Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 197 of 1484 (802375)
03-15-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Tangle
03-15-2017 7:36 PM


don't rock the boat
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?
Well no, I'm objecting to what you did say:
quote:
quote:
If you're just nice and wait for the bigots to do the right thing, they'll do so?
Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.
I'm objecting to you saying 'we should calm down dear', by pointing out that taking legal action is calming down. It's the cold, dispassionate response to harm. Yelling, fighting, smashing property....that's the heated response to harm. That's the kind of action that merits 'calm down dear' in the aftermath of winning the 'main battle'. Saying 'Your honour, this person has harmed me, please evaluate my evidence and make a judgement as a disinterested arbiter' is the epitome of calm. I'm objecting to you switching your meaning of 'calm down dear' to 'don't take stressful actions by going to court', which doesn't make sense in your original points.
You weren't suggesting people not sue or complain to regulatory committees because its a stressful process. But because, to summarize, it creates more heat than light and turns people off the cause.
If you want to talk me through how your comment that people should 'calm down dear' meant 'don't put yourself through what might be a stressful action' I'm all ears.
Also, as a side note, quietly living with having been discriminated against is also stressful.
I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.
I'm fine with people being irritated. Hopefully they'll realize the bigots are the cause of the irritation, and not the people being harmed by them and asking the courts for justice.
Also, the fact that you think it is a trivial matter to be denied service because of who you are marrying is a strong indication you haven't lived through the years of discrimination without any recourse. You haven't felt the pain of institutional prejudice over and over and over again denying you access to one thing after another. You haven't felt the hurt of a lovely day planned to go out tasting cakes for your special day being soured by someone reminding you they think you are still awful and not deserving, that they can get away with it because 'whaddya gonna do about it'. The years of bullying, humiliation, the being driven to the depths of suicidal despair through death from a thousand cuts.
Sure, you say, one cut is nothing. It's trivial. Calm down dear. It's not one cut. It's not trivial. When a business sneers at you because of your sexual orientation, your race, your class, your sex, gender, age....it is a real psychological harm and it doesn't occur in a vacuum. When that business brags about how brave they are for doing it, and publishes your name and telephone number on their Facebook page - this has consequences, even if it is 'only' the consequence of causing fear, stress and sadness.
Trivial? Please don't trivialise other people's struggles, other people's pain.
And yes, I know that these things might seem important to the individuals involved.
They are important. So important in some cases, people are willing to risk stress and/or financial loss to seek remediation/vindication/validation/justice.
But allowing Christians to martyr themselves over and over publicly may not be smart.
I don't see why it's not smart. I think its smarter than allowing them to continue discriminating over and over again publicly. I think its smarter than living with having been discriminated against and having done nothing, with the knowledge sat their gnawing at you, plaguing you. With your happy wedding day being interrupted with those echoing voices of 'sorry we don't serve your kind' and the images of smug faces, of remembering that for every 1 person who is openly bigoted there are probably a thousand who won't tell you how they feel and will find ways to be shitty to you without detection such as spitting in food, saying 'sorry we're full', and all other ways of denying or tainting access to goods and services.
We are individuals, the problems that affect us are ours. If someone harms me, why should I think 'is this strategically wise for the Great Cause?' before I seek justice? What good does that do me? What is the better strategy, in your opinion? Ignoring the denial of services?
IF your girlfriend/wife/mother/sister was denied a job as a doctor or a programmer because they were a woman, if the business publicised that they had done this, and named your loved one as an example of them doing it... would you counsel them to just let it slide out of fear of harming the cause of feminism? What if they were denied entry to a restaurant, archery tutelage, access to a toilet facilities, the purchasing of furniture, or phone services, biscuits?
When does a service denial go from trivial in your mind to something one would be justified to taking action? What's the better strategy?
Do the same rules of not rocking the boat for fear of upsetting the cause apply to all protected classes, or just queers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 7:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:38 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2017 4:09 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 199 of 1484 (802377)
03-15-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by jar
03-15-2017 7:56 PM


