We treat them as people. If they are doing something bigoted, we tell them “that’s bigoted – you shouldn’t do that”.
yet it was never called such. Did any Dopers call him out the way they call out other public figures for their backwardness on this issue?
Remember, he didn’t just decline to support SSM. He explained his opposition to SSM in terms of his religious beliefs. As far as I know, he’s not only still President, but had been under absolutely zero pressure to resign from supporters of SSM for his bigoted statements.
So like I said, calling out the bigots is only happening if the bigots are weak or unnecessary. Since Obama was necessary, he gets a dispensation. It’s almost exactly like Catholicism. You truly have become what you hate!
I agree. But it often goes farther than that, and it really shouldn’t. Everyone should get the same consideration as the President did and be allowed to reconcile their deeply held moral beliefs with the irrefutable arguments being made in support of SSM. That’s all I’m asking.
BTW, kudos for admitting you once didn’t support SSM. Polls from the early 90s show very few people supporting it, yet talking to people now you’d think most of the people who support it now supported it then.
I came around about 2001. Sullivan actually wrote his Conservative Case for Gay Marriage essay way before that, but I’d started reading his blog in 2000 so hadn’t been exposed to any arguments for it. Seems like most SSM supporters(and there were many, they were just a minority), were laying low back then. If only they still had some humility…
Probably, though I don’t recall exactly.
Why should he resign? He has renounced his past support of something bigoted. That’s what’s supposed to happen.
Nonsense. And I’m not calling out bigots, I’m calling out bigotry. If I didn’t say Obama’s past actions were bigoted, then I was wrong. But he’s no longer doing anything bigoted with regards to SSM, so there’s nothing to call out.
If people are throwing stones, then I oppose throwing stones. If they’re sending death threats, then I oppose that too. If people are saying “that’s bigoted – I don’t want to support your company any more”, then I don’t oppose that. I may or may not stop supporting that company, but if you want to choose not to, then that’s totally up to you.
And I agree again. Recognizing that 40% of Americans still oppose SSM, we’re going to have to live with them and get along with them for the time being. I can concede that their opposition is bigoted, but most of them are going to come around, probably within the next few years. They should not be treated as equivalent to race baiters.
How about we treat them like sexists? Sexist beliefs are pretty darn common and we point them out when we see them. as long as it’s not extreme, the dude gets called a pig and life goes on.
Sexists are also bigots, but whatever. So you concede that the opposition is bigoted, but are you saying we should not call it bigoted? If so, I disagree. Calling it bigoted, in general, is doing them a favor. Not throwing stones or insults, but just saying “that’s bigoted, you shouldn’t do that”, is a positive thing when accurate.
Have I met this youth? Where does he live?
They both involve two individuals who want to marry but the law won’t allow them. That’s the only similarity.
The pro and con arguments for and against each are completely different. For example, does opposing to SSM hinge upon the “purity of the white race”? Did opposing to miscegenation hinge upon any claim that mixed race couples are biologically incapable of having children?
They are completely different arguments. The only similarity is when one creates a preconceived definition of what in his personal opinion is “right” and simply shoehorns the two into the same category. They are night and day arguments.
Now we’re sniveling and stomping our feet because “loud-mouthed conservative” isn’t a protected class. Cry me a fucking river.
Political affliliation is mutable. If you think yours is limiting your free market opportunities you can change it.
Again, free speech is not the same as consequence free speech. Some opinions go to the heart of one’s moral character and may give your employer reason to question yours. I don’t see why a company run by a hard working job creator should be obligated to employ someone that alienates their customers and loses money and goodwill for the company. If your employment at a workplace is causing all of the customers to run for the hills…well, " cost the company a million dollars because he couldn’t zip his lip" is one of the best and most righteous reasons for termination I’ve ever heard.
This is the Terms of Surrender column that douthat wrote. It should make clear what he’s getting at.
Most of the arguments against both had to do with religion and the ‘natural order’. Only avowed white supremacists used the racial purity argument.
And the ‘pro’ arguments are virtually identical – that the state should not prevent two adults who love each other from enjoying the benefits of marriage, and that allowing them to marry is a net benefit to society with no downside.
So it’s okay for those two companies to refuse to hire Ssm supporters?
They have that right, though I think it would be wrong for them to do it.
And I say the same is true for Ssm opponents
And btw whether orientation is innate or fluid is irrelevant.
Yes,absolutely. Liberals probably wouldn’t be a good fit there anyway.
Although if an SSM supporter REALLY wanted to work at one of those companies they would have the option of keeping their mouth shut about their views on SSM. Funny how conservatives seem to have trouble with the concept of shutting up, isn’t it?
Depends on the political involvement and the position. It is absolutely right to not hire someone who is active in KKK for a position which includes interactions with black employees or customers. There is no good reason to not hire someone who campaigns against ACA or carbon tax as a cashier in a grocery store.
It is funny that conservatives latch on to Eich because that happened right on the heels of World Vision reversing their position to allow married gay employees. World Vision would not hire a person for being gay, which is arguably less of a choice than a political donation, for all 45000 of their positions. Brendan Eich kept his job as CTO for a couple of years after his donation was known. There is no indication that the livelihood of a regular programmer in Mozilla who donated to Prop 8 would be in danger.
Immutable characteristics (race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, country of origin) should be protected from discrimination first and foremost. Protection for chosen actions should depend on (1) the essentialness of such actions, and (2) the relevance of such actions for the job in question. For example, pregnancy (quite essential) discrimination should not be allowed unless pregnancy is incompatible with the job. Religious (essential to some) discrimination should not be allowed unless the religion is incompatible with the job. Drinking (not that essential) discrimination should be allowed.
If something is a basic right it gets protected. You seem to be arguing that religion and marital status should not be automatically protected because people can choose
It depends on how essential society determines them to be. Religion and marital status are considered somewhat important in the US. There are anti-discrimination laws, but not as comprehensive as for race and sex. There is widespread discrimination against unmarried people in employment actually (in the form of spousal benefits such as health insurance), and marital status is not a federally protected class for employment. Discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation is legal for certain employers, in a way discrimination on the basis of race is not.
Of course, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class either, and that goes back to the debate about whether it’s a choice or not.