- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Real Emerging Jim Crow Is the Gay Rights Movement and their Media
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:53 pm
quote:
I’ve been writing pro-gay marriage posts since I became a columnist at the Denver Post a decade ago. And though I don’t believe any of those columns or interviews with many gay Coloradans made much of a difference in the world, I do realize I was exceedingly gullible in believing that any group would be content simply being “left alone.” It’s clear that coexisting doesn’t only mean having the freedom to take part in the civil institution of marriage, but it also means compelling others into participation and acceptance.
LINK
quote:
Ginning up moral panic about “Jim Queer” reminds me a lot of the ginned up moral panic that hare-brained social conservatives who liken gay marriage to animal-human nuptials occasionally peddle. But worse. Worse because these analogies are widely accepted rather than widely laughed at. “Religious Liberty Is a Just Cause—Except When It’s Used to Justify Intolerance” is the headline of a Ron Fournier piece, not in Mother Jones or the Huffington Post, but in National Journal, which features, I kid you not, a picture of paratroopers in full battle gear escorting young black girls to school in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. This was the sort of inane analogy we saw across the media.
Is Arizona really one bill away from President Obama sending armed escorts so gays can walk through the streets of Phoenix unmolested? Are the gay men and women of Arizona one bill way from being denied the right to vote? You’d think so. Fournier likens Orval Eugene Faubus, the six-term Democratic governor of Arkansas, who deployed government force to deny black citizens equal protection, to Arizona business owners who haven’t discriminated against anyone and have no power to force anyone to do anything.
Actually, it’s Fournier who supports using government to compel religious Christians to participate in a ceremony that conflicts with their convictions — also, incidentally, orthodox Jewish photographers or Muslim caterers — or lose their businesses. Like the segregationists’ bogus concerns over public “safety,” Fournier suggests that belief in things like sacramental marriage is probably just a loophole for bigotry.
6
Posted on 2/28/14 at 12:18 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Even though I’m for marriage equality – next week I’ll be filing a brief supporting the challenge to the marriage laws of Oklahoma and Utah in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – I have no problem with Arizona’s SB 1062.
SB 1062 does nothing more than align state law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993). That is, no government action can “substantially burden” religious exercise unless the government uses “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling interest.” This doesn’t mean that people can “do whatever they want” — laws against murder would still trump religious human sacrifice — but it would prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religion if that can at all be avoided. Moreover, there’s no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category).
Dead on.
quote:
At the end of the day, that’s what this is about: tolerance and respect for other people’s beliefs. While governments have the duty to treat everyone equally under the law, private individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how – on religious or any other grounds. Those who disagree can take their custom elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.
And this too.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 12:23 am to Sentrius
But but but...it's an anti gay law, dammit. The media wouldn't lie! 
Posted on 2/28/14 at 12:28 am to Sentrius
Go ahead and call me a prophet if you want, but I've been saying this since way back. The LGBT crowd will stop at nothing to have their lifestyle accepted as normal and even seen as praiseworthy. And the media and those desperate to be seen as open minded and tolerant play right into their hands.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 3:26 am to Sentrius
The ultimate objective of the gay rights movement is Christianity.
They will try to use government to force churches to perform gay marriages. Churches who refuse will be further demonized and classified "hate groups". Its coming.
They will try to use government to force churches to perform gay marriages. Churches who refuse will be further demonized and classified "hate groups". Its coming.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 6:00 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Even though I’m for marriage equality – next week I’ll be filing a brief supporting the challenge to the marriage laws of Oklahoma and Utah in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – I have no problem with Arizona’s SB 1062. SB 1062 does nothing more than align state law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993). That is, no government action can “substantially burden” religious exercise unless the government uses “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling interest.” This doesn’t mean that people can “do whatever they want” — laws against murder would still trump religious human sacrifice — but it would prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religion if that can at all be avoided. Moreover, there’s no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category).
This is the issue isn't it? How far is the line pushed between protecting ones rights to religious freedom which is constitutionally protected, to having to accommodate someone's particular want? How is denying a gay couple a wedding cake based on religious conscience not protected? What kind of hardship is placed upon the gay couple to find a baker that will accommodate their request?
But if we allow gays to become a protected class and their cause to be classified as a civil rights issue, the religious freedom cause will quickly be relegated to the back seat for appeasement of this special interest group.
If gays chose to use a common sense approach to fighting for their rights instead of trying to force everyone to bend towards their will, perhaps a middle ground could be established? But I don't see that happening with their," all or nothing" strategy.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 6:18 am to EST
Preach it bro. Churches are the target of them in the end, schools are already teaching that homosexuality is "normal" behavior and that it is built into the DNA of some people. Millions of years of "evolution" of the species and homosexual behavior and procreation does not occur outside of heterosexual relationships or in vitro implantations.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 6:24 am to AlaTiger
Can we stop for just a minute and make note of the fact that not everyone that supports gay marriage supports everything the "gay rights movement" supports?
Posted on 2/28/14 at 6:55 am to FT
quote:
Can we stop for just a minute and make note of the fact that not everyone that supports gay marriage supports everything the "gay rights movement" supports?
No...we can't! OUTRAGE!!!!!!!