don't tip the boat over
I think that helped play a big part.
Do you have evidence of this? Not just 'played a part' but a big part. Specifically the hearings related to denial of services for homosexuals.
I think that is a really stupid pair of questions that are classic bumper sticker conman tactics.
No, those questions are pertinent because that was what was being discussed. Watch:
I'm not sure what 'national outrage' or the 'rest of society' are or why they would matter.
Here is what you were replying to:
quote:
quote:
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?
What will determine what happens in the US over the next decade or so will depend to a great extent on what the folk like Faith think.
Folk like Faith will be anti-gay marriage, and pro-anti-gay-marriage candidates and judges until the day they die. She was that way when Christian business owners weren't getting successfully sued, after all. So I fail to see why we should worry about changing the likes of her kind of mind by abstaining from successfully fighting injustices in court now that we have the power to do so.
The lawsuits won can be over turned far more easily than it might seem.
Only those that still have lawful avenues of appeals left open. At least several of the few cases that have happened have already exhausted this avenue. You can't retroactively claim money back after you've been sued and lost your appeal, even if the law changes in the future.
The judicial culture could change such that those lawsuits can never happen again of course, but that would be an identical situation in practice to where the lawsuits are possible but nobody ever sues out of fear of changing the judicial culture so they will lose that power. So this is a bit of a dead end thought process I think.
It's not a matter of what other people think but rather about what the party in power wants.
I was talking to Tangle, who was talking about the ordinary man on the street. So take that point up with him, not me.
That's simply. Ignorance.
You're ignorant? Tangle is ignorant? OK, that might be want I'm insinuating in some fashion, but if you want to explicitly admit it...
And do not think for a second that the reality in the US is that Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and may other things we have considered as settled are not also threatened.
I don't think that. I'm just pointing out that saying 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won' is an asymmetric point unless you also say 'don't deny services because you threaten the victories you won'.
But the response is that those issue only effect "THEM" and not us.
And the pain and harm of being denied services effects those denied the services. Saying 'sssh, don't take any action - you'll rock the boat' pretty much renders the victories meaningless. The entire point of fighting to get sexual orientation as a protected class that cannot be denied public accommodation was so that people can sue when they are denied goods and services because of their membership in said protected class!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:58 PM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 201 of 1484 (802379)
03-15-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
03-15-2017 8:38 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
First, if the service denial is not something that effects safety, economic well being or health...
Denying someone any service because of their sexual orientation does in fact impact health. So the first point is met.
Second, is the service denial institutional; that is is it government sanctioned
Why is this on this list?
Third, if the issue is denial of service at a particular shop or store and not systemic
How would an individual know if their individual and evidenced case of discrimination was systemic? How is it trivial to be discriminated against if it isn't systemic?
...the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?
Suing people is not about making a point. It's about restitution after injury or loss.
There is no right to not be offended.
Same sex couples are not suing because they are 'offended'. They are suing because their rights have been denied. There is a right to sue for this, which is how they are in fact able to do this.
There are areas I believe well worth fight over, the right to get married, the right to access in health care, the rights of inheritance and of adopting kids and holding a job and basic health care and so many, many other things. These are issue where a case can be made that there is a general benefit to all from anti-discrimination laws and enforcement.
Yes, but once you have those rights - what's the point if private institutions just ignore them and there is no legal ramifications for so doing?
Homosexuals have the right to the same access to publicly available services as straight people. This right has been fought for and won. It cannot be a general benefit however, if you say 'but individuals shouldn't take specific cases where businesses deny this right to court or regulatory agencies'? If all individuals are discouraged from doing this, then the general benefit is non-existent.
The reality in the US right now though is that there is not just a possibility but rather a likelihood of a reactionary backlash that can easily undo any advancements made during the last half century or more and undo them in a manner that will preclude restoration within several generations.
There's always backlash in the aftermath of civil rights movements. Businesses got sued for failing to provide access to the disabled - some people thought it was unfair that businesses had to invest in wheelchair ramps etc. The same goes for black folk. And let's not forget the resistance to feminism.
Are queerfolk an exceptional case for some reason? Should we cower in the face of bigotry because bigots might fight back?
By not acting on the advancements, there is no actual advancement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 9:32 PM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 203 of 1484 (802381)
03-15-2017 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
03-15-2017 8:58 PM


Re: don't tip the boat over
And I would reply that that is simply a meaningless bumpersticker carny con job.
And I reply that you've found a meaningless new slogan and are trying to apply it everywhere you can.
Life and reality are not symmetrical.
Obviously.
Nor has anyone suggested 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won'
Yes, they have.
rather don't sue over small annoyances or things that offend you unless you can make a marketable case that will stand up to public opinion as well as legalities.
The cases we are talking about are not small annoyances or merely things that offend. Denial of service because of your sexual orientation etc is very harmful. They lead to very bad places. Trust me. I've been in those bad places. Please stop trivialising things that have almost killed me multiple times as 'small annoyances'. Thank you.
WOW. And here I thought it was to actually get public accommodation.
*facepalm*
No jar. That's a carny conjob right there.
You make it a law prohibiting a practice so that action can be taking when the prohibited action takes place. The desired end result is hopefully, people stop taking the prohibited action - but this is unlikely to happen universally - especially not initially, due to the aforementioned backlash.
There is literally no point in enacting those laws, if you don't subsequently use them where applicable. Otherwise there is no deterrent to continuing to engage in the prohibited action.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:58 PM jar has not replied

