• 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!

Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

which ones are bigots?

  • Total voters
    65
sawdust said:
Nonsense. I told you that I disagreed with your definition of bigotry. Now you've resorted to name calling which pleases me because it shows the weakness of your presentation. Secondly, you know nothing about my education other than what I've shared with you. You aren't in a position to make judgements about anything I've said on an educational level because frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. With all the restraint I can muster, we disagree. I won't say what I really think out of respect for the rules of the board.
Click to expand...

:fart
 
Lursa said:
I disagree but not by much. I see a difference in how someone thinks and if they actually act against it, like voting for example. Just because they 'personally' hold that tradition a certain way, view it 'their way,' doesn't mean they are bigoted against others.
Click to expand...
So a person who believes that black people are inferior and unintelligent and white people are superior, but doesn't act on it through a vote, is not a racist? Someone who tells people they do not believe white girls should marry black boys because black boys are all criminals is not a bigot, because they don't act on that? Really? Any sane person would say of course not, but you must answer yes to those statements to maintain the consistency of your position.

If someone disagrees with girls joining the Boy Scouts, are they bigoted against women?
Click to expand...
Of course not, but the example is not comparable whatsoever. My above example is far more comparable.
 
sawdust said:
I said sex, when I mentioned laws about discrimination. Feel free to replace sex with gender, men or women if it make my statement clearer. I never said that it was ok to discriminate against gays individually. There are religious objections to gay marriage and I can understand why some business owners feel that working on them violates their personal values.
Click to expand...

And there are religious objections to women wearing little clothing in public in some religions or not having their hair covered. There are religious objections in some religions to women not being accompanied by a man in public. These are just as "valid" of religious beliefs as objections to same sex marriages. It could easily violate a business owner's personal values just as much to have to serve a woman who wasn't with a man, who was wearing "too little" clothing, or didn't have her hair covered as it does for some to serve gay people.
 
Grand Mal said:
See, you're doing it again. You say, "I'm conservative and/but..." and then you express a liberal value. I think you're a closet liberal, that's what I think. Hey, there's no shame in it! 'Liberal', despite what some say, doesn't mean socialist or 'statist' or welfare-state apologist or any of those other slanderous boogeymen that conservatives (okay, some conservatives) want to apply.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. If someone doesn't oppose SSM, that automatically makes that person a Liberal? You apparently have no idea what the definition of a Conservative is. But if it makes you feel better thinking I'm a "closet Liberal", go ahead and think that. I'll just laugh my head off at it.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Not necessarily, they could just be a dick.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about those who seek acceptance by any means necessary.
Someone with different values from those who agree with SSM doesn't have to be bigoted, but may just have an opinion different from ours.
Once we learn to truly tolerate those with whom we happen to disagree, we may just be able to live happily side by side.
I.e., when a baker doesn't want to cater a SSM, he/she could politely and enthusiastically recommend a baker who does, and the SS couple could give it a try, instead of forcing the baker to cater to their wedding.
Compromise is key, for bigotry isn't reserved for those who oppose SSM, but is also found among those who are SS etc and seek acceptance.
We must listen to each other and hear, look for what unites us and brings us together. You catch flies with honey, not with complaisant remarks and attitudes or law suits.
 
People that are nosey and feel they must stop people from doing things they do not approve of aren't really bigots, they are busybodies.

I believe there are equal numbers of both parties that are busybodies.
 
Lovebug said:
The same could be said about those who seek acceptance by any means necessary.
Someone with different values from those who agree with SSM doesn't have to be bigoted, but may just have an opinion different from ours.
Once we learn to truly tolerate those with whom we happen to disagree, we may just be able to live happily side by side.
I.e., when a baker doesn't want to cater a SSM, he/she could politely and enthusiastically recommend a baker who does, and the SS couple could give it a try, instead of forcing the baker to cater to their wedding.
Compromise is key, for bigotry isn't reserved for those who oppose SSM, but is also found among those who are SS etc and seek acceptance.
We must listen to each other and hear, look for what unites us and brings us together. You catch flies with honey, not with complaisant remarks and attitudes or law suits.
Click to expand...

No same sex couple has actually tried to force a same sex baker to cater their wedding, only either reported them or sued them for not doing so. In those cases, the couples went to a different baker for their wedding cake. The entire point is though that they shouldn't have had to go and there are laws in place against refusing to do business with someone due to their sexuality or sexes together, just as it is to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, races together, or sex/gender.
 
roguenuke said:
And there are religious objections to women wearing little clothing in public in some religions or not having their hair covered. There are religious objections in some religions to women not being accompanied by a man in public. These are just as "valid" of religious beliefs as objections to same sex marriages. It could easily violate a business owner's personal values just as much to have to serve a woman who wasn't with a man, who was wearing "too little" clothing, or didn't have her hair covered as it does for some to serve gay people.
Click to expand...

