Then you’ll be disappointed. Religion is quite popular with the youth, still. Religion is not dying out in your lifetime.
You won’t find me opposing any of your wish list. I remember a time when gays were routinely fired by major corporations just for being gay. I don’t want to just reverse that so that people who have anti-SSM views also get fired. In general, I don’t think it’s ever justified to fire someone just because they have beliefs. As a matter of fact, I believe that protections should be extended to employees for political activity outside of work. Eich should not have been fired for political activity, and neither should people in the Occupy Movement or the Tea Party for their entirely legitimate 1st amendment activities outside of work.
I remember that in my lifetime as well. My fiance was denied promotions just for being gay. Eich was not fired, he resigned. There may be other reasons behind it and may have been a forced resignation but there is no direct evidence of such.
He was hounded out. That really should not happen. Especially since he didn’t do anything in his position as CEO, nor did he express his views publicly. He simply donated to a campaign.
This is also demonstrates the problem with transparency in campaign donations. Anyone who donates to the “wrong” cause or politician can lose their job over it. And the shoe can very easily end up on the other foot, and has at times.
We should just all agree that hounding people out of their careers because of strictly personal beliefs should be out of bounds. That goes well beyond criticizing people for beliefs you find repugnant. It also establishes that such aggressive action is fair play in political disputes. Time to ostracize the anti-2nd amendment folks!
I can agree in some ways. But I see a vast difference between simply being and blocking other peoples rights. However, I’ve agreed in other threads that the reaction was an overreaction in this case.
Of course not. But this particular aspect of religion appears to be dying, in the West at least.
Working to harm and oppress other people isn’t a “strictly personal belief”.
If you’re referring to the aspect that treats homosexuality as a grave sin worse than straight people fornicating, I agree. But fornication will always be a sin, and homosexual relations in any context will always be a sin, although I’m sure some of the sects that don’t take the bible literally will edit that part out. But for mainstream religion, it is what it is.
But it is a legitimate right guaranteed under the 1st amendment. THe goal is to stop discrimination, not to silence people. Or at least it should be.
Shooby. After reading your post I felt compelled to go into the kitchen and make some hot air pop corn, which I have in front of me as I type. And you’re right, Yum!
The thing is, this is not some nice clean policy debate where every side has some good points and everyone can put aside their differences and have a big group hug after. It’s not some private difference in opinion that doesn’t really matter.
Gay marriage bans have substantially hurt some of the people I love most in the world. It has torn apart their unions (since gay expats could not get marriage visas) and left holes in their lives. It is a hurtful, evil thing that had caused untold pain to real people, for zero benefit whatsoever. Again, this has hurt my loved ones. I do not feel any need to be polite or respectful about it. I do not feel the need to make excuses for it. All I want is for them to stop hurting us.
It’s been that way for 5000 years. Some people haven’t come around yet. Be patient. No matter how just the cause, nothing changes overnight, and intimidation tactics don’t work.
No matter how just the cause, intimidation tactics are not justified either.
I’d sign that. I don’t want gay marriages in front of grocery stores - with all the guests and tables and presents and cake and such, how am I supposed to get my groceries?
Some people are so inconsiderate.
It’ll be a “sin” until homophobia becomes sufficiently unpopular to make it not a sin. Just like all the other “sins” that get declared not a sin. It wasn’t so long ago that interracial marriage was widely called a sin; now few churches dare say so.
The 1st Amendment means the government isn’t allowed to silence him. It doesn’t mean that people who aren’t even part of the government are required to pay him money or hire him.
Would you expect black people to hire someone who sent money to the Ku Klux Klan and refused to their face to apologize for it? Because that’s the equivalent of what happened.
That teaching is not in the Bible and I doubt many churches called it a sin.
Okay, so discrimination based on political views is acceptable. Good to know.
So Klansmen shouldn’t be allowed to make a living? Geez, you might be better off just throwing people in jail for their views.
A lot of churches say a lot of things that aren’t in the bible.
I assume you meant this to be funny and flippant, rather than a thoughtful response.