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


(1)
Message 205 of 1484 (802383)
03-15-2017 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
03-15-2017 9:32 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Yawn.
And Yawn yet again.
You have every right to believe as you do.
Good luck.
Let me know when you want to re-engage with the subject matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 9:32 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 238 of 1484 (802468)
03-16-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Tangle
03-16-2017 4:09 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Correct, so drop all the other nonsense that you introduced.
So we agree that suing someone is, in fact, calm and all that nonsense you introduced about the stress of reporting and suing is a red herring? Great.
I'm merely pointing out that it might turn out to be counterproductive.
It might also turn out to be productive. What good does listing possibilities do, exactly?
I understand why you may want to extract revenge for past harm and with the hope of warding off future harm.
That's not what I'm proposing. I'm telling you why it is harmful and why it is justified to seek redress for this these harms.
I'm merely pointing out that to do so by reacting to every slight of closed-minded bigots might turn out to be counterproductive.
Being denied services isn't merely a 'slight'. A slight might be the cake maker saying 'A gay marriage? Why would you marry a fag?' or something. And again, saying something obvious that something might be counterproductive in some way is meaningless.
Please don't corrupt my argument. A cake is trivia and always will be.
I'm not corrupting your argument. I'm explaining why being denied service is not trivial.
I understand that it stands for more than the cake, and I understand that you feel that you've suffered for being what you are, and it's fun to mess with bigots - maybe once.
Gay people aren't a singular hive mind. Do you have any evidence of a same sex couple who habitually sue for being denied service? Otherwise people are generally indeed only doing it once. And it's not for fun. It's to redress actual, tangible, quantifiable injury.
Because the main battle has been won.
What are talking about? There have been many battles, which is the main one? It wasn't 'same sex marriage' that's for sure. The main battle is equality, surely. This particular isn't about the battle to get same-sex marriage, it's about the battle to get equal access to services and goods mandated. That battle was won, but there is no point winning that battle if the mandate is not enforced.
What's the point in having equal rights on paper, if you don't have it in practice?
You can ride above the slights of the bigots and just ignore them when the issue is trivial. Like a bloody cake.
It's not trivial. Again, you trivialise the effects of being denied service because you are gay or a woman or black etc. It's the kind of oppressive bullying actions that has lead to self harm and suicide. I'm telling you this as someone has experienced it first hand.
It's not the cake, it's the denial of service because you happen to be queer or female or... basically it's the not being treated with dignity, it's the not being treated with equality, it's not something that happens only once to a person, but rarely, on occasion, there is enough evidence it happened that you can take legal action. There is a real psychological harm in this, a psychological harm that is deleterious to health, in egregious cases it can be a significant contributive factor in the loss of life, in minor cases it can cause loss of sleep, long term raised blood pressure, chronic anxiety, despair and depression, this can lead to loss of employment, friends, and more. It IS NOT trivial.
You can't change them, you can only change society generally over time by simply being everyday citizens that don't reach for a law suit every time they feel offended by an idiot.
It's not about being offended. The individuals aren't simply acting with the intent of changing society. They might be trying, in part, to change business practices, but they can only sue because they can show injury or loss of some kind.
If I, and any other protected class, reached for a lawsuit everytime an idiot did or said something offensive I'd have thousands of lawsuits. I've never sued over being offended. None of the people I've seen in the cases under discussion have sued for being offended.
Have you stopped and considered that by going around reframing this situation as being about being 'offended' about 'trivial' things, you might be causing the very harm, and enacting the counterproductiveness you are warning about? They said this kind of shit to black people after the civil rights victory, and our historical hindsight can see that this was harmful behaviour then. The said this about women. It was harmful then/now. Why is it not harmful to say it about LGBT folk today?
They apply to everybody. We all get annoyed by the behaviour of others. Some things are worth the effort of doing something about it, somethings aren't.
I'm 99% sure that most denials of service, even when explicitly against a protected class, don't result in a lawsuit. There have been a handful over the past 2 years. Sometimes it really is worth the effort.
If you want to win the hearts of the nation you've just conquered on the battlefield, it's generally thought a bad idea to bayonet their wounded. The word magnanimous springs to mind.
The battle was for the right to be able to take action against people who deny queer people services. It would have been pointless fighting if action isn't taken when bigots deny queer people services.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2017 4:09 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2017 5:46 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


