logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 804

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

Religious freedom is nonsense.

It’s generally accepted as given that the reason why early European colonists moved here was to pursue religious freedom, and that therefore it is one of the basic tenets the country is founded on. People in the modern age still use that as reasoning that the religous freedom of one can trump the civil rights of another, at least in America.

Religious freedom in the case of the Puritans, if I recall, was trying to get away from the Anglican Church, who weren’t really fans of them. Freedom of Religion, rather than religious freedom.

Freedom of Religion is the right to practice religion without the state saying “Christianity is illegal.” It is not a bad thing, and I would argue is almost necessary to separate church and state without banning religion outright. Religious Freedom, on the other hand, is usually used as a sanitized way of saying, “God justifies our anti-lgbt bigotry.” This is not OK in this day and age, as we try to move forward in acceptance.

Freedoms cannot be unilaterally applied, as certain freedoms will infringe upon and restrict others. In this case, the freedom to practice a religion that condemns a minority group and considers them sinful is in conflict with said minority’s right to be treated the same as any other person. Whose rights are more important here? I would say the right to be treated fairly and without bias to their minority status.

I disagree with the State’s decision to side with letting religion trump another’s liberty. It is a step backwards in having a tolerant society, and only serves to encourage discrimination.

Author
Time

The religious freedom to discriminate isn’t something I respect at all. If you as an adoption agency have a state contract then you have no right to deny anyone for religious reasons. Honestly, there’s a pretty good argument that anyone who is refusing to allow kids to have a home because they don’t like the parents’ harmless lifestyles shouldn’t even be in the adoption service to begin with.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

I want to actually read the amendment to the referenced bill, because I want to approach this with a balanced opinion, but this article doesn’t cite it. The article doesn’t at all say what bill it was.

Now, because I live in Oklahoma, I clicked on the link in the article that mentioned Oklahoma passing a law that “let welfare agencies discriminate against same-sex couples who want to foster or adopt children.” The linked-to article then immediately starts out with “Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, even those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with their religious beliefs.”

and… Yes? So? They’re faith-based organizations who hold to certain beliefs, and they want to be selective with regard to parents based on certain principles they hold to.

Well okay then. Moving on.

Then they shouldn’t get state contracts.

Do they? Maybe they shouldn’t.

They do, and they shouldn’t.

flametitan said:

Why should I be denied the right to adopt, the right to be a parent, because of something that doesn’t interfere with them?

You shouldn’t, if it doesn’t, but they think it does.

Honestly, I have really no tolerance for people’s senseless bigotry. I don’t respect anyone’s beliefs that involve condemning the totally innocent lifestyles of others. People that hold those beliefs need to modernize and get with times of the century that they’re living in. If they have a problem with providing a service to people, then they shouldn’t even be in that business. If you’re adopting kids out not because you want those kids to have homes but because you want to put them in homes that you see as compliant with your religious lifestyle then you need to step aside and let someone with a respectable moral compass takeover.

For myself, were I in the position, I would not deny you. But I can see the position of people in these organizations who perceive homosexuality as a harmful lifestyle choice. People often compare it to racism, but I don’t really agree with that comparison. As though all discriminatory activity, or selectivity, is created equal.

This is totally cold comfort. Imagine if I said that I wanted people to be able to discriminate against Christians, and you lived in a shithole that was full of people that didn’t want to serve you because of your religion, and I said, “Well, I personally would never discriminate against you. If I, mfm, were serving you then I wouldn’t discriminate, but I think everyone that wants to should! And you should respect that! You should respect the daycare that doesn’t want to take care of your kid because of your religious differences. You should respect the real-estate agents that won’t sell your property because they are uncomfortable working with you. You should respect the restaurants and bakers that won’t serve you.” What if a Mormon adoption service wouldn’t give kids to black parents or interracial couples back when that Church was super racist? How is that different? It would still have been their shitty religious belief. What if a Muslim agency was refusing to give any orphans or unwanted kids to people that they deemed infidels or apostates? They’re totally allowed to hold those backwards beliefs, but are they allowed to discriminate against people and disrupt their lives because of their shitty beliefs? No! They shouldn’t be anyway.

