Don’t spend all your points in one place. 
Wow…Kentucky loses in the Final Four, and I get this right before anyone else.
Everything’s coming up Superdude. Off to buy lottery tickets to see if I can luck into a trifecta of awesome.
Chris Cilizza with a brilliant blog post on the Washington Post about why the administration should get off its high horse:
I just call it hypocrisy, personally. I also have to note how the knives didn’t really come out until the President “evolved”. Before that, the “principled” gay marriage movement had to be worried about friendly fire.
I notice that, per usual, you have twice an many posts in this thread as anyone else. I do believe your strategy of boring people to death is working.
Personally, you are unable to interpret anything except as it might portray Obama in the worst possible light.
Of course not. :rolleyes: Everything was just fine until then.
Ever consider letting all those Fox talking points pass through a brain filter sometime, instead of simply directly from your ears to your fingers?
It’s a closed loop, since his fingers are in his ears most of the time.
He types with his nose? Remind me to never buy a used keyboard or tablet from adaher.
You don’t define lambasting people for not evolving yet only two years after you did to be hypocrisy?
I guess it’s not hypocrisy if we assume he was lying all along. Which would mean he was also lying about his faith. I prefer to think he’s just hypocritical, personally. Much less damaging.
Before Obama “evolved” it was just another debate. Now it’s considered a settled issue and those who are slower than Obama will be quickly marginalized by society.
The reason things changed is because the movement wasn’t about to marginalize Obama or Clinton. Prior to the Big Change, any person opposed to gay marriage could simply say they had the exact same position on the issue as Barack Obama, which tended to shut down a discussion pretty quickly.
You fail to note the large portion of the American population whose views on discrimination have similarly “evolved”, as you put it (you may even be one yourself), yet do not earn your sneers for it. Odd, that.
I was for gay marriage way back in 2000. I just also believed, and still believe, that religious beliefs have to be balanced against that right. Marriage has always been segregated by religion. There is nothing particularly compelling about gay marriage that requires us to force people to participate who don’t want to.
And this is a very clear example of new aggression on the part of activists, along with trying to get people fired for not supporting gay marriage. Something else that didn’t happen until Obama came out for it, because obviously you can’t fire people who publicly say they don’t support gay marriage if you’re tolerating a President who says that.
And please, don’t give me BS about how activists regarded Obama as a bigot. Either they knew he was lying and felt they were in on the scam, or they believed he was telling the truth and limited themselves to calling him mild names while continuing to support him politically. They played the same game with Clinton, even as he was bragging about his signing of DOMA to win votes.
They pleaded for tolerance. THey should heed their own pleas.
The *political *debate has always been about the *legal *institution, as you would know if you’d paid any attention to it.
And no one is forced to get married by any of the new laws. Perhaps your own awareness needs some “evolving”.
Such as? You, like so many caught on the dwindling wrong side of a partisan divide, don’t get what it’s all about - you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as well as on race, sex, etc., in most of the US. You don’t have to “support gay marriage”, you aren’t forced into one, all you’re required to do is not act upon your prejudices. It’s what we’ve been about as a nation for a long time now.
You know why. Show us.
I don’t think adaher is a racist. I’m a little confused about why the CRA should be the only blueprint for all civil rights legislation.
Then why don’t we just leave it there? Why are we now worried about who is willing to help with private ceremonies and who isn’t?
Legal discrimination is a very different thing than expressing beliefs. Tolerance is apparently no longer on the table. And I think the gun might have been jumped. Obama’s change was not a signal to do an all out offensive against anti-gay sentiment.
Go educate yourself on the history of civil rights law, at least over the last half century.
Yes, you can believe whatever you want, you just can’t always act on it. Glad you get that part, at least.
Unless you’re resorting to the old chestnut about opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots, then no, you really don’t get it at all.
If you think that opposition to anti-gay *actions *(not sentiment as such) wasn’t already a majority position, then you really haven’t paid attention.
It shouldn’t be. But knowing what is legal right now and what is not is important. You can actually discriminate against people on the basis of race in many situations, openly, and legally. Some state or local laws might be tougher, or even cover other categories. Kentucky actually bans employment discrimination against smokers. Can you imagine, smokers as a protected class? Maybe we can have a debate over whether smoking is a choice or not and whether that matters. But I digress. Since the debate we’ve been having centers around a type of law(RFRA-type laws), then it’s important for us to know what kind of discrimination that is currently illegal that it would allow people to do. Those who say it will allow restaurants to turn away black patrons are being ignorant or just intentionally deceptive. The only people likely to gain the ability to discriminate in ways they can’t currently are those who provide personal services, often of an artistic nature, usually having specifically to do with gay weddings, in the few localities where that has been made illegal.
Aside from the strictly legal viewpoint, I made the argument that civil rights laws don’t exist to prevent people’s feelings from being hurt. They exist to allow minorities and traditionally marginalized groups to enjoy the full benefits of the social and economic life of the country, at least to the extent that the government has the power to enforce it without trampling on individual rights(for example, the government can’t make you have black friends). If wedding planners, cake makers, florists, and photographers don’t choose to do gay weddings, you know what effect that will have on the gay community? None whatsoever. It’s simply not a compelling interest justifying the actual conscription of people to do these events. And I don’t think anyone would argue that gays will be substantially hampered in having weddings if they can’t access these services easily. Tons of poorer people have weddings without these services. That’s what you have talented friends for. The issue at hand is that when a wedding planner or florist says “no, I’m against gay marriage”, it hurts their feelings. and so the florist must be punished. I say that’s stupid, unnecessary, and is against the true purpose of civil rights laws. Plus it does actually trample on religious freedoms.
Why are restaurants part of the “full benefits of the social and economic life of the country,” but florists and bakers are not?
A restaurant is a public accommodation. Turning away a person from a public place that others are welcome to does more than hurt some feelings. WHereas someone in business for themselves turning you down, that’s just a dick. You’ll find someone else who will do the job. The nature of personal services is different from operating a public accommodation. You can’t make florists do gay weddings for the same reason that you can’t make a female escort take a female client. Or a male client, if that’s not what she does.
How is a florist a “personal services” provider?