- 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
re: The Real Emerging Jim Crow Is the Gay Rights Movement and their Media
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:41 am to AlaTiger
Posted on 2/28/14 at 8:41 am to AlaTiger
quote:My feelings exactly. The bullied want to become the bullies.
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.
It's turned me from pro-ghey marriage to against it.
0
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:04 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Good Lord that is pathetic.
I've yet to see Toddy or anyone else notable on here take the stand that . . . Joe Photographer MUST be compelled by law to provide services to anyone
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:24 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
asurob1 may take offense that you do not consider him notable.
I don't spend a ton of time on the PoliBoard anymore...for obvious reasons...so I didn't read that 35+ pager that was linked above, which is why I did not see asu take that stance. It surprises me.
I'll still stand on what I said...nearly everyone here who has said they support the rights of gays to marry has said they would be against private businesses being forced to accommodate anything. That's even the case with us mean old nasty atheists. I've been very clear about this every time it comes up.
I stand with Liberty here. To deny homosexuals the right to the marry the person they choose denies them liberty. To deny a business owner the right to tell them he won;t shoot their wedding denies his liberty.
I'm consistent...who else is?
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:31 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
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.
That's fine, but you are still equating two situations that are not the same.
You are equating the "white guy who refuses to allow black people into his shop" with the christian florist who personally chooses not to participate in offering services for an event (gay marriage) that he/she feels is immoral. There is a huge difference that you've chosen to ignore. The florist hasn't made a blanket statement that homosexuals aren't welcome, or that he/she won't offer services to homosexuals in general. This is about the wedding.
The belief that private enterprises have a right to practice discrimination may have merit, but it's totally off point as it relates to what has really been going on.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:37 am to AlaTiger
How would you like it, if you were refused service in a restaurant because the manager there said you looked like a f a g g o t?
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 9:38 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:42 am to samson'sseed
quote:Nice Strawman. It hits the ridicule component quite well.
How would you like it, if you were refused service in a restaurant because the manager there said you looked like a f a g g o t?
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 9:43 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:47 am to Sentrius
quote:
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).
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act is obviously bigoted and the 97 senators including the yay votes in the house and Bill Clinton are also bigoted (but we already knew that about Bill).
Posted on 2/28/14 at 10:10 am to moneyg
quote:
You are equating the "white guy who refuses to allow black people into his shop" with the christian florist who personally chooses not to participate in offering services for an event (gay marriage) that he/she feels is immoral. There is a huge difference that you've chosen to ignore. The florist hasn't made a blanket statement that homosexuals aren't welcome, or that he/she won't offer services to homosexuals in general. This is about the wedding.
Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
You are now qualified as being more intelligent than nearly all of the Media in America.
I had a lot of respect for Kirsten Powers before this. She now appears to be just like all of the rest.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 10:11 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 10:11 am to moneyg
quote:
That's fine, but you are still equating two situations that are not the same.
I disagree. The difference is that I don't happen to think that a bigoted position derived from one's religious beliefs have any more merit than bigoted positions derived from any other place. As such, when a black racist denies a white person access to something, I find it just as appalling as a florist who refuses to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding...on moral grounds.
And yet, I support both of their rights to be bigoted when it comes to their private businesses. The fact that one's belief is religious carries no more weight for me than however the other got his. While I may find both to be shitty people with horrible beliefs, I still think they ought to be able to run their private business the way they see fit.
As for churches, this ought to be a non-starter. There is no circumstance where I'd stand with ANYONE telling a church they had to marry a homosexual couple. Ever. That's not to say I'd agree with their idiotic stand...I don't. But I respect their right to be as idiotic as they please. Much like the florist, hopefully there will be another institution that will pop up and take these people's money.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 10:12 am to samson'sseed
quote:
samson'sseed The Real Emerging Jim Crow Is the Gay Rights Movement and their Media How would you like it, if you were refused service in a restaurant because the manager there said you looked like a f a g g o t?
Well, now I know that you are either stupid or a liar or both because that is not what the bill was about and all of that is illegal and would remain illegal.
