The aberrant fringe groups should be happy for what they have I guess.
No, nobody deserves oppression and I apologize for clumsily implying that. I’m struggling today to find the right words to express what I intended to say.
Some of those boundaries are enshrined by law…as an employer, you’re free to discriminate against gay people (or women, or Latinos, or Jews) to your heart’s content, as long as your company has 14 or fewer employees.
They are hoping that Trump makes it possible for any circumstance.
That is THE Republican Dream.
You may not be able to understand this, but that issue is sufficiently nuanced the only real answer is “it depends.”
For example, if the landlord is truly private and is not getting any tax benefits or other government-based benefits from renting to the public, my answer would be “yes.” I don’t know if there are that many landlords whom that criterion would fit, but I suppose there are some. That this is not the way the US courts have interpreted the law, as I understand it, is not something I agree with. Personally, I would rather not spend my money with bigots, which includes makers of wedding cakes.
You don’t know what I hate and what I don’t hate, so fuck off, troll. Don’t assume you know everything I think because I am openly gay.
Depends on the circumstances. There are laws about these sorts of things, and in general, relevant antidiscrimination legislation comes down to: you can’t dictate to people whom they choose to rent space to in their own private residence, and some other private arrangements, but you can apply nondiscrimination laws to their other rental properties.
Your post didn’t actually contain much in the way of “truths”, welcome or unwelcome. Mostly, it was a bunch of heavily biased musings about the innate nature of “rights”:
I mean, that is some noticeably well-poisoning spin on the question of what it means to advocate for “rights”, specifically gay rights.
The implied skepticism in your “demanding concessions” language clearly comes across as suggesting that “others” (i.e., not-gay people) are by default justified in choosing for themselves whether or not to treat gays equally before the law. And that when we gay-rights supporters (whether gay, as in @Roderick_Femm’s case, or straight, as in mine) opine that the “others” should have to recognize gay rights in practice by legislative fiat, we are bumptiously demanding that they “concede” something that they’re morally entitled to refuse if they want to.
That is… quite a take, and not-so-subtly defends homophobic bigotry as a valid position in rights discourse (even if you personally don’t support homophobic bigotry on general ethical grounds).
I very much doubt that you would have spontaneously chosen to similarly describe, for example, Second Amendment supporters as “demanding concessions from others as [their] due” when they advocate for relaxation of this or that gun ownership regulation to “respect” their gun ownership “rights”.
Thank you, @Kimstu, for your more measured response. Much more effective.
We talk about how being forced to respect the rights of others could be perceived as causing harm to bigots, when really it doesn’t. Let us not forget that a significant part of our population actively desires to inflict cruelty on those others.
Despite being a bleeding heart liberal, I guess I can understand the catharsis of having someone to look down upon. I’ll never understand the need to have a categorized group to punch down and hate.
Much more effective at convincing others, perhaps, but not this particular ignorant fuckwad.
Yeah, those uppity gays resenting prejudice. Constantly going on and on about being treated as second class citizens. How dare they!
Also: fuck off, asshole.
Well said. HOW does this cause harm?
Snowflakes, everyone of them. Well really just Flakes.
You’re afraid of gay people? I don’t even need to talk to Freud
There is a large group of low IQ folks (as Donald Trump would say) actively trying to hurt our country. That’s all true.
As a straight white married male, they are trying to hurt my friends. I won’t stand for that.
DJT is also trying to take the entire economy down with his sinking boat.
If you’re struggling to find a way to express your ideas without sounding like an asshole, consider the possibility that maybe you’re just an asshole.
Getting back on topic, I think another legal avenue that conservatives might try to overturn gay marriage would be to deliberately stage a marriage that is clearly incompatible or illegal - such as incestual marriage or polyamorous marriage - have it be rejected by lower courts, and then bring it to SCOTUS to force SCOTUS to formally define what exactly marriage can and cannot be. Their hope would be that SCOTUS would say something like, “Marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Eh, this just gives all the tiers of courts one of their favorite ways out: the “narrow” ruling.
I lost a lot of respect for a member of my church 10 years ago when he used the slippery slope argument after Obergefell. Gay marriage; what’s next, marrying your dog?
No, marriage between two consenting human partners isn’t even the same damn thing.
I wonder if he still feels the same way now. He and I are still friends, and I have to allow for the possibility of character development on his part. God knows I used to be anti-gay when I was in high school, out of pure ignorance.
“You’re allowed to go to church? What’s next, ritual sacrifice of children?!”
I’m not clear how a discussion of same-sex marriage as a right that LGBTQ people ask to be recognized is off-topic for a thread about the Obergefell case? More so than a post strategizing for conservatives on how they might actually overturn that decision, that is.
Good one!