(6)
Message 303 of 1484 (802561)
03-17-2017 4:29 PM


Moose writes:
In support of the (for lack of a better phrase) "don't go too far when promoting pro-LGBT policy" theme.
It really is disheartening. It's like anytime a gay person acts they have a duty to 'promote pro-LGBT policy' and they shouldn't defend the rights they have won in their battles because it might be irritating, it might turn people off, it might undermine some grand strategy. Let's look at Sweet Cakes by Melissa case:
In January 2013 Rachel and her mother attended a cake tasting at the shop after having spoken and arranged it at an Expo. When asked the name of the bride and groom by Aaron, they were corrected that it was two brides and they were refused service. Rachel began to cry, feeling most that her mother, Cheryl had been humiliated by the experience. She felt distraught because her mother had until recently been homophobic and was anxious she was ashamed of her. Rachel kept saying sorry to her mother.
They left, but a short while later, Cheryl returned to the cake shop and spoke to Aaron - attempting to appeal to his better nature by saying she had once felt that way. Aaron responded with Leviticus quotes and telling Cheryl that her children were abominations. When Cheryl returned to Rachel she was still utterly distraught and in tears.
Rachel, raised a southern Baptist felt that the denial of service was because God had made a mistake in creating her, that she was not meant to exist, that she was not meant to be loved or to love others, that she was meant to be denied a family, that she would be denied entry into heaven.
quote:
I was beyond upset. I just wanted everybody to leave me alone. I couldn't face looking at my mom, I didn't even know if I could go through with getting married anymore.
Once home, Rachel retired to her bedroom and continued to cry. Cheryl told Rachel's fiancee, Laurel who was 'flabbergasted', angry and upset. She moved towards feeling shame and as a Catholic felt the shopkeeper was saying that she was not a creature of God, unworthy of life and love. She felt guilty and having asked Rachel to marry her so that she would be put in this position. She worried that Cheryl's opinion might swing back against acceptance of her sexual orientation.
Laurel tried to comfort Rachel but was pushed away, and she became angry and yelled some before leaving the room. Rachel continued to cry.
One of Rachel and Laurel's daughter came home, upset at something that happened at school and became distraught that Rachel was unavailable. This heightened Laurel's anger and sadness and she began to cry.
Laurel filled out some reviews online warning other gay couples to avoid the shop. Within a few days she informed their wedding venue as they had recommended the cake shop.
quote:
This is twice in this wedding ceremony we have faced this kind of bigotry
She also filed a complaint with Department of Justice Consumer Complaints.
Rachel still suffered bouts of depression, questioning the legitimacy of her sexual orientation and whether she deserved to married. Laurel and Rachel began to argue due to the emotional stress. Rachel became distant and avoided family contact - vocally expressing she thought she might not be a good mother because she couldn't control her emotions. Even a week after the event she was 'less exuberant' about the prospect of the wedding.
Cheryl took over most of the continuing wedding planning because of Rachel's anxieties over further rejection. Laurel was ashamed that she couldn't protect Rachel from the pain, anxiety and self-loathing - and was fearful of the consequences to Rachel's mental health of another such incident.
Cherly went to Pastry Girl who asserted the same-sex wedding not be a problem.
Two weeks later, the DOJ contacted Sweet Cakes to inform them of the complaint and to ask for information from them. Aaron Klein shared it on Facebook saying 'this is what happens when you refuse gays a wedding cake', or words to that effect. It was picked up by local news. The posted complaint included Rachel and Laurel's names and address.
Laurel became distraught that her complaint had been published online and that it was now in the news and being publicly discussed. She grew anxious and cried. Both Rachel and Laurel were contacted by a Conservative Radio Show, they refused to comment. The pressure of the public eye was stressful. They were fearful their children would be caught in a media circus; That this would cause their adoption to be rescinded and they would lose them.
quote:
That fear was paramount to everything
The fear and intimidation began to have deleterious health effects, loss of sleep, headaches etc. This fear increased when a friend posted about the case on Facebook and mentioned they had children - taking the post down on request.
One week after this, protesters began to turn up at the cake shop. Neither Rachel nor Laurel were involved.
Family members of Rachel and Laurel heard about the situation through the media and family frictions flared up. Laurel's aunt, the centre of the family wealth, insisted Laurel drop the complaint, that she was not welcome on family property and that she would be shot if she set foot on it, including the overseas holdings. This crushed her - it effectively denied her access to her mother and grandmother.
Rachel's sister wrote a message to offending cake shop's owner to tell them she supported the cake shop's refusal to serve them, causing distress to Rachel.
4 months later they got married, not legally unfortunately. They had a cake.
2 months after this they filed a complaint to BOLI (Bureau of Labor and Industries).
A year after the initial refusal the couple got legally married a few days after the ban against same-sex marriage was struck down.
During this period the couple received hateful and threatening correspondence, causing fear and extreme psychological stresses of pain, anger feeling degraded.
Rachel and Laurel did not solicit media attention. They released a statement once.
quote:
This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business' refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation...it was, and is, a denial of {Rachel} and {Laurel}'s freedom to participate equally...The denial of these freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, and in so doing, devalues the humanity of all of us.
...
The personal harm in being subjected to such separation is felt deeply and severely...this order does not punish {the cake shop} for their illegal conduct but rather, makes whole those subjected to the harm their conduct caused.
source
Clearly the main battle has not been won, as our allies are still ignorant as to the impact this bigoted behaviour can have on people's lives. This is why it must be fought. It can harm people. It can harm children. It can tear families apart, it often causes fear, sadness, despair, despondency, self-doubt, feelings of worthlessness and questioning the value of one's own identity.
Trivial? It irritates you to have to hear about it? One should shrug it off in service of some greater fight? Fuck you if you think that.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2017 7:35 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 313 by dwise1, posted 03-18-2017 5:56 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 10:30 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 335 of 1484 (802618)
03-18-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Tangle
03-17-2017 7:35 PM


