• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Observation on the Gay Rights debate...

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
 
I was thinking about this the other day. Just a year or more ago many people were still trying to make the point that SSM shouldn't be legal anywhere. The change has been swift and dramatic. Everyone pretty much accepts that it is going to happen and is simply the next step in becoming a more enlightened society. We've seen this with every major civil rights movement. Today, the bigots recognize that the minority they hate has rights like everyone else, and tomorrow they'll realize that they don't have a right to discriminate against them any more than they have a right to discriminate against women, or ethnic and religious minorities.

Nowhere in the bible does it state that feeding homosexuals is a sin. If providing your business services to a sinner was a sin, you wouldn't be able to serve anybody. Stop projecting your intolerance on your religion and man up and admit that you make your own decisions in life just like everyone else.
 
CriticalThought said:
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
Click to expand...

The only moment we are at is that if you express an opinion that liberals disagree with they will try to get you fired or run you out of business. Hurray for "rights"

The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.

After decades of fighting for gay rights, those who should be guzzling the bubbly are muzzling the vanquished.

What happened in Indiana is reminiscent of the bullying that led to the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich exactly this time last year. Eich was harangued for a six-year-old donation supporting an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, but ultimately purged for refusing to recant his beliefs about marriage.

Last week, Hampton Catlin — a computer programmer and gay rights advocate — started taunting Eich on Twitter. Catlin tweeted, "…couple weeks since I'd gotten some sort of @BrendanEich related hate mail. How things going over there on your side, Brendan? Eich responded, "You demanded I be 'completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla' & got your wish. I'm still unemployed. How're you?" Catlin continued to gloat.

Yes, both Catlin and Eich got hate mail, but only one lost his livelihood. Is this really what winning looks like?
Click to expand...

Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners

So there are still plenty of people who would argue that marriage is between a man and a woman but they can not express this idea because liberals will try to ruin their lives if they express this opinion.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Nowhere in the bible does it state that feeding homosexuals is a sin. If providing your business services to a sinner was a sin, you wouldn't be able to serve anybody. Stop projecting your intolerance on your religion and man up and admit that you make your own decisions in life just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Considering no one has refused to serve food to homosexuals, you statement seems a bit odd. In fact the pizza place said they would never refuse a customer because of their sexual orentation, only that they wouldn't cater

This is exactly the type of radical hated that leads to moving the goalposts. Stop making strawman arguments man up and look at the facts and make a real argument like everyone else.

How many gay people had asked to have their wedding catered by this small-town pizza joint? None. What number of gay people had been denied a slice by O'Connor? Zero. In fact, the owners told the reporter that they would never refuse to serve a gay customer who came to the restaurant to eat. The wrath of gay rights supporters rained down on Memories Pizza because O'Connor committed a thought crime.
Click to expand...

Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners
 
Crovax said:
Considering no one has refused to serve food to homosexuals, you statement seems a bit odd. In fact the pizza place said they would never refuse a customer because of their sexual orentation, only that they wouldn't cater

This is exactly the type of radical hated that leads to moving the goalposts. Stop making strawman arguments man up and look at the facts and make a real argument like everyone else.

Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation. There are no white weddings, black weddings, asian weddings, christian weddings, muslim weddings, or gay weddings, there are only weddings. If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.

Crovax said:
The only moment we are at is that if you express an opinion that liberals disagree with they will try to get you fired or run you out of business. Hurray for "rights"
Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners

So there are still plenty of people who would argue that marriage is between a man and a woman but they can not express this idea because liberals will try to ruin their lives if they express this opinion.
Click to expand...

A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.

Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation. There are no white weddings, black weddings, asian weddings, christian weddings, muslim weddings, or gay weddings, there are only weddings. If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.



A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.

Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
Click to expand...

Which law did they break?
 
Re: An Observation on the Gay Rights debacle...

RabidAlpaca said:
A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.

Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you do not see the irony and hypocrisy in your own words, here; that you cannot see it.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
Click to expand...

From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.

I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

First off the pizza place never actually refused to cater a gay wedding only that they said they would. That isnt a crime its actually called free speech and protected by the first amendment. You know one of those "rights" yall keep going on about except you forget that everyone has rights not just gay people. Secondly, refusing to cater a gay wedding was not illegal before the RFRA, after the initial RFRA or after the modified RFRA.

If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event

A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.
Click to expand...

Comparing religious beliefs to racism, never heard that one before

Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
Click to expand...

You have made it clear you have no respect for people who have opinions different from yours and that you can not live with them as you want all of them out of business.

Sounds like you should take some of your own advice.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No they didn't.

But since you absurdly think they did, please provide the names of these people they refused to serve?
Oh right, you can't because there are none. :doh


RabidAlpaca said:
They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
As I already said; No they didn't.

But even your argument is all wrong.
They would refuse to participate on religious grounds what they do not consider to be marriage.
It wouldn't matter if gay or straight folks attempted to purchase their services for such.
 
CriticalThought said:
I have noticed almost nobody really argues anymore whether gay couples should be free to marry. Fewer still debate whether gays, as people, should be protected from discrimination. The debate now is whether people have a right to refuse to provide services to a same-sex wedding ceremony. I just wanted everyone to take a moment and reflect on that progress. I do not want to rehash the same argument on religious liberty versus gay rights that has popped up in umpteen threads on this forum. I just want to reflect to how the entire debate has shifted. Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
Click to expand...

Gay rights are a rather silly topic. But the activists have over shot and carried legislation with them. So now they annoy lots of people and have grabbed financial flows, that they do not really convincingly deserve, while they are responsible for legislation that is intruding on others' constitutional rights. So at least many believe or are beginning to believe.

So you might be right and this is a watershed and the backlash comes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.

I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
Click to expand...

I used to be very pro gay rights. But it has gone too far and must in my opinion be rolled back, if the backlash isn't to be severe.
 
CriticalThought said:
Are we at a new watershed moment for gay rights where, even if people disagree, it isn't important enough an issue for most people, particularly as long as it doesn't interfere in others personal lives and decisions?
Click to expand...
Yep.

Homophobia is, for the most part, no longer socially acceptable. Groups that would once vilify gays are now compelled to say that they "hate the sin but love the sinner," which in turn makes discrimination even less acceptable. Same-sex marriage went from a wedge issue pushed by Christians, to something regarded as inevitable, to a rallying cry for a modern update to civil rights.

People claiming they won't provide services for gay weddings is pretty much the last gasp in this particular culture war.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Incorrect. The owners of Memory's Pizza didn't commit a thought crime, they committed an actual crime. They're a public business that offers catering services, and they refused service to customers based on their sexual orientation. There are no white weddings, black weddings, asian weddings, christian weddings, muslim weddings, or gay weddings, there are only weddings. If you want to open a business up to the public and use society's structure for your benefit, society has a few tiny requirements of you in return. If you're not ok with that, you can make your business private and you'll be allowed to be as bigoted and as hateful as you choose.



A business owner firing a bigoted employee is simply a free market transaction. You're free to get pissy about it, but it's not your decision. Being associated with Brendan Eich harmed Mozilla's image, so they corrected the situation. It would be absolutely no different if we had found out he was a proud supporter of the KKK.

Learn to respect your fellow human beings. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to learn to live with it.
Click to expand...


so a family business passed down for generations

now they have to choose.....their religion, or putting food on the table

because basically that is what you are asking them to do......

either forsake what they believe in, and stay in business.....or close

what you believe the bible says, or the bible means doesnt mean a damn thing

it is what THEY believe, and how THEY live their lives

that basically is what all of this is coming down to......

people and families will have to choose what is more important to them

to me, that is exactly opposite of what SHOULD happen......

and i sometimes wonder what the framers of this wonderful country would think about decisions like this.....
 