I do agree that love is love; that people who judge do so out of ignorance of the facts and of the teachings of their own faith; and that even if homosexuality is a sin, it is no more sinful than a myriad of other things people do on a daily basis. And I agree that government support should be called into question.

Called into question? Government support should be revoked immediately. It’s a violation of the separation of church and state for the government to work with discriminatory religious services.

But I don’t believe a baker should be required to bake a wedding cake for someone if he doesn’t want to do it. Doesn’t matter why he doesn’t want to, but if he doesn’t then he shouldn’t have to. If he faces public backlash for it then so be it. He could face backlash for baking bad cake as easily as baking no cake. JEDIT: At the same time, I think respect should also be a thing. The person providing said service should be able to respectfully decline, and the person denied the service should respect their choice. Either party getting pissy about it is juvenile.

I really hate this line of thinking. Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice? I don’t believe that anyone should respect the asshole that wants to discriminate against them. Should all those black people have respected the diners that respectfully told them they didn’t want them their? The cook at that diner really didn’t want black people there, and it’s his business! What if, instead of a wedding cake, it was some Christian that didn’t want any same-sex couples staying in his hotel? Where do you draw the line? If someone fucks me or you over because of their bullshit philosophy, then we should get pissy about it! The gay people getting angry over being denied service are not the equivalent of the Christian getting backlash over denying them service. Just like the Civil Rights Movement was not juvenile for fighting back against the racist assholes that were denying black people services.

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible? I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

No, I’m not. I don’t think that certain opinions are worthy of respect, and those views should be attacked with vitriol.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Of course. I know that, I’m saying that I do not care one little tiny bit about religious people’s “right” to discriminate. The right to discriminate and refuse service to people because of immutable characteristics is not a right that I value.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

It’s horrible, and keeping kids in that system in order to wait for parents that are less gay to adopt them is repugnant.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

flame is the name of the user mrebo was talking to.

.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Holy shit that’s funny. I thought he was saying that Collipso’s statement that calling homosexuality sinful was a flame post. Just say flametitan, then I won’t be confused next time.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Holy shit that’s funny. I thought he was saying that Collipso’s statement that calling homosexuality sinful was a flame post. Just say flametitan, then I won’t be confused next time.

Okay, moviefreakedmind.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

flame is an actual word and I’d never seen flametitan’s name shortened to that. Maybe you and others have done it before and I just didn’t see it. I don’t know. A better example would be if you referred to me as movie.

I probably won’t be confused by it again any time soon after this though so I guess it’s fine.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

No, I’m not. I don’t think that certain opinions are worthy of respect, and those views should be attacked with vitriol.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Of course. I know that, I’m saying that I do not care one little tiny bit about religious people’s “right” to discriminate. The right to discriminate and refuse service to people because of immutable characteristics is not a right that I value.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

It’s horrible, and keeping kids in that system in order to wait for parents that are less gay to adopt them is repugnant.

I have heard that the adoption process is rigorous. On the one hand that can minimize the risk of putting a kid in a bad situation, on the other hand it can discourage many people. I think the vast majority of kids in the system are there and would be there even if there were no discrimination. I really can’t imagine that there aren’t many kids available for adoption outside of religious adoption agencies.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice?

Because life is too short; there are likely other choices; and being respectful in general toward others should be the ideal.

One should be indignant, sure, but throwing a hissy fit just makes them look like a child and accomplishes nothing. And you don’t want to give someone incentive to pee in the soup you asked them to make (a la Fight Club).

JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice?

Because life is too short; there are likely other choices; and being respectful in general toward others should be the ideal.

It shouldn’t be. I think that respecting bad and irrational opinions has held America and the world back for way too long.

One should be indignant, sure, but throwing a hissy fit just makes them look like a child and accomplishes nothing. And you don’t want to give someone incentive to pee in the soup you asked them to make (a la Fight Club).