Yes buying a cake is still trivial.
Yes, obviously. Everybody agrees with this. Nobody gives a shit about fucking cake.
This is not, however, about cake.
Despite me saying, despite them saying it, despite the bureau of labour and industries saying it - you still ignore this fact.
I can't do any more for you I'm afraid.
No, one should shrug it off and buy the cake next door from someone that isn't a bigoted idiot.
You should become a psychiatrist:
You should just cheer up and stop being depressed.
You should calm down and stop being manic.
You should chill out and stop having a panic account.
Humans, of course, don't work like this. Most queers in most cases do shrug off the many many instances of bigotry directed at them. They have to in order to function. But sometimes it isn't so trivial. People are complicated, they exist in social groups, they have history and emotions and weddings are notoriously periods of heightened emotional states.
So it doesn't matter how you think people 'should' react. You have to deal with how people, humans with emotions, feelings, histories, families... actually do react. Sometimes it is a cold fact of the matter that 'shrugging it off', as much as someone might want to be able to do so, isn't what happens.
And just to say it again: They do, as a matter of fact, go and buy the damned cake elsewhere.
Fuck you if you think that.
Well now, what are we supposed to do with that?
Shrug it off? Or maybe realize I don't care what you do with it, because, you know - fuck you.
This is a real problem, you're talking to people who are on your side.
No the problem is that you say you are, but you clearly aren't.
People who hate these bigots at least as much as you do.
This has never been about hatred of bigots. As long as bigots provide us with equal access to services and treat as equally human with equal dignity, they can think whatever little bigoted nonsense they like.
So maybe this is unusual, but it's proof that gays needn't feel like victims anymore.
Nobody 'needs' to feel like a victim.
Further, your personal life experiences are not proof that people that grew up gay in Texas and moved to Oregon to escape prejudice weren't harmed by the Oregon cake shop.
What I hear from you has a terrible resemblance to Faith's embittered martydom speeches.
And again, for effect: Fuck you.
But her kind of primitive prejudice is an anachronism - maybe time to join the rest of us
Agreed - wouldn't it be nice if queerfolk had the equal access required to join the rest of you?
ignore the shits and get on with a normal life?
Queerfolk that are alive are disproportionally better than straight folk at ignoring the shits. We've had inordinately more practice at it. But you know what has always been true? Ignoring everything all the time isn't the solution. Sometimes you have to confront it. Sometimes you have to say 'I will not accept being made to feel less than human, I will not accept my loved ones being hurt, I will not accept people breaking the law and souring our happy occasion'.
Clearly you don't get it. I doubt there is much hope you will any time soon. In some way, I hope you don't get it - because it'll probably only happen as a result of an injustice being carried out against you or - more likely, a loved one. For what it's worth, if it did happen, I won't suggest you just shrug it off out of fear of 'maybe' harming the cause by irritating people should the media decide to publish the abridged details about it.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2017 7:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 3:57 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 336 of 1484 (802619)
03-18-2017 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Minnemooseus
03-18-2017 3:11 AM


Re: Alternative bakeries
This happened in a suburb of Portland, OR, I'm pretty sure a liberal area where alternative bakeries were available (did Mod cite an alternative bakery?).
I mentioned one. There were two named alternative bakeries in the case. There multiple others mentioned that were not named.
They moved to Portland, OR from Texas to avoid this kind of nonsense.
They used Sweet Cakes because:
a) Their venue had recommended them
b) Their caterers had recommended them
c) They had a positive interaction at a wedding Expo where they started making the arrangements for a tasting.
d) They had previously used them for a wedding cake and like it.
They didn't anticipate the behaviour, nor did any of the people that recommended it - it came out of nowhere. Within a few days they had started making arrangements with other bakers (through Cheryl, the mother, since Rachel was too anxious of another rejection and Laurel was afraid another rejection would result in Rachel cancelling the wedding out of despair).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-18-2017 3:11 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 337 of 1484 (802620)
03-18-2017 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
03-18-2017 10:30 AM


Re: The Oregon Story
It is interesting to hear the whole story from the couple's side. I'd heard they were turned down very politely but if what they say is true it wasn't so polite.
You might be confusing the case with the Masterpiece Cakeshop where the refusal was as polite as it can be given the circumstances. In the Sweetcakes case, I believe it was not disputed that the denial was 'impolite'.
However, I don't get why someone who had lived as a lesbian for so many years would be so nave as not to know there could be problems with setting up a wedding to her lesbian partner, or why it would have such a devastating emotional effect on her, especially since her own mother had been opposed to her relationship until recently.
She moved to Portland from Texas because they know there could be problems. Rachel had already expressed reticence in getting married, but decided that since they had foster children, it would be ultimately for the best for the kids.
They were not nave.
And correct me if I misread, but I gather this all happened before the SCOTUS ruling too?
You are correct.
They ended up calling around and finding a bakery that wouldn't have a problem with a gay wedding. Shouldn't that have been done in the first place?
They shouldn't have needed to.
As Moose pointed out, Oregon is a very liberal state, there must be hundreds of options for a gay wedding.
Yes, they got unlucky. But it was the second time they had faced this kind of prejudice during the planning, so as liberal as Oregon might be, it transpires that at least in 2013, there was still plenty of people out there that would cause them problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 10:30 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-18-2017 2:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 352 of 1484 (802637)
03-18-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Tangle
03-18-2017 3:57 PM


