any favours, I see no logical or rational reason to deny the choice for gay people, if they so wish, to get married.

Perhaps one of the reasons why America doesn't have gay marriage yet is that some of its advocates present their arguments in such an unappealing manner. Some of their advocacy seems at times to be almost designed to alienate Middle America.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:23 PM   #294
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Perhaps one of the reasons why America doesn't have gay marriage yet is that some of its advocates present their arguments in such an unappealing manner.

Some of their advocacy seems at times to be almost designed to alienate harass and intimidate Middle America.
In other words, "Keep quite or we can make things very difficult for you." Very recent cases in point:

1) Dan Savage's very public humiliation of Bible reading teenagers in front of their peers from his podium.

2) The totalitarian pronouncements regarding Chick-fil-a as a business entity in their cities from the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston.

3) The treatment of Mark Regnerus, who never argued against SSM in his research -- only dared to point out the flaws in earlier studies declaring children of gay couple to have equal or superior outcomes. Regnerus and the 'Liberal War on Science'

Two hundred academics have since issued a statement denouncing the study. Four colleagues on the sociology faculty at the University of Texas released their own statement at the HuffPost. "Pseudo-science that demonizes gay and lesbian families contributes to stress and is not good for children." A gay-rights activist has filed an ethics complaint requiring Regnerus to get a lawyer. Note to future social science researchers; "Incorrect" conclusions will not be tolerated. Design your studies appropriately.

4) Gay marriage activists in Maryland bully traditional marriage supporters - Baltimore County Republican | Examiner.com
Quote:
The DC based gay newspaper, The Washington Blade, posted in full the list of about 110,000 citizens who signed the referendum petition against gay marriage in Maryland. The list is part of public record, but must be purchased on CD from the Maryland Board of Elections. It includes all the information the signers provided as required in order for the elections board to be able to verify the signer against voter registration data. This includes full name, date of birth, and address. Not much that many people don’t already willingly post on Facebook.

However, The Washington Blade has taken this information and posted it on its website in searchable form, along with an interactive map of Maryland showing the areas with the highest concentration of signers. No explanation was provided by the newspaper of why they chose to post the information. The comments by Washington Blade readers below the article are a bit more forthcoming about its intended purpose, with some suggesting that gay activists should visit the signers.

Tom Lang, Director of Knowthyneighbor.org, who takes credit for being the first paper to publish petition signers names online in 2005, had the following to say: “To LGBT and allies, look to signers in Maryland and you will find friends and family members, people you employ and owners of establishments you patronize. Now and in the years to come, you will find also, politicians running for office who may or may not have a good enough answer as to why he or she signed this initiative to take away rights. And know…once you see names your recognize…your true work begins.”

“Rob” posted: “All of these bigoted scumbags should be forced to wear a scarlet “B” for bigotry so they can’t hide amongst decent people.”

Other websites jumped on the Blade’s shame-the-haters bandwagon and posted the list as well, adding more inflamatory name calling.

While I don’t believe most gay marriage supporters will act on this list beyond making a mental note of people they know, the Maryland Marriage Alliance which led the petition effort has released a letter by a petition signer who was contacted by a gay activist due to an internet posting of the list. Her composure over the incident is impressive and serves as a model for us all. Her letter is posted below.

“This morning in front of my house I was approached by a man whom I had never met who asked me if I was [xxxxx] and then asked me if the house I was standing in front of, citing my address number, was my house. When I said yes, he said that he wanted me to know that my name, my address and a map to my house were posted on the Internet as a 'hater.'

“When I asked as a hater of what, he said of gay people and gay marriage. When I said I don't hate gay people, he said that I must because I signed the petition for the referendum on gay marriage and that my name is on the Internet for having signed the petition. When I continued to look puzzled he went on at length about his being gay, being with a partner for 20 years, etc. etc. and that I was hurting him by opposing gay marriage.

“He repeated several more times that my name and my address and even a map to my house were posted on the Internet and that I was listed as a hater and I had only to look it up to see.

“He finally left and I reported the incident to the police. The police told me to call them again when the man, who lives in the neighborhood, returns home.



“In the meantime, I do not intend to look my name up on the Internet, but if this is true that someone or some group has posted petition signer names on the Internet and labeled the list as people who hate gay people and provided names, addresses, and maps to people's houses, then I think this goes beyond a personal threat and becomes a case of organized intimidation on a larger scale.”
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:42 PM   #295
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Let me chime in and say that I also feel the hostility towards nathan1977 is unwarranted. It appears a lot of it has been based on assumption about where he stands on the issue of SSM. Granted, perhaps he's chosen to be purposefully opaque about where he stands (at least until the most recent post), but nevertheless, I think we still have to be careful about assuming that we "know" where someone is coming from or what they "really think."

And I agree with him that the unwillingness of some of us to even consider any other possibilities other naked hatred and homophobia behind some people's opposition to SSM is a mistake. It is not worthy of the cause we claim to stand for and prevents us from being able to bring more people around to changing that viewpoint. Not everyone is beyond redemption (and I say that as one "redeemed.")