These are all governed by individual morals. I'm sure you've seen signs that say no shirt, no shoes, no service. Businesses should, but I realize don't, have the right to not serve people who they morally believe violate the tenants of their religion. Businesses have sent workers home with what they believe to be inappropriate dress. Some banks have not served women whose faces are covered for security reasons not having to do with religion. Understand that I am not personally religious and don't object to anything but I support the right of business people to run their businesses in ways that they feel are morally appropriate as long as they don't discriminate against people based on race, sex or national origin.

Understand that in the examples you've used a religious person wouldn't have a moral problem with Muslims who dress in ways consistent with their faith, so your example isn't valid. Again, I find nothing morally objectionable to serving gay people. I can understand however why someone would not want to participate in gay marriage, even though those marriages are legal, in some states. I think the market should decide wether those businesses are successful, not trial lawyers or the government.
 
roguenuke said:
No same sex couple has actually tried to force a same sex baker to cater their wedding, only either reported them or sued them for not doing so. In those cases, the couples went to a different baker for their wedding cake. The entire point is though that they shouldn't have had to go and there are laws in place against refusing to do business with someone due to their sexuality or sexes together, just as it is to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, races together, or sex/gender.
Click to expand...

Suing the baker for not catering their wedding is what, exactly? It says to me that: "You do as I please or else".
A great show of lacking tolerance on their part while expecting tolerance from the baker.
 
sawdust said:
These are all governed by individual morals. I'm sure you've seen signs that say no shirt, no shoes, no service. Businesses should, but I realize don't, have the right to not serve people who they morally believe violate the tenants of their religion. Businesses have sent workers home with what they believe to be inappropriate dress. Some banks have not served women whose faces are covered for security reasons not having to do with religion. Understand that I am not personally religious and don't object to anything but I support the right of business people to run their businesses in ways that they feel are morally appropriate as long as they don't discriminate against people based on race, sex or national origin.

Understand that in the examples you've used a religious person wouldn't have a moral problem with Muslims who dress in ways consistent with their faith, so your example isn't valid. Again, I find nothing morally objectionable to serving gay people. I can understand however why someone would not want to participate in gay marriage, even though those marriages are legal, in some states. I think the market should decide wether those businesses are successful, not trial lawyers or the government.
Click to expand...

No shoes or shirt can be justified by health concerns, but also are not protected against by laws that treat people differently.

For instance, you cannot force a Muslim owned grocery store to sell you pork products, but that same grocery store also cannot refuse to sell something they do offer to a woman who is not in a burqa or that doesn't have her hair covered, especially if they do not have the same rules for men.

Dress codes in businesses must be fairly consistent. And a bank that refused to serve a woman because her face was covered must also refuse to serve a man who has the same amount of his face covered. It cannot be inconsistent based on some protected class. Just as a restaurant cannot refuse to seat certain races or certain couplings of people in certain areas due to those reasons, but could refuse to seat people, in general in certain areas or sections of their restaurants, as long as it is a consistent and valid reason.
 
Lovebug said:
Suing the baker for not catering their wedding is what, exactly? It says to me that: "You do as I please or else".
A great show of lacking tolerance on their part while expecting tolerance from the baker.
Click to expand...

It says that your bigotry against me (and that is bigotry, just as it would be to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding) caused me hardship in some way, even if it was merely by having to find another baker solely because of something about a group I belong to.

All it takes is asking yourself if it were a baker who was refusing to bake a cake for a mixed race couple, or Jewish couple, or Asian couple due to claimed religious beliefs against those groups, should they have the same right to sue or not, or at least file a complaint? I think they should, especially in filing a complaint (suing to me would really depend on how far it got before the refusal was made and how much it cost them), because this type of behavior harms society. This is why it should be filing a complaint, and the government handle it from there, with fines, etc.
 
roguenuke said:
It says that your bigotry against me (and that is bigotry, just as it would be to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding) caused me hardship in some way, even if it was merely by having to find another baker solely because of something about a group I belong to.

All it takes is asking yourself if it were a baker who was refusing to bake a cake for a mixed race couple, or Jewish couple, or Asian couple due to claimed religious beliefs against those groups, should they have the same right to sue or not, or at least file a complaint? I think they should, especially in filing a complaint (suing to me would really depend on how far it got before the refusal was made and how much it cost them), because this type of behavior harms society. This is why it should be filing a complaint, and the government handle it from there, with fines, etc.
Click to expand...