But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.
Show me how Rachel and Laurel were being prejudiced.
I wish you luck with it, but if what you say is true, you need to work out who your friends are because it sounds like you need some.
I know who my friends are. They are not the people who are saying gay folk are being prejudiced against Christians when they make formal complaints to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed by them, they are not the people who call them irritating despite the fact that it was the Christians that posted their complaint, who went to the media, and who released their personal information leading to threatening correspondence, disastrous consequences for their family and living with the fear of losing their kids.
By all means disagree with something someone has done, but you stop using weasel words like 'might' and 'may' and avoiding discussing particular cases where you feel someone 'might' be doing harm; start being specific. Otherwise I can say that your 'suggestions' might be doing the harm, may be undoing the successes that you seem so concerned with - with as much weight as you have said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 3:57 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 5:55 PM Modulous has replied

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


(2)
Message 358 of 1484 (802646)
03-18-2017 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Tangle
03-18-2017 5:55 PM


But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.
Show me how Rachel and Laurel were being prejudiced...start being specific
That's what I thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 5:55 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 397 of 1484 (802706)
03-19-2017 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Tangle
03-19-2017 4:51 AM


I see that like Modulous you have a hair trigger when the word 'prejudice' is used against you
Wait, you were calling me, personally, prejudiced? Why are you making this personal? Against whom am I prejudiced?
So much so that you both instantly reacted to it out of the context it was used in.
Out of context?
In this thread you have been saying:
quote:
You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause
quote:
if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.
quote:
I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.
quote:
If you want to win the hearts of the nation you've just conquered on the battlefield, it's generally thought a bad idea to bayonet their wounded.
You had also been suggesting there was some activist campaign to deliberately target 'bigoted' service providers. Maybe that happened, but you failed to provide any evidence of it. So I entered a specific case into discussion. Sweet Cakes by Melissa featuring Rachel and Laurel. In it I concluded:
quote:
Clearly the main battle has not been won, as our allies are still ignorant as to the impact this bigoted behaviour can have on people's lives.
That's the context of this discussion.
Your reply?
quote:
This is a real problem, you're talking to people who are on your side. People who hate these bigots at least as much as you do.
Now, look, I don't hate bigots. I get angry at them, maybe sometimes that becomes hatred. But that was usually when I was younger.
I responded with:
quote:
No the problem is that you say you are {on side}, but you clearly aren't.
And your retort:
quote:
You may be right, perhaps I'm not on your side. But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.
So forget about me, this isn't about me. I was talking about Rachel and Laurel. Are you on their side? They sued a bakery {sort of, they raised a formal complaint to BOLI and requested compensation from the service providers}. Their actions are what is being discussed here, specifically them in the messages you were replying to - they were the context - they were who I was saying you were not allies with by insinuating their woes were over trivia {actually I wasn't even directing it at you, I was directing it at whosever thought they were being 'irritating' or 'harming the cause' over 'trivia}. If you are on their side, are there any same-sex couples you are not on the side of? Can you please be specific. Who is targeting 'bigoted' bakers? Who are these 'activist gays' who are harming the cause by suing people over a cake? Who is it that is actually doing the suing (note: I've never sued anyone for failure to provide service) that you are not on the side of? Who that is doing the suing *are* you on the side of?
I can't be expected to know what behaviour, specifically, you consider potentially problematic, unless you at least give some examples of potentially problematic behaviour. So please do. You must have something in mind when you are talking about this issue - what is it? Are you still labouring under the impression that the gays are getting together and putting 'sue bakers' on the gay agenda? I assume not, but your first few posts in this thread were certainly suggestive of thinking along these lines. Please help me understand your position, by actually explaining the specifics with reference to particular cases you think might be a problem.
I was responding specifically to Modulous's multiple personally abusive
I don't think saying 'fuck you if you think that' as a general reply, and then calling back to that comment when you effectively held your hand up and said 'I think that' constitutes 'multiple personally abusive' 'attacks'.
It's possible to be supportive of your cause but have some different ideas about how it might be pursued.
Yes. But this isn't a cause. That's the error you keep making. You seem to be arguing like this is part of some strategy, it isn't. It's individuals who are individually harmed taking individual actions for it's own end.
It would be nice to be not sworn at
Awww, did someone saying 'fuck you' upset you? It's the most trivial piece of contemptuous dismissal there is. 'Shrug it off'. 'Ignore it' and 'stand above it', 'impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner'.
threatened
It'd be super if you didn't lie about me in this grotesque fashion in your quest to seek the moral high ground.
abused
I didn't abuse you, what nonsense. Stop 'throwing yourself under the King's horse - get smarter'. 'You're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?' I'm sorry you feel 'feel offended by an idiot' but that's no excuse to make up egregious lies about me, 'at some point it's going to look like you've got a real chip on your shoulders'.
for daring to mention that people can be different.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 4:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 409 of 1484 (802722)
03-19-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Tangle
03-19-2017 2:08 PM


Modulous' Luther King
Why are you making this personal?
I don't know Chuck could it be because {ramblings about the negative opinion you have of me, personally}
How about you just stop with the personal nonsense?
I'm not saying that people should never sue, I'm saying that it's not always necessary and might be counterproductive in the long run.
I know. Here are the replies I've given to this position so far:
quote:
I've been reading your responses to this thread and you haven't given any examples. You are right, misplaced activism can do more harm than good. But it's irrelevant on the grounds that reporting people for breaking regulations is not activism, it's good citizenship.
quote:
What do you think is happening that implies gay couples are 'deliberately targeting baking bigots'? Do you have any evidence of this or any other misplaced activism?
quote:
In the case of same sex marriage is this a risk that has ever manifested? Can you provide the case details?
Otherwise what you are saying seems to be 'Gay people should continue to sue bakers who discriminate against them unless at some point I think they shouldn't' Which seems kind of useless.
quote:
What is the strategy you are suggesting we should take if you think 'sue if you are harmed and can prove it' is not the correct strategy?
It sounds like empty nonsense: "Yes do good things, but try and do good things in an optimal way". I've heard better outcomes of management meetings.
quote:
What *specifically* has happened that you think has backfired? Has anything? Are you worried that the complains from uppity faggots might be 'untimely' or do you have something that isn't passively aggressively supporting the bigots that might actually contribute to the improvement of society on your mind?
What has been done that is outside of the optimal strategy?
What has been done that could have been done better?
I don't want to hear 'Do more good things in a better way'. Anyone can say that kind of crap. Likewise 'Don't do things that are bad, or at least mitigate the consequences when this does happen' is useless. Regurgitating nice sounding platitudes while telling someone who has been harmed to 'wait' can be just as harmful as misplaced activism. Be specific, provide actual evidence.
quote:
Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?
quote:
It might also turn out to be productive. What good does listing possibilities do, exactly?
quote:
By all means disagree with something someone has done, but you stop using weasel words like 'might' and 'may' and avoiding discussing particular cases where you feel someone 'might' be doing harm; start being specific. Otherwise I can say that your 'suggestions' might be doing the harm, may be undoing the successes that you seem so concerned with - with as much weight as you have said.
quote:
So forget about me, this isn't about me. I was talking about Rachel and Laurel. Are you on their side? They sued a bakery {sort of, they raised a formal complaint to BOLI and requested compensation from the service providers}. Their actions are what is being discussed here... If you are on their side, are there any same-sex couples you are not on the side of? Can you please be specific. Who is targeting 'bigoted' bakers? Who are these 'activist gays' who are harming the cause by suing people over a cake? Who is it that is actually doing the suing (note: I've never sued anyone for failure to provide service) that you are not on the side of? Who that is doing the suing *are* you on the side of?
quote:
I can't be expected to know what behaviour, specifically, you consider potentially problematic, unless you at least give some examples of potentially problematic behaviour. So please do. You must have something in mind when you are talking about this issue - what is it?
Each time I ask, you avoid answering. You either seem to want to cast me as some emotionally angry guy with a chip on my shoulder out for exacting revenge who is abusing / threatening you - or you repeat the most banal elements of your position.
Why not explain your position with either reference to specific cases - or giving some general guidelines on when raising the issue with consumer protection agencies, industry regulators or the courts 'may' have the negative effect you are thinking of.
I mean, if I, or anyone else, was to face this problem who has read this - what do you recommend we do? How would we know if this is a case where making a formal complaint is justified in your view, or if this is a case where it might contribute to some long term counterproductivity?
I suspect the reason you avoid it is because you have nothing of substance to say at all. In which case, I can only say that you might be undermining the cause just as much as the hypothetical same-sex couples who also might be engaged in counterproductive actions.
To paraphrase MLK:
quote:
You deplore some of the legal actions taking place.I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that legal actions are taking place, but it is even more unfortunate that people's bigotry left same-sex couples with little alternative.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a legal action that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of denial of service. For years now I have heard the words "Shrug it off!" It rings in the ear of every queer person with piercing familiarity. This "Shrug it off" has almost always meant "Shutup and stop irritating me." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice ignored is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional rights. We still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cake at a cake shop. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of service denial to say, "Calm down dear."
When you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why mommy couldn't get the cake and is now crying in her bedroom, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that some cake stores are closed to gay people, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward Christian people. When you have to concoct an answer for your daughter who is asking: "Mommy, why do Christians treat gay people so mean?"
Living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to shrug it off. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the straight moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the gay's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the evangelical or the bigoted baker, but the straight moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods" Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the straight moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the straight moderate would understand that the present tension is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the LGBT people passively accepted their unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate resentment. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate resentment. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 2:08 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 412 of 1484 (802727)
03-19-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Tangle
03-19-2017 4:08 PM