The fact is, most of us on here who have been both hard on the religious AND support the rights of gay people to marry have ALSO been very consistent on our belief that private institutions not be forced to accept anything. Be it Joe's Barber Shop, the florist down the street, or the Catholic Church. Part of freedom ought to be the freedom to make bigoted decisions if you feel like it. While I may not agree with the stance of the white guy who refuses to allow black people into his shop, or the black bar in Lafayette who up until a few years ago had a sign in their doors "No Whites Allowed" or the photographer who doesn't want to do work for a lesbian couple...it's their call and I support their right. If called upon, I'll vote that way. Hopefully businesses will pop up that DO cater to those folks not catered to by these dolts and everyone will be happy. Win-win.
When it comes to the PUBLIC sector, that's where that shite has to stop and we are no longer free to discriminate.
Now...be prepared to be told this was the plan all along and no one who supports same sex marriage sides with them.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:08 am to FT
Actually you cannot take that stance as the Toddys will not allow that brand of rebellion from their goals being expressed by anyone. There is no such thing as the equality of six of one and half a dozen of another in their heads.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:13 am to FT
quote:
FT The Real Emerging Jim Crow Is the Gay Rights Movement and their Media Can we stop for just a minute and make note of the fact that not everyone that supports gay marriage supports everything the "gay rights movement" supports?
Sure. I accept your word on that. But, I just observed a situation in America where for the last 2 weeks anyone who thought that the proposed Arizona law might be a good idea was considered equivalent to a Klan member.
The NFL was about to take the Super Bowl out of Arizona.
So, your request for understanding and "stopping for a minute" seems a bit silly in light of the fact that America just threw a colossal hissy fit at the idea that someone could not be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Religious Freedom took a huge blow. That's the First Amendment. Make no mistake. What is happening right now and what is being sacrificed for "gay rights" is part of the fundamental transformation of America.
For those who have wanted gays to have the same rights as everyone else, that's fine. But, when other rights aren't considered in that quest, we have a major problem.
Goodbye Constitution.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:18 am to CITWTT
quote:
Actually you cannot take that stance as the Toddys will not allow that brand of rebellion from their goals being expressed by anyone.
I've yet to see Toddy or anyone else notable on here take the stand that the Church MUST perform marriages or that Joe Photographer MUST be compelled by law to provide services to anyone. Supporting the rights of gays to marry doesn't automatically mean I quit supporting the freedoms of others to be bigoted if they so choose. One can support both.
If he has, and you can link it, I'll stand corrected. Until then, this reads like the usual complaining about being oppressed despite the fact that nearly everyone agrees with your side.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:43 am to JazzyJeff
quote:
The LGBT crowd will stop at nothing to have their lifestyle accepted as normal and even seen as praiseworthy.
This. Give them an inch and they want a mile. They claim to want equal treatment, but they really want preferential treatment. It never stops with them.
I really don't like how if you disagree with them, then you are labeled as a bigot. You will never convince me that "transgender" is normal behavior
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:50 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Well a thread with 600 or so comments would be a good place to find a bunch of people arguing that said Photographer MUST provide that service. Here you go.
anyone else notable on here take the stand that the Church MUST perform marriages or that Joe Photographer MUST be compelled by law to provide services to anyone.
LINK
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:57 am to EST
quote:
They will try to use government to force churches to perform gay marriages. Churches who refuse will be further demonized and classified "hate groups". Its coming.
It's coming just like clockwork. Anyone who believes otherwise is like a Democrat who says nobody wants to take your guns when it's pretty damn obvious they would if they could get away with it.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:07 am to JazzyJeff
quote:
Go ahead and call me a prophet if you want, but I've been saying this since way back. The LGBT crowd will stop at nothing to have their lifestyle accepted as normal and even seen as praiseworthy. And the media and those desperate to be seen as open minded and tolerant play right into their hands.
I have said the same since the movement became prominent all the while gay rights advocates have staunchly contended there is no conflict with freedom of religion.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:09 am to FT
quote:
Can we stop for just a minute and make note of the fact that not everyone that supports gay marriage supports everything the "gay rights movement" supports?
While I agree with your statement, your partial support will be counted as full support in statistics that the liberal media will bombard us with showing the overwhelming full support for the gay rights movement.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:16 am to EST
quote:
They will try to use government to force churches to perform gay marriages. Churches who refuse will be further demonized and classified "hate groups". Its coming.
What if you're right? What will the churches do?
Let's say you're the Pastor of a church in the Southern Baptist Convention and your church stands strongly against homosexual marriage.
The laws have been passed making gay marriage legal and now a gay couple wants to wed in your church. The reason isn't necessarily important - just for spite, one/both were raised in the church, it's the prettiest church, whatever.
Scenario 1 - A court orders you to perform the wedding and to not comply would be contempt of court and imprisonment.
Scenario 2 - A court decides that any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage is no longer considered tax exempt.
What would the Pastor and church leadership do in these scenarios?
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:31 am to ThePenIsMightier
Scenario 3 - The gays in question sue the church and win based on precedents set by liberal judges.
Bottom line: when liberals are in control, what is federal law doesn't matter if they don't want to enforce it (see immigration law and marriage law) and state laws they agree with in conflict with federal law will be ignored (see the recent marijuana laws and marriage laws). Translation: liberals selectively enforce laws to fit their agenda.
Bottom line: when liberals are in control, what is federal law doesn't matter if they don't want to enforce it (see immigration law and marriage law) and state laws they agree with in conflict with federal law will be ignored (see the recent marijuana laws and marriage laws). Translation: liberals selectively enforce laws to fit their agenda.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:38 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:asurob1 may take offense that you do not consider him notable.
I've yet to see ... anyone ... notable on here take the stand that ... Joe Photographer MUST be compelled by law to provide services to anyone.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News