The SSC may cause just as much hardship solely because of his believes/a religious group he may belong to.
Life is full of disappointments, regardless of sexual preference, ethnicity, color of creed. It is called life. Make the best of it, practice tolerance, aka practice what you preach, and move on.
 
Lovebug said:
The SSC may cause just as much hardship solely because of his believes/a religious group he may belong to.
Life is full of disappointments, regardless of sexual preference, ethnicity, color of creed. It is called life. Make the best of it, practice tolerance, aka practice what you preach, and move on.
Click to expand...

We have these laws in place for a reason, because there are people who would use their prejudices, their bigotry against certain groups to cause major issues for those people, to essentially try to run them out of town if they could. There may come a time when these laws are outdated, but that isn't yet.

Just because you believe it is full of problems/disappointments, doesn't mean that should be something we maintain just because. It isn't okay to just accept crappy treatment because some people believe a certain way.
 
roguenuke said:
No shoes or shirt can be justified by health concerns, but also are not protected against by laws that treat people differently.

For instance, you cannot force a Muslim owned grocery store to sell you pork products, but that same grocery store also cannot refuse to sell something they do offer to a woman who is not in a burqa or that doesn't have her hair covered, especially if they do not have the same rules for men.

Dress codes in businesses must be fairly consistent. And a bank that refused to serve a woman because her face was covered must also refuse to serve a man who has the same amount of his face covered. It cannot be inconsistent based on some protected class. Just as a restaurant cannot refuse to seat certain races or certain couplings of people in certain areas due to those reasons, but could refuse to seat people, in general in certain areas or sections of their restaurants, as long as it is a consistent and valid reason.
Click to expand...

You are talking about individuals and I am talking about a legal institution. I don't think businesses have the right to discriminate against individuals. I do think that businesses should be able to express their objection to certain social interactions codified by government if they find them morally objectionable. Frankly, gay marriage is the only example I can think of which some might find objectionable. Lets quit looking for anecdotal examples. I don't want to discuss wether or not a guy with no shirt can get halal meat in a Palestinian owned grocery.
 
Lovebug said:
Suing the baker for not catering their wedding is what, exactly? It says to me that: "You do as I please or else".
A great show of lacking tolerance on their part while expecting tolerance from the baker.
Click to expand...

As well as a textbook example of a wrong-winger speaking with a forked tongue, as wrong-wingers so often do.
 
sawdust said:
You are talking about individuals and I am talking about a legal institution. I don't think businesses have the right to discriminate against individuals. I do think that businesses should be able to express their objection to certain social interactions codified by government if they find them morally objectionable. Frankly, gay marriage is the only example I can think of which some might find objectionable. Lets quit looking for anecdotal examples. I don't want to discuss wether or not a guy with no shirt can get halal meat in a Palestinian owned grocery.
Click to expand...

Same sex couples are two individuals. It would be no different than if it was a business refusing because they were against interracial marriage or interfaith marriage or atheists getting married

Businesses have a right to express their feelings on an issue, but not to refuse service to people based on their feelings of that issue when doing so violated anti discrimination laws
 
Lovebug said:
1.)The same could be said about those who seek acceptance by any means necessary.
2.) Someone with different values from those who agree with SSM doesn't have to be bigoted, but may just have an opinion different from ours.
3.) Once we learn to truly tolerate those with whom we happen to disagree, we may just be able to live happily side by side.
4.) I.e., when a baker doesn't want to cater a SSM, he/she could politely and enthusiastically recommend a baker who does, and the SS couple could give it a try, instead of forcing the baker to cater to their wedding.
5.)Compromise is key, for bigotry isn't reserved for those who oppose SSM, but is also found among those who are SS etc and seek acceptance.
6.)We must listen to each other and hear, look for what unites us and brings us together. You catch flies with honey, not with complaisant remarks and attitudes or law suits.
Click to expand...

1.) examples?
2.) this is true it simply depends on thier actions
3.) agreed luckily equal rights is helping this and protects us all
4.) this COULD happened but theres ZERO force involved in which you speak. You are speaking of criminals who broke the LAW and violated the RIGHTS of others, Nobody to blame but themselves.
5.) I agree but your example isnt that
6.) also agree but again if one doesnt choose to be a criminal and break the law there is no law suit :shrug:
RULES, LAWS and RIGHTS apply to ALL OF US none of us get special treatment.
 
roguenuke said:
No same sex couple has actually tried to force a same sex baker to cater their wedding, only either reported them or sued them for not doing so. In those cases, the couples went to a different baker for their wedding cake. The entire point is though that they shouldn't have had to go and there are laws in place against refusing to do business with someone due to their sexuality or sexes together, just as it is to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, races together, or sex/gender.
Click to expand...

roguenuke said:
It says that your bigotry against me (and that is bigotry, just as it would be to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding) caused me hardship in some way, even if it was merely by having to find another baker solely because of something about a group I belong to.