And if this is the reason why Maggie Gallagher is against gay marriage, then that does nothing at all to change the fact that she is a bigot. In fact, it may make it worse. At least saying “God says marriage is between a man and a woman” doesn’t make homosexuals look like bad parents. Except that organizations like NOM, FRC, etc. trumpet that view anyways - that there’s something wrong with homosexuals raising families. Despite all of the evidence we have, and despite there being no reason at all to believe that. Hell, they even still tout the Regnerus study as if it weren’t a steam pile of cow shit intentionally designed to demonize homosexuals. Gallagher’s view is not an improvement. Well, it is an improvement over “homosexuals are deviants who should be jailed or killed”. But it sure as hell doesn’t push the debate into the realm of “people expressing non-bigoted, rational opinions”.
If her reason for not wanting gays to get married is because the basis of marriage is for raising families, then yes. She’s a bigot.
Yeah, but let’s spend some time splitting that foot-wide hair, shall we? For “thousands of years” marriage has changed dramatically. The people allowed to marry have changed, the way weddings were done has change, whether or not certain subgroups could marry have changed… Hell, even homosexual unions have been legal at various times throughout history. There have been centuries where interracial marriage was illegal. For much of history in many cultures, marriage was less “two individuals who love each other” and more “a transfer of property”. We are constantly changing things about marriage.
Okay, so… what were the reasons? Continuation of the family line? That’s not something people really care about any more. Stability of the family? As I addressed above, this makes it more bigoted and stupid, not less. Control over women? Boy, that was a big part of it for quite a while; society has sort of progressed past the whole “women are objects” stage, and as much as you may argue for “humility”, I don’t think you’ll find a lot of people sympathetic to that viewpoint. See, the thing is, we don’t think we’re wiser than all of the previous generations. We just happen to have damn good reasons to believe that all previous generations were dead wrong about something. It’s not humble to ignore those reasons. It’s downright stupid.
Everything about this is wrong. He resigned not because of public pressure but because Mozilla is a non-profit. People who work there work there because they want to work there. These people are highly trained in a field that is very highly valued right now. They could skip across town and get jobs with Google, or Facebook, or basically whatever other tech company they wanted if they didn’t want to work at Mozilla. And Eich did something that really pissed them off. What’s more, when people who were personally harmed by Prop. 8 did nothing more than ask him for an apology, he refused to apologize. He held to his guns. That’s just straight-up bad for the company. So of course he’d resign. Remember, he’s not some random middle-manager. He’s the CEO. The face of the company. He stepped down because him sticking around would make programmers leave. A company like Mozilla cannot afford that kind of issue.
Social shunning is not intimidation. It’s what happens when you hold opinions others in your social entourage find repellent. They are repelled away. There is, however, an easy fix : shutting the fuck up.
THIS JUST IN ! Shopping at K-Mart is discrimination against Walmart and is not sanctioned by adaher.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say yes. Yes, Klansmen shouldn’t be allowed to make a living. They should be ostracized social pariahs, shunned by everyone until they recant their position. If someone wants to be an antisocial, racist dickbag, then they aren’t going to work in a modern society. And anyone who decides to associate with them should also feel the burn. This kind of social control is basically the only tool society has to tell people who are doing something wrong that they’re doing something wrong.
As long as you call it what it is: social control. Problem is, social control is dictated by the majority. And you’re not in it yet. That same mechanism you seek to use to intimidate people into silence on penalty of losing their livelihoods can be used against you. Most of you blithely assume that society can only move in one direction. Things can snap back pretty damn fast given the right set of circumstances, and if that happens you’ll wish that we had a tradition of civil discourse on contentious issues. You’re poisoning the well.
I also wonder, since what your advocating is about as bad as imprisonment, why not go a step further and just throw people in jail for having views you don’t like?
Social shunning is not intimidation. Unless you’re just going after the bigots you don’t need. In that case, it’s hypocrisy.
So, have you eradicated the bigots from your life, refused to work for bigots or employ them, and will not vote for any candidate who opposes SSM?
Or are you just picking on the ones who have nothing you want?