I promise I won’t force you to call bigots bigots like a big meanieface.
So, if people want to discriminate and demonize against gay people that is ok with you but if we call them bigots your response is to call for tolerance and understanding and restraint?
And if Wisconsin reverses 162 years of history and adopts the death penalty along with a provision that it will be administered by the corrections physician, (as several states do, now), they will have created a situation that differs from the one in which Qadgop the Mercotan was hired and under which he has worked for many years.
I do not (yet) see efforts to compel doctors to perform abortions, but your claim was that there was not and could not be a conflict. The conflict is rare (in the U.S.), but it is not impossible.
Why would someone who is not a bigot oppose SSM?
That’s not a rhetorical question. You are saying that some people are opposing SSM for some reason other than intolerance of people who differ from them. What reasons might these people have? Bear in mind I am not asking you to produce an individual whose opposition is based in whatever reason you suggest, only to speculate on what that reason might be.
Or are you suggesting that it might for some reason be incorrect to call people bigots even while acknowledging that they are?
No, it’s not OK with me. I never said that, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
You’re too kind. 
OTOH changing language to make the rule of who may be issued a document more inclusive doesn’t seem to me as adding substantial duties. Especially if it was all along worded something like “issue licenses and permits to applicants who fulfill the legal requirements for them”, which would mean the requirement compliance is that imposed upon the applicant, thus that in effect when they apply, regardless of what was in place when the employee was hired. (I’m willing to consider that I may be wrong.)
However, the contract terms *may *be an issue, insofar that the magagement may be unable to just move the objecting clerk to a back-office desk job on administrative command, but would have to go through a whole bureaucratic rigmarole to terminate him/her at the post that includes the public-facing function and reappoint him/her in a backroom-only post, and there may not be a vacancy, or a volunteer to swap billets, at the same payscale in the backroom.
That’s true. We could call them numbers. You will now be known as 23973929723947297394723947293784928.
See post 157.
All I see you doing is defending anti SSM advocates and then throwing in the occasional “but of course I disagree with them”. I see no indication that you are actually bothered by their position or actions.
Your way also seems to have been insanely effective. As little as 15 years ago not a single country on Earth recognized gay marriage.
If you want to call Santorum or Pat Robertson bigots. I may even join you. Calling the neighbor a bigot who simply does not get the idea that the notions of homosexuality on which he was raised were wrong does not serve any purpose that I can see, although I am hardly stopping you from doing what you want.
This is bubble thinking. It is common among all groups, but it demonstrates a serious ignorance of the real world. People with serious commitments to causes see and hear all the news that pertains to those causes. People outside those movements often never pay any attention to those statements as being relevant to their lives. Inside the bubble, everything is clear. Outside the bubble, things inside may be hazy or even invisible. Racial relations and gay rights have been two issues in which I have invested a serious amount of time and effort for forty-five to fifty years. Among people I know, (for whom those issues were never a personal concern), I still encounter people who are utterly ignorant of the facts involved with such issues. I have seen you post on racial topics. It would be interesting to have you explain the significance of the years 1919, 1921, and 1927 without going to Google.
I am not defending their ignorance. I simply note that it is a human trait and directing venom at them might give you a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it does nothing else. Making the claim that there has been 20 or 30 years of “trying to reason” with them is silly unless you can provide the evidence that each and every one of them has been approached and reasoned with.
Do you seriously, actually, believe this?
It is very telling that you apparently do not.
Such an odd post from someone who doesn’t have a 2015 join date. How about you give a cite for the claim you made.
You may find what you’re looking for in this article: At-will employment - Wikipedia
It’s only been one of the top 3 social movements of the past 20 years. It is only recently that the tide has shifted and the bigots are now on the outside, on the losing side. It may not be “polite” to call a bigot a bigot but for the first, say, 15 years of the movement the bigots were in control, almost completely. During the majority of that time the majority of the efforts were made from reason, and logic, and calls for tolerance and understanding.
Wow. That’s… ah, let’s call that a significant blindspot in your understanding of the gay rights movement.
So, in trying to win straight people over to your cause you think it’s not helpful to get advice from straight people. That makes a lot of sense.
You don’t even have to have raving bigots in your family. If racism or homophobia is acceptable in a family, even as a “joke” it rubs off. My kids are better than me since they never heard such language, and like many kids today have a hard time understanding why anyone would be homophobic.
BTW, people don’t have to be called bigots for this to work. If someone who says what you think is called a bigot, it can force a person to reconsider their views, or at least not to express them.
Really? You can cite actual public statements condemning people for anti-gay bigotry on any sort of regular basis for 20 years or more in a forum where the majority of people would hear them?
Sure, after Matthew Shephard’s murder there were the standard calls for tolerance and cries against hatred, but littler more than that. Other incidents provided similar expressions. (I suppose that the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church might have caused people on the sidelines to rethink their positions in the manner of people watching the fire hoses and police dogs against peaceful marchers in the 1960s. However, that is still not an example of people being woken up because they were called bigots.)
If you are objecting to the reference to gay rallies, you need to ask around among the general populace regarding the remarks made at any major rally. Aside from an occasional sound bite, few people know the content of the speeches, or even their salient points. The speeches were delivered to the already converted and regardless how thoughtful and serious their content, it is unlikely that anyone outside the movement had any idea what was said. If they were condemning the general populace for anti-gay hostility, it sure never made the major news outlets.
meh
And few people listened who were not already inclined to that position.