Crovax said:
The only moment we are at is that if you express an opinion that liberals disagree with they will try to get you fired or run you out of business. Hurray for "rights"



Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners

So there are still plenty of people who would argue that marriage is between a man and a woman but they can not express this idea because liberals will try to ruin their lives if they express this opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that my freedom of speech bothers you so much.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.

I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
Click to expand...

Horse****. the people who would refuse service to homosexuals are still ranting and raving about the coming doom of gay marriage.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, the debate in America has simply moved from bigotry to bigotry in action. This may be a dangerous step for the gay rights movement. When faced with a concept of gay marriage that doesn't affect a straight or religious person in any direct personal way, most people believe in extending the right to marry and get the government license and goodie bag that goes with it. When the debate extends outward, however, into in your face demands for subservience to the gay culture, then you get people directly affected and they become far more resistant.

I'd suggest that gay people would be wise to accept their gains on equal rights to marriage and the benefits of state sanctioned marriage and go about living their lives. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by going overboard and riling those who are currently on your side. These religious freedom laws are a direct result of the gay movement's overreach.
Click to expand...

The lobbyists standing behind indiana's governor are the same assholes who have always opposed gay rights, including members of FRC. This is a simply a last ditched gasp by the religious right to prevent equality.
 
African Americans are substantially less tolerant of homosexuality than whites, and pretty much always have been.

This is news to some people, apparently. :shrug:
 
chromium said:
The lobbyists standing behind indiana's governor are the same assholes who have always opposed gay rights, including members of FRC. This is a simply a last ditched gasp by the religious right to prevent equality.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that if your biggest complaint is that a pizza place won't cater your wedding your not doing too bad.
 
gdgyva said:
so a family business passed down for generations

now they have to choose.....their religion, or putting food on the table
Click to expand...
Getting a bit dramatic, aren't we?

The owner of Memories Pizza went on TV and basically said he'd discriminate against gays. He got slagged for it, which should surprise no one. He also was pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars by supporters. They'll reopen soon, and probably richer (financially) for the experience. 'Murica!


either forsake what they believe in, and stay in business.....or close

what you believe the bible says, or the bible means doesnt mean a damn thing
Click to expand...
The Bible doesn't say anything about serving pizza at a wedding.

Religious beliefs also don't grant you the unilateral right to ignore the law. If that was the case, then 1/3 of people between the ages 18 and 30 would convert to Rastafarianism, assert that marijuana is a religious sacrament, and get stoned 7 days a week.

We should also remember that quite a few Christian conservatives based their support for racism and segregation on the Bible, as typified by a Bob Jones Sr sermon on the topic:
http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/


i sometimes wonder what the framers of this wonderful country would think about decisions like this.....
Click to expand...
They're dead. They don't live in our world, they don't live by our standards. What they would think is not relevant, because they are not the ones who have to live with these decisions. WE are, which is why we get to decide which laws to pass and to repeal.
 
gdgyva said:
so a family business passed down for generations

now they have to choose.....their religion, or putting food on the table

because basically that is what you are asking them to do......

either forsake what they believe in, and stay in business.....or close

what you believe the bible says, or the bible means doesnt mean a damn thing

it is what THEY believe, and how THEY live their lives

that basically is what all of this is coming down to......

people and families will have to choose what is more important to them

to me, that is exactly opposite of what SHOULD happen......

and i sometimes wonder what the framers of this wonderful country would think about decisions like this.....
Click to expand...

Yeah and thousands of slave owners thought they had a god given right to have slaves, and their slaves kept their businesses running. But they too had to choose what was more important to them, their slaves (and by extension business), or peoples rights.

Guess which one is the right answer. If your beliefs are bigoted then there is no place for them in today's society.
 
Deuce said:
Horse****. the people who would refuse service to homosexuals are still ranting and raving about the coming doom of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

My new canned response to those who still think gay marriage should be illegal:

20100102.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom