Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 181 of 1484 (802352)
03-15-2017 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by NoNukes
03-14-2017 9:25 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
Didn't I already say that i was perfectly okay with suing and/or boycotting?
But I can understand that such a tactic might not achieve all that much if I tried it in Northwest Arkansas.
You do understand that your second sentence directly contradicts your first, yes?
First, there are no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in Arkansas. Thus, there is no recourse when it happens. That's why the incidents of gay couples going to establishments like bakers in places like Texas don't have any lawsuits happening: They aren't allowed to be filed because it is legal to discriminate against gay people there.
But if the law does exist, if there are protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, exactly how does it "not achieve all that much" to actually use them?
Once again, you're substituting your judgement for someone else's. You're not living their lives. You have no idea what they expect to accomplish by suing. For most of these people, they're not in it for the money. Remember, nobody puts their wedding on hold for years in order to settle a lawsuit...and they certainly don't expect to force the proprietor to serve them specifically.
They're in it for another reason.
And you don't get to tell them what it is or that it "doesn't achieve all that much."
Nobody's expecting you to take up arms.
You are being expected to not get in the way.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 9:25 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 182 of 1484 (802353)
03-15-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
03-15-2017 1:26 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK writes:
quote:
quote:
You seem to have not noticed that I dealt with that, too
That's because you didn't.
Except that I did. You know..that part where I specifically called her out by name? That's where I did.
You did read my post before responding, didn't you?
quote:
quote:
Remember, we can see your posts
I certainly do.
Then you should be careful about denying things you wrote.
quote:
You should also notice that my post is in a thread started by Faith to make the claim that "Gay Marriage is an assault in Christianity" and the first sentence describes her argument in the OP.
Yes, but I was responding to an internal point and then went on to discuss Faith.
Do you not understand anything about rhetoric? My god, you just said that we can see the posts, and yet here you are pretending like we can't. Do you just really like to see posts repeated?
Here's the entirety of your post (Message 145):
The whole basis for the claim that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity is based on the fact that a few Christian business openers have decided to defy State anti-discrimination laws and refuse to provide services to gay weddings.
In terms of both the scale and the limited connection to the Supreme Court decision this is absurd. That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
Indeed Faith herself puts any real concern for these people behind their use as a weapon against gay marriage - as seen by her refusal to even understand the laws under which they were convicted. And that is far from the worst of her behaviour.
But behaving badly does no better in making a case than ignoring the facts. Faced with intelligent, informed and rational opposition Faith was reduced to ranting and raving and finally running away.
And here's the entirety of my response (Message 151)
PaulK writes:
quote:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
Incorrect.
Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people.
And to that end, people have the right to be bigots. If they want to insist that their religion requires that gay people be considered tantamount to Satan, that's their right. After all, you're assuming you know the religion of the person being the bigot.
And as we have seen with Faith, trying to point out that the Bible doesn't say that or does say this other thing doesn't actually do anything. She's certain that anybody who contradicts her is an idiot and in league with the devil.
Remember, the florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding was refusing to provide service to someone she claimed was a "friend." She had been happy to provide her services to these men for years. She certainly knew they were gay. There were any number of chances at conversation to discuss what the Bible instructs.
But it doesn't matter. That's not what the law is for. Even if we assumed that they had those conversations, she's still free to reject it all and maintain her position.
What she doesn't have is the right to deny them service.
In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do.
You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine...is not considered.
I was generalizing out to the world at large. The attempts to point out that the so-called "Christian" message of doing good by your neighbors, respecting the laws of the country you are in, how being courteous and kind even to people whom you think to be the devil incarnate is not a sin, that's all been tried.
And sometimes it works.
But the government is not the one to give that lecture. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws.
And in the case of Faith, who will no doubt see any attempt to tell her that she doesn't understand her claimed religion as an attack (and potentially rightly so), it hasn't worked. Thus, we need the law.
quote:
Which simply demonstrates another failure to read in context on your part.
And thus, we trivially prove this claim to be false.
quote:
As should be clear from my earlier posts the assertion that "...it is not considered..." applies to Faith's argument.
You seem to have forgotten again that we have your post, NoNukes. You see, I just quoted it above. Oh, it's in the ellipsis. Let me give the full quote:
In terms of both the scale and the limited connection to the Supreme Court decision this is absurd. That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
Emphasis added.
So which is it, NoNukes? Was the "poor grounding in Christian doctrine" brought out in this discussion or was it not? If the "poor grounding in Christian doctrine" argument "is not considered."
Try again.
Here's a thought: Were you trying to say that "is not considered" is applicable to Faith or to those fighting against bigotry? Think about my response, because I deal with both aspects. Faith won't accept it (nor should she have to) and the people fighting have tried.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2017 1:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2017 5:50 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 183 of 1484 (802355)
03-15-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Tangle
03-15-2017 3:27 AM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
You just can't help yourself can you? If you want to discuss this with me you're going to have to turn down the aggression and stop calling me - among other things - a liar. Try it, you might make more progress.
If you don't like being called out for your actions, stop engaging in those actions.
You say you wish a "reasoned and reasonable discussion" and then immediately follow it by sneering you didn't read the post.
Those two actions are in conflict, Tangle. People are complicated and can easily have contradictory feelings at different times, but let us not play dumb.
If you want to have a "reasoned and reasonable discussion," you're going to have to turn down the attitude and start engaging.
Try it.
You might make more progress.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 3:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:59 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 184 of 1484 (802358)
03-15-2017 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Modulous
03-15-2017 5:00 PM


Re: related issues
Modulous writes:
It's always calm. You generally sit quietly, most of the work is done in writing and the rest is using inside voices......It can be stressful. That said, every lawsuit I've initiated was entirely stress free.
Ever given evidence in a witness box? It sounds like you may have - if you found that stress free you are unique to the world. Most have sleepless nights as a minimum and it's in their minds constantly. Some can hardly speak in the witness box, some are full of nervous bravado - it's a very few that appear calm and collected. They're usually the criminals.
As for the rest, I'm not going to repeat myself after this.
I'm making a general point that a very major battle has been won, it's a brilliant achievement, it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry - each one of which results in a national outrage polarising opinion and hardening views.
I'm not going to defend this point further, it's just my opinion.
People are allowed to have opinions that differ from other people, or so I'm told.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 5:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 6:15 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 6:31 PM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 185 of 1484 (802360)
03-15-2017 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Rrhain
03-15-2017 5:31 PM


Re: No case at all
quote:
Except that I did. You know..that part where I specifically called her out by name? That's where I did.
You did read my post before responding, didn't you?
I certainly did. Too bad you didn't read mine.
To repeat you STILL have not noticed that when I wrote
...That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
I was referring to Faith's argument.
quote:
Do you not understand anything about rhetoric? My god, you just said that we can see the posts, and yet here you are pretending like we can't. Do you just really like to see posts repeated
Do you like appearing as an obtuse idiot who can't admit his errors even when they are pointed out ? Because that is what you are doing.
quote:
You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made:
And as I keep pointing out you didn't notice that it was about Faith's argument. Did you not notice that every sentence preceding it, as well as the post title itself was about Faith's argument ? Did you not notice me pointing out your mistake again and again ?
quote:
Here's a thought: Were you trying to say that "is not considered" is applicable to Faith or to those fighting against bigotry? Think about my response, because I deal with both aspects. Faith won't accept it (nor should she have to) and the people fighting have tried.
Let me try rephrasing. One of the problems with Faith's argument is that she fails to consider that the business owners would be better off seeing that they do not have to discriminate on the grounds of religion. Which would certainly be true if they were duped by the opponents of gay marriage into believing that they had a religious duty to discriminate.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 6:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 186 of 1484 (802362)
03-15-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rrhain
03-15-2017 5:34 PM


Re: related issues
Rrhain writes:
If you don't like being called out for your actions, stop engaging in those actions.
Very, happy to be challenged - that's why we hang out here, just not willing to discuss it with someone who can't control his behaviour.
Cool the accusations and aggression, stop creating straw men, try to understand what I'm saying. You never know I just might have a point worthy of consideration. Or not. But you'll never know if you're forever fighting.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:34 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 6:15 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 187 of 1484 (802363)
03-15-2017 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by PaulK
03-15-2017 5:50 PM


Re: No case at all
PaulK responds to me:
quote:
I certainly did.
Clearly, you didn't. Or, you wouldn't be saying just a bit down:
quote:
To repeat you STILL have not noticed that when I wrote
...That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
I was referring to Faith's argument.
Because lookie here! Here's what I wrote:
quote:
Here's a thought: Were you trying to say that "is not considered" is applicable to Faith or to those fighting against bigotry? Think about my response, because I deal with both aspects. Faith won't accept it (nor should she have to) and the people fighting have tried.
So, trivially proven false.
Do you like appearing as an obtuse idiot that can't admit his errors when they are pointed out? Because that is what you're doing.
So now that we've both decided the other is a fool, what next? I can keep pointing out that you didn't notice that I responded about Faith's argument, but what good will that do? I can keep pointing out your mistake again and again, but since you won't admit to it, where do we go from here?
it's your argument, NoNukes. If you think I've completely missed it, why don't you try restating it another way?
Oh, lookie here! You tried!
quote:
Let me try rephrasing. One of the problems with Faith's argument is that she fails to consider that the business owners would be better off seeing that they do not have to discriminate on the grounds of religion.
And why do you think that is?
Could it possibly be because, as she directly stated, she doesn't think they would be better off? Is not getting sued worth selling your soul to the devil? Because that's her opinion.
And, as I directly stated in my response, she's entitled to it. It's only because of the specific religion she chose that we can even have an argument that she might not have the best grounding on Christian doctrine. What happens when we come along the next baker who refuses to provide service to a gay couple on the basis of religion and they aren't a Christian? What then?
quote:
Which would certainly be true if they were duped by the opponents of gay marriage into believing that they had a religious duty to discriminate.
And there we are: It doesn't matter what religion they follow. The law in those states where people got sued is that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. And no, there is no religious exemption to that regulation. Just as we didn't coddle people trying to claim a religious exemption to serving black people during the Civil Rights Era, we aren't going to coddle people trying to claim a religious exemption to serving gay people now.
Of course, that still leaves the original problem: Is not getting sued worth selling your soul to the devil?
Well, I provided a solution: Private contractor. They have much more freedom regarding who they will serve as clients. If a person's immortal soul is at stake, then don't open your business to the public.
That is what Faith refuses to consider.
There's another option. It's the one that the florist in Washington chose: Don't do weddings. She's still in business, but she no longer caters to weddings. You can't be "forced to validate" a gay wedding if you don't provide your services for weddings.
And I say this because Faith shouldn't have to change her religious opinion. That's the point behind religious freedom: Stick to your beliefs. The regulations that we have regarding activity in the public square might require you to avoid certain parts of it if those beliefs are in conflict, but nobody is going to demand that you change them.
And that's why in this thread I haven't really tried to discuss religious dogma with Faith.
It's irrelevant. If she thinks selling something to a gay couple that will be used during a wedding is "validating" the wedding, more power to her. I'd like to know how since my opinion is that the only ones "validating" the wedding are the people getting married and the officiant. Everything else is just window dressing. It doesn't matter the religious background...I want to know the physical mechanics of how having a flower upon someone's jacket "validates" the wedding.
She just needs to pay attention to how she's interacting with the public so that she doesn't break the law by stepping on other people's rights.
I do think we both agree on that point, at least.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2017 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2017 6:22 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 188 of 1484 (802364)
03-15-2017 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tangle
03-15-2017 5:46 PM


Re: related issues
Ever given evidence in a witness box? It sounds like you may have - if you found that stress free you are unique to the world.
Almost all lawsuits don't require this. This also feels like an equivocation is at play.
You said we should 'calm down dear' meaning we are being hysterical or disproportionally emotional when we sue for being discriminated against. Then when I object by pointing out that taking legal action is the dispassionate way of handling being discriminated against, you counter that it can be stressful?
So what if it can be stressful? That isn't the point I was making. My point was that it was not the panicky hysteria of the woman from the e-sure adverts. Michael Winner was saying, instead you should engage in the dispassionate response: Sue the person responsible for the car accident and have them pay for the damages rather than screaming and crying excessively on the roadside. Well actually he was saying 'it's only a commercial', but you know.
I'm making a general point that a very major battle has been won, it's a brilliant achievement, it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry - each one of which results in a national outrage polarising opinion and hardening views.
Yes, it'd be a shame. Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:19 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 7:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 189 of 1484 (802365)
03-15-2017 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Tangle
03-15-2017 5:59 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
just not willing to discuss it with someone who can't control his behaviour.
And yet, I'm still talking to you, so clearly I am willing to discuss it...even with people who can't control their behaviour.
Drop the attitude, stop running away from rebuttals of your argument, try to pay attention to what other people are saying.
You never know, you just might learn something. Or not. But you'll never know if you're forever running away.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:59 PM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 190 of 1484 (802366)
03-15-2017 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Rrhain
03-15-2017 6:13 PM


Re: No case at all
And you are wrong again. Obviously if you had realised that I WAS talking about Faith's argument (after being told repeatedly) you wouldn't have to ask.
As to where we go from here, you can admit that you were wrong, that you were ridiculously obtuse and apologise for all this silly time-wasting nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 6:13 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 6:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 191 of 1484 (802367)
03-15-2017 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tangle
03-15-2017 5:46 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle writes:
quote:
I'm making a general point that a very major battle has been won
Really? What was won?
When Loving v. Virginia was decided, did that mean there was fair housing?
quote:
it's a brilliant achievement, it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry - each one of which results in a national outrage polarising opinion and hardening views.
I see...so when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967, it was "petty" to continue to fight for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act). It was "petty" to fight for busing as a means to desegregate schools (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 1971)? It was "petty" to fight for affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978)? It was "petty" to fight to revoke the tax exempt status of schools that practice racial discrimination (Bob Jones University v. The United States, 1983)?
Heck, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. What is "petty" to fight for marriage rights in Loving v. Virginia?
After all, it just "resulted in a national outrage polarizing opinion and hardening views." Are you seriously arguing that because bigots gotta bigot, people shouldn't actually fight for their rights? The only time we should stand up for ourselves is when nobody would be upset by doing so?
What are these "petty" incidents you keep talking about? Who died and made you the arbiter of what was "petty"?
What's the point of having an anti-discrimination law if you are "petty" for invoking it when required?
quote:
People are allowed to have opinions that differ from other people, or so I'm told.
Yep.
And other people are allowed to have opinions on your opinion such as pointing out the inherent bigotry in said opinion.
If you don't like having your opinions scrutinized, perhaps you should reconsider where you express them. Freedom of speech does not come with freedom from response or freedom from consequences.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:46 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 192 of 1484 (802368)
03-15-2017 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
03-15-2017 6:22 PM


Re: No case at all
PaulK runs away:
quote:
And you are wrong again. Obviously if you had realised that I WAS talking about Faith's argument (after being told repeatedly) you wouldn't have to ask.
And you are wrong again. Obviously, if you had realized that when I said the name, "Faith," I WAS talking about Faith (after being shown repeatedly), you wouldn't keep saying I wasn't.
So, assuming you wish to continue, you can admit that you were wrong, that you were ridiculously obtuse, and apologize for all this silly time-wasting nonsense.
See, I can sling it just as easily as you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2017 6:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2017 1:22 AM Rrhain has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 193 of 1484 (802369)
03-15-2017 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Modulous
03-15-2017 6:15 PM


Re: related issues
Modulous writes:
Yes, it'd be a shame. Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?
In the case of the US I would say that there is a very high probability of that happening.
The political party that currently controls the House and the Senate as well as the Executive Branch are also in the position to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice that will determine whether it is a liberal or conservative court as well as over 100 Federal Court Judges and any other Supreme Courts seats that come open in at least the next four years.
In the US those judges pretty much serve for life or until they decide to retire and it is very difficult to "fire" one.
The issue of same-sex marriages is already not a popular position with the political base of the party in power.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 6:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 7:31 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 194 of 1484 (802370)
03-15-2017 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by jar
03-15-2017 7:19 PM


Re: related issues
In the case of the US I would say that there is a very high probability of that happening.
What's the reason?
The political party that currently controls the House and the Senate as well as the Executive Branch are also in the position to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice...The issue of same-sex marriages is already not a popular position with the political base of the party in power.
You think Donald Trump won the election because of a dozen or so lawsuits/reports of regulatory breaches? Do you think this supports the notion that the 'rest of society' now considers same sex marriage as less important? Do you think these lawsuits are the causative factor in 'national outrage'?
The issue of same-sex marriages is already not a popular position with the political base of the party in power.
It was never popular with those people. Do you have reason to suppose that other people think that the victory regarding the general right of same sex marriage is in danger of losing 'its import' as a result of people fighting for their rights in specific/individual cases?
Why is this not also true of the other side? Why is the argument that the important victories of religious freedom are also in danger as a result of people using it to discriminate against queerfolk not being brought up here? The bigots claim to be fighting for their rights to harm others, but this is not a concern for religious freedom rights where same-sex couples are fighting for their rights to not be harmed is being subject to finger wagging. This seems a little unfairly asymmetric to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:56 PM Modulous has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 195 of 1484 (802371)
03-15-2017 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Modulous
03-15-2017 6:15 PM


Re: related issues
Modulous writes:
You said we should 'calm down dear' meaning we are being hysterical or disproportionally emotional when we sue for being discriminated against.
You're objecting to something that I didn't say? Something you'd have preferred me to say because you have a boilerplate response? Wtf?
Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?
I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes. And yes, I do consider refusals to supply cakes from religious idiots trivial. And yes, I know that these things might seem important to the individuals involved. But allowing Christians to martyr themselves over and over publicly may not be smart.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 6:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 8:23 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024