Plus, please show me one person calling for that.
If you don't understand the difference between eating a meal in a restaurant and facilitating a wedding, I can't help you.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 10:14 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I disagree. The difference is that I don't happen to think that a bigoted position derived from one's religious beliefs have any more merit than bigoted positions derived from any other place. As such, when a black racist denies a white person access to something, I find it just as appalling as a florist who refuses to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding...on moral grounds.
Well, that is your right to be wrong. What you described is not bigotry.
According to you, if a Gay Baker doesn't bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist thugs with the icing reading "God Hates figs" on it, then he is bigoted against them.
You leave no room for any moral determination except for what you personally approve of.
You have lost your mind.
And, thanks for declaring that people are free to be bigots. Whatever.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 10:15 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 10:18 am to moneyg
quote:
You are equating the "white guy who refuses to allow black people into his shop" with the christian florist who personally chooses not to participate in offering services for an event (gay marriage) that he/she feels is immoral. There is a huge difference that you've chosen to ignore. The florist hasn't made a blanket statement that homosexuals aren't welcome, or that he/she won't offer services to homosexuals in general. This is about the wedding.
The belief that private enterprises have a right to practice discrimination may have merit, but it's totally off point as it relates to what has really been going on.
Exactly. Well stated. Upvote. Blatant discrimination is not happening for no other reason than fear of consequences. What is happening is gay rights advocates challenging religious freedom in an effort to normalize homosexuality.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 10:26 am to samson'sseed
quote:
How would you like it, if you were refused service in a restaurant because the manager there said you looked like a f a g g o t?
name
that
altertroll
Posted on 2/28/14 at 12:43 pm to McLemore
The more that I read about what happened it the Arizona case, the more obvious it is that we are being lied to all day every day by people with a definite agenda.
Truth is dead.
Truth is dead.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 1:05 pm to AlaTiger
I started a therad along these same lines yesterday. I still can't figure out how we've gotten to the point where the 14th ammendment (equal protection clause) trumps the 1st ammendment (freedom of religion).
Posted on 2/28/14 at 1:55 pm to AlaTiger
quote:
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.
A trend over the last few years is for every liberal protest group to compare themselves to the civil rights movement. Now, ironically, conservatives are doing the same thing with this argument.
This argument will not go over well and will backfire completely. I'll bet you ten bucks that if you made this argument to the average liberal voter, you'd get some form of "Ooooh! Christian white people are soooooo oppressed!" It's truly Pavlovian. Talking points are fun.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:00 pm to samson'sseed
quote:I would laugh, walk outside, and go spend my money somewhere else.
How would you like it, if you were refused service in a restaurant because the manager there said you looked like a f a g g o t?
I would then tell everyone I know that they shouldn't go there.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:09 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I disagree. The difference is that I don't happen to think that a bigoted position derived from one's religious beliefs have any more merit than bigoted positions derived from any other place. As such, when a black racist denies a white person access to something, I find it just as appalling as a florist who refuses to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding...on moral grounds.
well stated...
Posted on 2/28/14 at 2:20 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I don't spend a ton of time on the PoliBoard anymore...for obvious reasons...so I didn't read that 35+ pager that was linked above, which is why I did not see asu take that stance. It surprises me.
It was really a pathetic thread for asurob1. He doesn't care at all about private property rights when something the owner does offends him. He basically was laughing, pointing, mocking and ridiculing everyone. I made good arguments on why the bill is a good thing and he was still in la la land.
He kept saying that he doesn't care of you want to be a racist bigot, so I asked him why does he want the gov't to stop them from being a racist bigot. No response there.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:07 pm to L.A.
quote:
I started a therad along these same lines yesterday. I still can't figure out how we've gotten to the point where the 14th ammendment (equal protection clause) trumps the 1st ammendment (freedom of religion).
I may be wrong about this but didn't the SCOTUS issue a ruling pertaining to this that involved Bob Jones University? This was sometime in the 1980's.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News