Even Muslims?
I’m waiting to hear from Dick Gregory’s grandmother before I decide.
I don’t think it’s effective at changing their minds. But it’s effective at discouraging people from joining them. Their views have already been rejected by the younger generation…and actually by both people. Now it’s about keeping their views where they belong- in the marginalized fringe- until they die off.
Again, this is not some neutral difference in opinion. It’s not like having a different favorite color. Their views and actions cause harm to the people I love. They hurt my loved ones. I have no reason to be patient or understanding. These ideas need to be be actively rejected.
In some cases maybe, but many states that banned same sex marriage also banned civil unions at the same time, which invalidates the hypothesis that what they were really worried about was the religious connotations of calling it “marriage”: no, in those instances, what they were really concerned about was sticking it to the Q****s.
Of course, that was 10 or so years ago and a lot has changed since then.
ETA: this also makes laughable the straw-grasping of some who are now saying “can’t we just have civil unions? They have the same rights as marriage, right?” No, they specifically forbade civil unions when they had the chance to be for them.
You can offer advice all the live-long day. Nobody is obliged to TAKE it.
Agree.
I find it somewhat odd that this “debate” - in all the various permutations I’ve seen over the last couple of days - is so overwhelmingly in favor of “make 'em do their jobs,” when the identical pharmacist debate was/is so much more split among the same audience.
Let’s be clear about this. These people want to exercise their religious beliefs to deny their fellow citizens their civil rights. For what other kinds of civil rights violations do we allow a grace period like that proposed here?
THat, while a more plausible argument, is still unlikely, IMO. I’m not sure how we would ever prove such a thing, so we’ll probably have to agree to disagree
Just because I think calling them bigots is unproductive doesn’t mean I wouldn’t call them out as being wrong, or explaining that their views and actions cause harm to the people I love. They hurt my loved ones, but I choose patience (not understanding). These ideas need to be actively rejected (and that can be done without engaging in name calling, which I think is actually counter-productive).
Not exactly the same thing, but there was considerable debate about 8 years ago about the Muslim cab drivers in the Twin Cities versus the passengers who would be booted for travelling with dogs or alcohol.
(Edited article)
Here’s the original GD thread about it.
The original thread ended before this happened:
(Edited article)
So, originally, they were accomodated to by saying that they could just go to the back of the taxi line. Then, while not really a grace period, but a new ordinance changed the punishment for it.
Traveling with dogs or alcohol is not a fundamental right. Indeed, states can still regulate or ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. Your condo board can prohibit you from having pets. I don’t accept this as a parallel.
People who publicly express bigoted views or affect others with their bigoted actions should be called out as bigots. They should be shamed.
Membership in white nationalist groups fell from the 1960s until the internet age because it was difficult for them to express their views in public and recruit new members. Now that they have safe havens online, they are growing again and Dylan Roof is an example of this safe haven for hate breeding more hate.
My own views certainly were shaped in part by hearing bigoted opinions being labeled as bigoted. As a schoolchild the only thing I knew about homosexuality is that it was reviled and mocked. Hearing explicit denunciations of anti-gay bigotry did in fact affect my personal evolution.
And, at some point, we have to stop caring about persuading the minority of remaining bigots to change their minds. We are better off making them afraid of expressing themselves for fear of being shamed and waiting until they die off.
The cabbies lost, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t accept it.
It is not “name-calling”-it is accuracy. I realize the fact that this bigotry may be wrapped in religious trappings at times makes some want to treat it with kid gloves out of mutual respect, but that’s not a hang-up I happen to have.
You said service animals or pets.
Still, I read too fast. Yes, I’m glad the cabbies lost the fight.
False dichotomy. But I wouldn’t limit the “no-name calling” tactic to just religious groups.
It’s odd to me that the idea that our society would be better of if we all treated each other with a modicum of respect is so controversial on this MB. Odd, and sad.
When respect is denied repeated repeatedly, it cannot be expected to be returned freely. What exactly is to be respected when one is legally denied a marriage license? Do you respect the flaunting of the law? Do you respect the bigotry? Tell us exactly what it is we are supposed to respect in this situation.
I really believe you are confusing “respect”, which isn’t given out freely to everybody no matter what and can certainly be denied given the proper circumstances, with “submissiveness” and “passiveness”.
Some things do not deserve respect and should not be accorded respect, and, by extension, a person who expresses or acts upon such a thing should not be accorded respect.
According that person respect is to legitimize something abhorrent. It is to legitimate its spread.
Let me repeat: The kind of religious values these people are expressing or acting upon is abhorrent. It should not be respected, no more than views favoring incest or paedophilia or cannibalism or rape or murder should be respected. These people should be given the message that their religion is abhorrent and we should act toward them in a way that they are motivated to keep their abhorrent views to themselves.
I work as a cashier in a store that gets a lot of fundamentalist Jewish and Muslim men as customers. Occasionally, one of them will ask for a “male cashier.”
It makes my blood boil, but I call a male cashier to the front.
I once heard a Muslim father tell his young son “Always give girl (sic) cashiers correct change, and count it for them. They don’t know how to count money correctly.”
Holland had gay marriage in 2001, and the debate on clerks refusing to perform marriages was in the news for a couple months afterward. There were far less of those clerks then the media suggested. Maybe a dozen or so took a vocal stand for the first months, but they lost interest when everybody else did. There was also some collegial shuffling of marriages between friendly co-working clercs. After a few months, everybody had gotten used to the new situation.