I don’t know how you define “hissy fit”. I guess Sarah Huckabee Sanders threw a hissy fit over getting kicked out of a restaurant, but what gay people have been throwing hissy fits in the middle of bakeries? Is suing them the equivalent of throwing a hissy fit? And why did you ignore the rest of my post? I thought it pretty well-reasoned. And throwing a “fit,” to use your language, actually accomplishes a lot. Vocal complaining has led to a lot of both great and terrible things in the world throughout the years.

JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

That isn’t even something that I’m aware of as being an issue. I don’t condone screaming in the face of some person in the lobby of an establishment, but that wasn’t what we were discussing at all so it didn’t really occur to me.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Author
Time

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Yeah. I have no idea where that came from. I think it’s a way of backpedaling the call for people to “respect” discriminatory fundamentalists, which I think is an unjustifiable stance.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Yeah. I have no idea where that came from. I think it’s a way of backpedaling the call for people to “respect” discriminatory fundamentalists, which I think is an unjustifiable stance.

I think people should strive to be polite. Some Many MANY people are asshats just because, regardless of whether it might be called for. In general, I think respect and general politeness is a laudable goal. I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but I don’t, for myself, think stomping around and making a scene is the proper way to get someone offering you a service to give you what you want.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

here we go again.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/coupon-dispute-prompts-white-cvs-manager-to-call-police-on-black-woman-report.html

I don’t know the full story, but either it is more than a black woman trying to use a coupon, or that manager has some sort of mental or physical disability. You don’t get shaken that visibly just from black woman trying to use a coupon, even if you are racist. Also if you list to the audio you can here a siren going off, why?

The local news my area already compared it to the incident of the two black men being arrested at Star Bucks.

I may or may not address more about this later, but I do with to address this:

While on the phone with police, Matson describes Hudson as “African-American,” to which she responds, “Black. No, I’m not African-American, I’m black. Black isn’t a bad word.”

Dear Ms. Hudson,

It may shock you realize this, but white people are not mind readers. They can’t tell before hand whether you prefer the term black or African American or whatever. You know for a fact that some people of your race consider African American and not black as the proper term. How this guy supposed to know which term you prefer(and I don’t think he should have to ask you when he is calling the cops on you). You may wish to ask why he has to refer to your race at all, well like it or not, your race is part of your description and one thing police are going ask when you call them is what the person you are calling about looks like. It frustrates and angers me that something so obvious needs to be explained. But I guess it does.

Sincerely,

The Warbler.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Yeah. I have no idea where that came from. I think it’s a way of backpedaling the call for people to “respect” discriminatory fundamentalists, which I think is an unjustifiable stance.

I think people should strive to be polite. Some Many MANY people are asshats just because, regardless of whether it might be called for.

Sure. Don’t respect them either.

In general, I think respect and general politeness is a laudable goal. I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but I don’t, for myself, think stomping around and making a scene is the proper way to get someone offering you a service to give you what you want.

That isn’t even what happened. You’re conflating lawsuits and protests with literally standing in an establishment and screaming like a psychopath. I don’t understand this.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Warbler said:

here we go again.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/coupon-dispute-prompts-white-cvs-manager-to-call-police-on-black-woman-report.html

I don’t know the full story, but either it is more than a black woman trying to use a coupon, or that manager has some sort of mental or physical disability. You don’t get shaken that visibly just from black woman trying to use a coupon, even if you are racist. Also if you list to the audio you can here a siren going off, why?

The local news my area already compared it to the incident of the two black men being arrested at Star Bucks.

I may or may not address more about this later, but I do with to address this:

People are way too eager to call police in this country.

While on the phone with police, Matson describes Hudson as “African-American,” to which she responds, “Black. No, I’m not African-American, I’m black. Black isn’t a bad word.”

Dear Ms. Hudson,

It may shock you realize this, but white people are not mind readers. They can’t tell before hand whether you prefer the term black or African American or whatever. You know for a fact that some people of your race consider African American and not black as the proper term. How this guy supposed to know which term you prefer(and I don’t think he should have to ask you when he is calling the cops on you). You may wish to ask why he has to refer to your race at all, well like it or not, your race is part of your description and one thing police are going ask when you call them is what the person you are calling about looks like. It frustrates and angers me that something so obvious needs to be explained. But I guess it does.

