Since the mayor’s office amd clerk’s office are administering state law when it comes to marriages, it seems to me that they would be considered such, Otto.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Yes, to all of the above.
So let me get this straight…
This guy deserved a horrible death for taking a political stand against gay marriage. He denied people the right to marriage and so he should have a horrid death.
OK,
So people who denied people the right to have an abortion deserve such a death?
And of course those who denied people the right the right to attend segregated (or integrated, take your pick) school deserve such a death?
Let’s not forget the politicos who denied people the right to a medicare prescription health benefit. (Heartless b@st@rds!).
What about those who denied people the right to copy music for free. They must die.
Who would you people allow to live?
Bullshit.
Nobody here said he deserved death, just that there’s no reason to mourn him.
The one thing that Fred Phelps has in common with some of the posters here is that both Phelps and them rejoice in the death of people who hold contrary views.
Yeah, and we’re both carbon-based, too. Your point?
I can see Blalron’s point.
In Phelps’ twisted world, God hates fags. He hates them as much as Spectrum and Otto hate Pete Knight.
Okay dipshit, try to keep up. You said he was just as bad as them. Therefore his actions were just as bad as the things they did, which include stripping basic civil rights. You set up the equivalence, moron.
The difference is that Pete Knight actively sought to harm Sepctrum and Otto. They’ve never done any harm to Phelps or Pete Knight. Do you not see that some people earn their scorn while others hate because they’re bigots? They are not equals.
What harm did he actively seek to do?
Um, that would be preservation of the status quo, I guess, Libertarian.
Which is enough to bring the whole world down on your head these days.
But you’re right, this is not actively seeking harm.
Yeah, just like preservation of the status quo for racial segregation earned deserved enmity in the 1950s and 60s.
I take it you guys would have opposed civil rights for blacks because that was an affront to the status quo?
No, but we do not gloat over the dead.
Oh no, I didn’t say that, gobear. And I have supported changes to the existing status quo in this thread.
But there’s a big difference between someone who supported the status quo in the Jim Crow south, and someone who actually did the lynching. When Homebrew was talking about “active harm”, it became necessary to remember what active harm really means.
Pete Knight never actively harmed anybody, for the terms of this debate (I’m going to assume nobody here is Vietcong.)
Fuck you. Last I heard you can’t read my heart. Being glad that Knight can’t personally do any more damage and wishing he had to answer for his actions is in no way hatred to the level of picketing funerals or trying to get “Matthew Shepard entered Hell” monuments in parks or maintaining an anti-gay hate site. It’s not even hate at all. I don’t hate Knight.
There are millions of queer Californians who would beg to differ.
You don’t hate Knight. Gotcha. I can’t imagine how I came to that mistaken conclusion.
I can’t read your heart, Otto, but I can read.
Must be like that “love the sinner but hate the sin” distinction that people like spectrum and the like deny so heatedly.
“I think what you are doing is morally wrong, but I don’t hate you.”
“I hope you suffered and burn in hell, but I don’t hate you.”
You really don’t see any distinction between these two statements, Otto?
Regards,
Shodan
I have no problem saying that I hated Knight. I desoise anyone who tries to harm me, restrict my rights, or treat me as an inferior. Fuck “turn the other cheek” all that gets you is killed.
I love my friends and hate my enemies.
IMO, the first statement is within bounds. You don’t have to approve of every aspect of the person to affirm the person’s basic liberties. For example, I seriously dislike Atkins evangelism. I don’t like it at all. However, I understand that people have the right to do what they wish, provided they harm no one. It’s a free society, and people have the right to do as they please.
That second statement is waaaaaay outta line, though.