Re: Modulous' Luther King
I don't avoid answering, I just ignore what you're saying because you've said it half a dozen times and I understood it the first time.
You didn't avoid answering it, you just ignored me? Erm, that's the same thing Tangle.
So you have nothing of substance to say then?
I'm not arguing about particular cases which by and large I don't have a problem with.
You don't have a problem with any particular case. So there is no case when a same-sex couple deliberately targeted a bakery? There is no particular case where same-sex couple was overreacting to a trivial matter? But in general this is something that is happening, even though it hasn't happened in any particular case? I'm confused as to what you are trying to communicate here.
In this case I didn't get passed the bit I quoted. You might want to think about why.
I expect you did 'get passed' the bit you quoted, but found my asking you for what exactly the problem you are raising is difficult to answer. It was the bit where I expressed once again, that I am seeking clarification of the rather vague position you have put forward.
Apparently you don't have a problem with the cases, but after the first one (Except presumably the fictional ones involving gay activists targeting bakers on purpose) everybody else should have just shrugged it off lest they irritate people or something. Can you provide any support that 'irritating' by complaining when public industries breach regulations threatens the very protections being used?
quote:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
You don't have any evidence any misplaced activism is occurring, for instance. Or that any such activism could be doing more harm than good.
quote:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
You can't cite any examples where same-sex couples looked petty or unnecessarily aggressive?
quote:
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
You say it doesn't help, but if it isn't happening who cares? What relevance does it have if its a made up problem? Or can you cite cases that you have in your mind when you say this?
quote:
I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples.
Sill nothing about anyone actively looking for bigoted bakers. No evidence that it is indeed likely to be counerproductive. And it would be churlish of me to ask, it would simply persuade you I wasn't reading your words for me to question them.
quote:
LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.
Yet more claims that have never been backed up that there is some particular effort to deliberately target bigot bakers. Are you just making this problem up?
quote:
Now I apparently have to say also that any LGBT with a genuine grieveance and evidence of hurt needs to shout about it.
Yet you won't answer the question of which LGBT has genuine greivances and which one are activists deliberately targeting bigots. And did Rachel and Laurel have a genuine grievance? I get the impression the answer is 'no', but it's difficult to get a definite answer on this. Apparently you don't have a problem with a particular case, but at the same time their complaint was over trivia that they should just shrug off.
quote:
Cakes and bakers? Not really.
Are you suggesting Rachel and Laurel should not have complained? You dance around this point. But it is vital to clarifying your position. On the one hand 'gays should shout' and you aren't saying 'never sue', but on the other you seem to suggest when it comes to cakes and bakers you should sue 'Maybe once, to make the point.' - anyone that follows the first suit should just, presumably 'shrug it off'?
quote:
There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.
What does that look like? You haven't answered. If a person is denied service how should they act? What is the correct strategic response? It's not never complain, but it's also not 'complain'. So when should you complain? I still don't have an answer.
quote:
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
Were Rachel and Laurel overreacting? Did their action endanger the civil protections against denial of service?
quote:
I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.
Will you deal with the non-trivial consequences of the denial of service, rather than shifting focus to the trivial nature of the service itself and the fact it can be sought elsewhere? Who knows? I'm guessing 'no'.
quote:
it might turn out to be counterproductive.
It might, of course, as I concurred. But it might turn out to be productive, as I said. Do you have anything concrete about which way it will be? Otherwise this is just weasely use of 'might'.
After this point you start to descend into personal off topic nonsense.
A good start would be by reading what I say without presupposing anything stupid about whether I'm 'part of the problem' or not and getting all shouty.
I haven't gotten all shouty. I haven't presupposed you are 'part of the problem', I have stated you might be doing more harm than good and challenged you to do better than this kind of weasel language. I have provided precisely as much evidence that you might be doing harm as you have that same sex couples that take legal action over bakers that deny them service because of their identity. If you think what I said is problematic due to its being spurious, congratulations - that's my point. That's what you have been doing, and exactly what I have been challenging you on.
You earlier attempts in this thread seemed to be suggesting a directed and deliberate campaign to target bakers. It appears that you've stepped back from this position, but replaced it with noncommital 'maybes' and 'possibilities'.
I have responded to the claims, and 'suggestions' by asking for evidence and for clarification. If I still don't understand perhaps you should stop avoiding, I mean ignoring my requests for clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 4:08 PM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024