All it takes is asking yourself if it were a baker who was refusing to bake a cake for a mixed race couple, or Jewish couple, or Asian couple due to claimed religious beliefs against those groups, should they have the same right to sue or not, or at least file a complaint? I think they should, especially in filing a complaint (suing to me would really depend on how far it got before the refusal was made and how much it cost them), because this type of behavior harms society. This is why it should be filing a complaint, and the government handle it from there, with fines, etc.
Click to expand...

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth

—George Orwell, 1984—​
 
Lovebug said:
1..)Suing the baker for not catering their wedding is what, exactly?
2.) It says to me that: "You do as I please or else".
3.) A great show of lacking tolerance on their part while expecting tolerance from the baker.
Click to expand...

1.) its standing up for the laws and rights that protect ALL OF US
2.) you are free to have that opinion but it has no logical support, because the request is not "do as I please" the request was do not break the law and violate rights.
3.) wrong again, how is protecting the law and standing up for ones rights lacking tolerance??? You must start with domino NUMBER 1 you cant pick one in the middle.
it was very stupid on the owners part to think the rules and laws that apply to us all dont apply to them.

Im a Christian and at no time would i ever be stupid enough to think that my personal religion allows me to ILLEGALLY discriminate against race, gender, religions etc etc

the solution is very simply, i would choose not to break the law and be a criminal
 
Lursa said:
I disagree but not by much. I see a difference in how someone thinks and if they actually act against it, like voting for example. Just because they 'personally' hold that tradition a certain way, view it 'their way,' doesn't mean they are bigoted against others.
Click to expand...


Lakryte said:
So a person who believes that black people are inferior and unintelligent and white people are superior, but doesn't act on it through a vote, is not a racist? Someone who tells people they do not believe white girls should marry black boys because black boys are all criminals is not a bigot, because they don't act on that? Really? Any sane person would say of course not, but you must answer yes to those statements to maintain the consistency of your position.


Of course not, but the example is not comparable whatsoever. My above example is far more comparable.
Click to expand...

You are taking this far off of my response and the topic. I am personally completely against pharmacists refusing to stock the Morning After pill. However I support their right to not sell it if voting or even on principle. I disagree with their use of their religious beliefs but I am not bigoted against their religion.

We are talking about SSM and I generalized more to 'traditions.' The Boy Scouts are a traditional organization....if someone wants to exclude women from that org., or that fancy golf course in Scotland that never let women play....are they bigoted against women? No...they just have their own perceptions of those traditions and recognize (to them, for whatever reasons) that females do not belong there. (Yes, we are talking about opinion here...right? I do realize that Scotland is not America and it is also probably a private org but the 'thinking' is the same.)
 
sawdust said:
These are all governed by individual morals. I'm sure you've seen signs that say no shirt, no shoes, no service. Businesses should, but I realize don't, have the right to not serve people who they morally believe violate the tenants of their religion. Businesses have sent workers home with what they believe to be inappropriate dress. Some banks have not served women whose faces are covered for security reasons not having to do with religion. Understand that I am not personally religious and don't object to anything but I support the right of business people to run their businesses in ways that they feel are morally appropriate as long as they don't discriminate against people based on race, sex or national origin.
.
Click to expand...

Why just those 3? There was religious justification for discriminating against blacks and women. That was not upheld. Someone here has posted entire speeches by politicians of the civil rights era using passages of the Bible to support segregation. I wish I had saved it, sorry.

Are we able to justify anti-discrimination laws or not? If so, why would sexual orientation be excluded (my own state recognizes that as a protected class)?
 
roguenuke said:
It says that your bigotry against me (and that is bigotry, just as it would be to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding) caused me hardship in some way, even if it was merely by having to find another baker solely because of something about a group I belong to.

All it takes is asking yourself if it were a baker who was refusing to bake a cake for a mixed race couple, or Jewish couple, or Asian couple due to claimed religious beliefs against those groups, should they have the same right to sue or not, or at least file a complaint? I think they should, especially in filing a complaint (suing to me would really depend on how far it got before the refusal was made and how much it cost them), because this type of behavior harms society. This is why it should be filing a complaint, and the government handle it from there, with fines, etc.
Click to expand...

How about this: can a Jewish bakery refuse to bake hot-crossed buns for Easter if someone comes in and orders them? Is that comparable to a bakery refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? (There are loads of Jewish bakeries in NJ where I'm from...they are more than happy to bake them, so it's a hypothetical.)

Edit: Ack! I guess it doesn't work because if they don't normally bake hot crossed buns, it wouldn't be discriminatory. Neva mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom