I don’t favor them poisoning the discussion at all. I have the same position on the science of climate change as you do. Where we differ is in solutions.
Making efforts to defend them and continue to help them getting elected is part of the problem. It really does make a mockery of your proposition that you are not “being fooled”
There are literally dozens of issues and other considerations involved in choosing who goes to different offices. One issue voters are generally regarded as unserious.
How can any voter be considered ‘unserious’? I mean, you can spend the entire election season weighing the pros and cons of every talking point, someone else can base his decision on a single issue and a third person can just walk in and vote with his eyes closed. All these votes carry the same weight.
:rolleyes:
Just here in this thread I’m not talking about just one issue, we are talking about your efforts that end up supporting bigots,
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/31/3640801/conservatives-indiana-discrimination/
Human induced climate change deniers,
Recists and nativists,
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/13/nro-adds-struggling-anti-dreamer-lawsuit-to-its/194455
And there are still many other issues, so thank you for putting yourself in the unserious column and to tell all that you will remain a wilful pamphleteer of that kind of people that are making a mess of many things considered.
“Unserious”=“does not agree with me”.
I never knew that adaher was particularly large. Consider my ignorance fought!
What exactly is a “Christian wedding planner”? Is that a wedding planner who happens to be Christian? If so, why should that wedding planner’s private life and beliefs be bleeding over into their business life? Or does a “Christian wedding planner” market themselves as a planner of Christian weddings?
If there were a poll, mark me down as not convinced adaher is a racist.
In fact, the evidence presented is so far from damning it’s rather laughable. Recreational outrage.
You don’t have to like adaher, think he’s a worthwhile poster, or agree with anything he’s ever said, you can still come to the conclusion that we’re now just throwing the word racist around as a way of attacking someone we don’t like.
I think it’s pathetic to do that. It means adaher is actually better at arguing a point than you are.
I mean a wedding planner who does Christian weddings, or Baptist weddings, or Catholic weddings.
This is just like the Jewish caterer who refuses to cater a pork dinner. Gay people are free to use the services of a Christian wedding planner if they want a Christian wedding, just as Christians are free to use Jewish caterers if they want a kosher event.
See, I really don’t think that adaher is a racist, it’s just that he is such so used to mindlessly reposting wingnut bullshit that he doesn’t recognize racism. In other words, he’s a fucking moron.
And, I’m sorry, but I can’t let this go…
Does the Jewish caterer sell pork to anyone? No? Then it’s not the same, you fucking moron.
And this is the problem with adaher. Even though the stupid Jewish deli/cater/restaurant selling pork products has been debunked hundreds of times (here and around the web), adaher still brings it up because it is still a fucking talking point on goddamn Fox&Friends.
And the Christian wedding planner doesn’t arrange gay weddings for anyone. And I had no idea that Fox was using my talking points. I never get credit for that shit. But if you search SDMB, you’ll find I used that one a long time ago. Don’t know why all my arguments get stolen by TV personalities. They must scour discussion boards.
Should a minister have to officiate at a gay wedding if asked?
You haven’t established that this is the case, and that “public accommodation” doesn’t cover wedding planners (who may or may not have a sales office, etc.). Perhaps there hasn’t yet been a test case.
In any case, most of us are arguing that gay people should have the same (but no more) protection that the CR Act provides – businesses shouldn’t be able to discriminate against black people or interracial couples, and businesses shouldn’t be able to discriminate against gay people or gay couples.
You keep using this example and it’s bullshit. Refusing to cater with pork is entirely different – analogous to refusing to plan a wedding with pink hippo decorations. An actual comparison here would be a Jewish caterer refusing to cater a Christian or Muslim wedding (even if they’re fine with kosher food).
That’s an explicitly religious official in his religious clergy role – the answer is clearly no.
How do you know this is true? It’s extremely likely that some Christian wedding planner has arranged a gay wedding. If someone offers only a specific theme of wedding (Christian, Jewish, superhero-theme, princess-theme, etc.), they have to (or should have to) offer it to all couples.
I believe that gays should have the same protections the CRA includes as well. Even if I’m wrong about the public accommodations thing though, in practice you’ll be hard pressed to find someone successfully sued for not providing personal services. Or even unsuccessfully sued. Or pursued by the federal government.
Possibly – it would be a tough case to prove, unless investigators found some clear evidence that the planner intends to discriminate (emails, social media, etc.).