The Gay Thread - Page 14 - 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 02-27-2014, 12:47 PM   #196
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Local Time: 09:38 AM
The Gay Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and this would have been state sanctioned, top-down laws enabling business owners to say, "we don't serve your kind here," so long as it was a "religious belief."

As it stands, religion is nothing more than a personal belief with a fancy label. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm having a really hard time, still, from splitting this law as a classical example of nazism (and no not genocide, don't try that one again). It claims "you are what is wrong in society, and therefore you shall be treated as inferior to fix this."

But you know what, hopefully if such a law were ever enacted, a rise in satanism and spaghetti monsterism (if you will) prove to you just how wrong such a law is.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-27-2014, 02:04 PM   #197
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Wow, you really think highly of your fellow countrymen don't you? A nation of bigots rather than the most tolerant nation on earth.
Which nation are you talking about here? I thought you lived in the US.....
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:44 AM   #198
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
against government intrusion, yes, but you cannot use your religious beliefs to take away the rights of other citizens.

The theory here is that no one has a right to receive services from a business. INDY does make a valid distinction: the government mandating discrimination is different from the government forcing businesses to not discriminate. Take that as you wish.
__________________
digitize is online now  
Old 02-28-2014, 01:03 AM   #199
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,863
Local Time: 09:38 AM
There is a practical reason to refuse service to someone who isn't wearing pants. There is a practical reason to refuse service to someone who is intoxicated. There is no practical reason to refuse service to someone because they are different from you.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 02-28-2014, 02:16 AM   #200
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Local Time: 09:38 AM
I'd argue that even saying you won't serve someone for no reason is a better scenario.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-28-2014, 08:52 AM   #201
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 03:38 PM
I just don't see why someone's religion is of any importance to the rest of the world. Why can people with certain religions get away with things, just 'because their religion says so'? Why would that have to be my problem? You go enjoy your religion, I'll enjoy mine. In Private. Who the hell am I to deny other human beings their rights because my personal religion doesn't agree with them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 02-28-2014, 11:05 AM   #202
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Who the hell am I to deny other human beings their rights because my personal religion doesn't agree with them?

a conservative American Christian. the most important people on earth.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 02:43 PM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Hate Speech by Anti-Gay Bigot | National Review Online

Quote:
Hate Speech by Anti-Gay Bigot

By Senator Ted Kennedy

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of Senator Ted Kennedy’s opening statement before the Committee on the Judiciary at the hearing on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, September 18, 1992, the model for the Arizona law which has been so controversial.

We will come to order. The brave pioneers who founded America came here in large part to escape religious tyranny and to practice their faiths free from government interference. The persecution they had suffered in the old world convinced them of the need to assure for all Americans for all time the right to practice their religion unencumbered by the yoke of religious tyranny.

That profound principle is embodied in the two great religion clauses of the first amendment, which provide that Congress “shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But in 1990, the Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith produced a serious and unwarranted setback for the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

Before the Smith decision, Federal, State, and local governments were prohibited from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion unless the restriction satisfied a difficult two-part test — first, that it was necessary to achieve a compelling government interest; and, second, that there was no less burdensome way to accomplish the goal.

The compelling interest test has been the legal standard protecting the free exercise of religion for nearly 30 years. Yet, in one fell swoop the Supreme Court overruled that test and declared that no special constitutional protection is available for religious liberty as long as the Federal, State, or local law in question is neutral on its face as to religion and is a law of general application. Under Smith, the Government no longer had to justify burdens on the free exercise of religion as long as these burdens are “merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision.”

The Supreme Court did not have to go that far to reach its result in the Smith case. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote of the majority’s ruling in her eloquent and forceful opinion concurring in the result but criticizing the majority’s reasoning,

Today’s holding dramatically departs from well-settled first amendment jurispru dence, appears unnecessary to resolve the questions presented, and is incompatible with our Nation’s fundamental commitment to individual religious liberty.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the standards previously, used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to furthering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

The act creates no new rights for any religious practice or for any potential litigant. Not every free exercise claim will prevail. It simply restores the long-established standard of review that had worked well for many years and that requires courts to weigh free exercise claims against the compelling State interest standard. Our bill is strongly supported by an extraordinary coalition of organizations with widely differing views on many other issues. The National Association of Evangelicals, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalitions for America, People for the American Way, just to name a few, support the legislation. They don’t often agree on much, but they do agree on the need to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because religious freedom in America is damaged each day the Smith decision stands.


Today, the committee will hear compelling testimony about the destructive impact of the decision. We are fortunate to have a very distinguished group of witnesses and I look forward to their testimony.
Three things: This may be the first time National Review has promoted the words of Ted Kennedy. Two, the Arizona law simply echoed this act as well as expanded its own state law to include private entities rather than just individuals. And three, it show how radical and leftist the Democratic has become since 1992. The ACLU once supported what it now actively attacks in court. No national Democratic politician would support such legislation.