Finally, I don't know that we can just dismiss as irrelevant the concerns about freedom of religion. The NPR piece (note this is not Fox News we're talking about, whipping up hysteria as they are wont to do) ought to be worthy of discussion. It makes me wonder about how much racial discrimination can be protected under the cloak of religious freedom. I would imagine not much, and in that sense, I do think that the concern that churches will eventually be forced to go against their own beliefs is not without merit.

I have a hard time with the idea that the photographer couple for example should be forced to photograph someone they don't want to. I know if my wife and I had asked a photographer to do our wedding photos and they'd written back saying "we do not photograph mixed raced couples. But thanks for visiting our site!' I would have been hurt. But I don't think it would have occured to me to sue. I don't think I'd want to force the hand of a business like that. Even if I "won", it would be a most uncomfortable photo shoot. But as I think of it, religion likely wouldn't be cited as a reason for refusing service, at least not primarily.

I don't know. . .I'm beginning to feel there may be some key differences in the way that racial and sexual orientation discrimination are motivated.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:44 PM   #296
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,049
Local Time: 05:52 AM

that's pretty extreme.

If gay marriage were legalised there it wouldn't affect a single one of their lives, but that's still pretty messed up.
__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:52 PM   #297
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In other words, "Keep quite or we can make things very difficult for you." Very recent cases in point:

1) Dan Savage's very public humiliation of Bible reading teenagers in front of their peers from his podium.

2) The totalitarian pronouncements regarding Chick-fil-a as a business entity in their cities from the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston.

3) The treatment of Mark Regnerus, who never argued against SSM in his research -- only dared to point out the flaws in earlier studies declaring children of gay couple to have equal or superior outcomes. Regnerus and the 'Liberal War on Science'

Two hundred academics have since issued a statement denouncing the study. Four colleagues on the sociology faculty at the University of Texas released their own statement at the HuffPost. "Pseudo-science that demonizes gay and lesbian families contributes to stress and is not good for children." A gay-rights activist has filed an ethics complaint requiring Regnerus to get a lawyer. Note to future social science researchers; "Incorrect" conclusions will not be tolerated. Design your studies appropriately.

4) Gay marriage activists in Maryland bully traditional marriage supporters - Baltimore County Republican | Examiner.com
None of this means that SSM is wrong however.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:52 PM   #298
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Let me chime in and say that I also feel the hostility towards nathan1977 is unwarranted. It appears a lot of it has been based on assumption about where he stands on the issue of SSM. Granted, perhaps he's chosen to be purposefully opaque about where he stands (at least until the most recent post), but nevertheless, I think we still have to be careful about assuming that we "know" where someone is coming from or what they "really think."
Thanks for saying that. Quite frankly, it's about time one of you on the liberal side said it.

Everyone has the right to their own opinions and not be called a bigot or bullied out of the forum if they have opinions that differ from the majority consensus.

I am aware of at least two posters that were effectively bullied out of the forum. There's a subtle consensus that develops around getting rid of posters that hold unpopular points of view, and a relatively small number of people that are promoting it, and it really needs to stop.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 10:00 PM   #299
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Thanks for saying that. Quite frankly, it's about time one of you on the liberal side said it.

Everyone has the right to their own opinions and not be called a bigot or bullied out of the forum if they have opinions that differ from the majority consensus.

I am aware of at least two posters that were effectively bullied out of the forum. There's a subtle consensus that develops around getting rid of posters that hold unpopular points of view, and a relatively small number of people that are promoting it, and it really needs to stop.
I find that hard to believe.

I know there's a few people that can be typically caustic--that's already been discussed in this very thread, and discussed with honesty and humility I might add--but I can't believe that amounts to a an organized consensus to try railroad certain posters out of the forum.

If that were true, I would be deeply disappointed. I share with you a desire and interest in hearing a variety of viewpoints. I always thought most of us felt that way. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 10:13 PM   #300
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I find that hard to believe.
That's consistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I know there's a few people that can be typically caustic--that's already been discussed in this very thread, and discussed with honesty and humility I might add--but I can't believe that amounts to an organized consensus to try railroad certain posters out of the forum.
In that case, your interpretation of what happened in the thread is radically different to mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
but I can't believe that amounts to a an organized consensus to try railroad certain posters out of the forum.
Isn't railroading a euphemism for bullying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
If that were true, I would be deeply disappointed. I share with you a desire and interest in hearing a variety of viewpoints. I always thought most of us felt that way. . .
I think there is strong evidence that, actually, quite a few on your side don't.

But, instinctively, and leaving aside for the moment, specific points of view - and you're welcome, naturally, to disagree with this - I'd suggest that debate and argument - even at times, caustic debate - is more healthy than fake consensus, which if you don't mind my pointing out, seems to me to be the current mood of the FYM forum.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com