Well, when you’ve done nothing wrong and someone calls the police to say that there’s an unwanted African American in the building, you probably tend to get insulted and angry. I know I would. She’s braver than I am though because I’d have ran away immediately when the cops were called. The men and women in blue tend to have a nasty habit of brutally beating or murdering people.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:
I think people should strive to be polite. Some Many MANY people are asshats just because, regardless of whether it might be called for. In general, I think respect and general politeness is a laudable goal. I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but I don’t, for myself, think stomping around and making a scene is the proper way to get someone offering you a service to give you what you want.

Well, there’s a problem with that, even beyond the implications that you’re saying we should be tolerant of another’s intolerance.

These people don’t return the same respect that you ask us to afford of them. Violent assaults are still being conducted in the the name of anti gay bigotry. Conversion therapy is still legal in most of the United States, meaning that bigoted parents can elect to having their children religiously shamed and tormented for being LGBT (if they aren’t disowned outright, which is a very real possibility too.) And we’re the ones acting out for saying, “Hey, maybe you shouldn’t include a license for adoption centres to be homophobic in your bill”?

Finally, what do you want us to consider, “stomping around and making a scene?” Do you really think that people are going to make infantile temper tantrums? Are you saying we shouldn’t organize protests? Are you saying we shouldn’t discuss this matter with even the slightest bit of frustration and annoyance in our voice?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

here we go again.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/coupon-dispute-prompts-white-cvs-manager-to-call-police-on-black-woman-report.html

I don’t know the full story, but either it is more than a black woman trying to use a coupon, or that manager has some sort of mental or physical disability. You don’t get shaken that visibly just from black woman trying to use a coupon, even if you are racist. Also if you list to the audio you can here a siren going off, why?

The local news my area already compared it to the incident of the two black men being arrested at Star Bucks.

I may or may not address more about this later, but I do with to address this:

People are way too eager to call police in this country.

People are way too eager to assume racism in this country.

While on the phone with police, Matson describes Hudson as “African-American,” to which she responds, “Black. No, I’m not African-American, I’m black. Black isn’t a bad word.”

Dear Ms. Hudson,

It may shock you realize this, but white people are not mind readers. They can’t tell before hand whether you prefer the term black or African American or whatever. You know for a fact that some people of your race consider African American and not black as the proper term. How this guy supposed to know which term you prefer(and I don’t think he should have to ask you when he is calling the cops on you). You may wish to ask why he has to refer to your race at all, well like it or not, your race is part of your description and one thing police are going ask when you call them is what the person you are calling about looks like. It frustrates and angers me that something so obvious needs to be explained. But I guess it does.

Well, when you’ve done nothing wrong and someone calls the police to say that there’s an unwanted African American in the building,

We don’t know that she did nothing wrong. The fact that the guy is visibly shaken and that a siren was going off in the store seems to indicate that there is more to the story.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

People are way too eager to call police in this country.

A neighbor (as far as I knew) called the cops on me because I wouldn’t give him information after he angrily demanded it at my doorstep. People are crazy.

Author
Time

Handman said:

People are way too eager to call police in this country.

A neighbor (as far as I knew) called the cops on me because I wouldn’t give him information after he angrily demanded it at my doorstep. People are crazy.

Information about what?

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

It’s well and good to not tolerate intolerance. But that doesn’t mean it always can or should (let alone must) be abolished by law. Criticism and boycotts are two avenues for fighting intolerance.

Freedom means that people are going to be intolerant. We can do things like require all adoption agencies to not discriminate, but then deal with the repercussions of fewer agencies.

Force every bakery to make cakes and maybe there are fewer bakeries or maybe they donate a portion of their proceeds to a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage.

I see no logical end point in the quest to force people to not be intolerant, without abolishing the rights described in the US’s First Amendment.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

It’s well and good to not tolerate intolerance. But that doesn’t mean it always can or should (let alone must) be abolished by law. Criticism and boycotts are two avenues for fighting intolerance.

I see no logical end point in the quest to force people to not be intolerant, without abolishing the rights described in the US’s First Amendment.

Basically this.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.