Gay rights über alles.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 02:45 PM   #204
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Not uber alles, but it certainly should go against something that people are FREE to choose like Religion.


Religion is a choice.

Being gay is not.

Why should your personal choice have more value than my basic human rights?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:00 PM   #205
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Not uber alles, but it certainly should go against something that people are FREE to choose like Religion.


Religion is a choice.

Being gay is not.

Why should your personal choice have more value than my basic human rights?
I've spoken previously about no room for discrimination in my field, medicine, but that isn't the issue; no one supports discrimination against gays. But an individual and an event are two separate things.
Read the details of these cases against florists, bakers, etc and you'll see that they serve gays with no hesitation, they only balk when asked to participate in a same-sex marriage.

If the government can force a baker to supply a cake against his religious beliefs why can't they compel a doctor to perform an abortion or a minister to rent out his worship hall?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:05 PM   #206
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,863
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
no one supports discrimination against gays.
Oh?
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:09 PM   #207
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:38 AM
Why even argue with Indy anymore? It's the same old same old. It's his hang-up.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:12 PM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Religion is a choice.
Wow! There's a new topic here. While religion in a free society is a choice; once accepted isn't one then bound to act in accordance with that religion? If one hopes to glorify God in all they do can they knowingly participate or foster an activity which for thousands of years has been taught to be forbidden or unholy?

In a pluralistic society one accepts that they need not agree or sanction all individual activities to practice the Golden Rule knowing that visa-versa not everyone sanctions your beliefs. Translation; Tolerance needs to be a two-way street.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:14 PM   #209
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I've spoken previously about no room for discrimination in my field, medicine, but that isn't the issue; no one supports discrimination against gays. But an individual and an event are two separate things.
Read the details of these cases against florists, bakers, etc and you'll see that they serve gays with no hesitation, they only balk when asked to participate in a same-sex marriage.

If the government can force a baker to supply a cake against his religious beliefs why can't they compel a doctor to perform an abortion or a minister to rent out his worship hall?
The government can force a baker because he's supposed to do his job. Bake a fucking cake. It's what you do.

Compelling a doctor to perform an abortion is in no way comparable due to the mental consequences it may cause for the doctor. This has nothing to do with religion, at all.
They can't compel a minister to rent out his worship hall, because that minister is, wa hey, doing his job. It's a house of religion, serving religious people.
And for the sake of me I would have no idea why a gay person would even want in a church when the people are oh so friendly towards them..... How did you even come up with that one?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:14 PM   #210
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Three things: This may be the first time National Review has promoted the words of Ted Kennedy. Two, the Arizona law simply echoed this act as well as expanded its own state law to include private entities rather than just individuals. And three, it show how radical and leftist the Democratic has become since 1992. The ACLU once supported what it now actively attacks in court. No national Democratic politician would support such legislation.

Gay rights über alles.

that's a lot of butt hurt for a straight guy.

the Arizona law took this 22 year old Act and took it to a level unimagined even back then. this isn't being able to make religious liberty claims against the government, it's about being able to make a religious liberty claim against other citizens in order to reduce their liberty. that's a big, big leap. no individual can coerce like the government, so that's why protection is necessary. but citizen to citizen?

and think about Arizona itself. gay people are already back-of-the-bus 2nd class citizens. they are denied the fundamental human right to marry. they have no hate crimes protection. and they can be fired merely for being gay. it is already very easy for a fundamentalist to brutally discriminate against a gay person. to argue that, really, it's the discriminator's rights that need to be expanded is absolutely perverse. it's silly to cliam that a group of millions of Americans who have traditionally been among the most marginalized among us, who have lived their lives in shadows, who live in fear, who often succumb to suicide or addition in order to cope with a hostile society, are suddenly the bullies because you can't discriminate against them without some blowback. standing up to a bully isn't bullying.

imagine, for a moment, that you're two guys driving a lonely Arizona highway. it's been a long hot day, you come across the one motel on a remote stretch of I-40. you ask for a room. "we don't rent rooms to faggots. it's against our religion."

you go to the only restaurant in that small town. "we don't serve your kind here. it's against our religion."

no food, no shelter. it's a lonely night out in the desert. cold too. the two of you wake up with hypothermia. you call 911. the EMTs arrive. they choose not to treat you because they believe that the wages of sin are death, and as sinners, God has done this to you so i can't interfere with his will to have you die of hyperthermia.

how in holy hell is any of that ok? it would all be made ok by that Arizona law.

your religious liberty ends at the moment it takes away my right to be a full citizen.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 09:38 AM.


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