I doubt such a poll would be possible; at least, not one with meaningful results. I don’t think very many people’s opinions on this subject were informed by just one thing, as opposed to a variety of ideas, arguments, and observations. And I’m skeptical that it would be possible to isolate various individual ideas &c. and weight them against each other in terms of effectiveness. Lastly, such a poll would necessarily rely on respondents being able to accurately remember and report their evolving internal states several years after the fact, and I don’t think that’s something humans in general are very good at.
Well, that’s interesting. You apparently accept the idea that negative representations of homosexuals in the media and in the culture at large could inspire people to be more homophobic. But you reject the idea that negative representations of homophobes in the media and the culture at large could inspire people to be less homophobic.
A person’s religion certainly may impinge on their ability to do a particular job. It is incumbent on that person to not take those jobs. If a doctor does not want to perform abortions they should not take a job where they may have to perform an abortion. There are plenty of doctors who will.
If you hire an Amish person to do data entry and then they tell you they can’t use the computer because it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs I think you have more than enough justification to fire them without running afoul of encroaching on their religious freedoms.
I would be fine with this county clerk not giving marriage license to same sex couples IF they made accommodation and got someone else to do it for them. That does not seem to be the case here.
I would have been fairly described as a homophobe at the time I joined the SDMB, though I didn’t have a problem being around gay people per se. I probably would have supported gay marriage, but in an abstract “why not?” kind of way, rather than being a vocal proponent.
I don’t know what changed my view, but I do know it was a gradual process and not some “ah hah!” American History X-type event. I suspect the biggest factor was years and years of debate on the SDMB.
Transgender people and cross dresses creep me out. I would hope that if i got to know some of them, to have exposure and get to know them, that my reaction would change.
What you call an excuse, I call a reason. I don’t have an answer for how much longer we need to wait. It really doesn’t matter because I don’t believe that RIGHT NOW it’s useful to call everyone who opposes SSM a bigot.
I don’t believe anyone has advocated that. If the religious bigot does the job required of him, issuing a marriage license to the gay couple in line and keeping his hateful views to himself, I don’t believe anyone in this thread is saying he should be fired for having those views when he goes home and rants to his wife about how he had to process a pair of fuckin’ queers today. He’s as free to feel that way, and to rant to his wife about it, as we are to call him a bigot for doing so. Holding hateful views and expressing them privately on your own personal time is not grounds for termination. But, and several of us have said this in several different ways now, if he refuses to process them on the grounds that he personally doesn’t approve of their marriage, then he’s refusing to fulfill his job duties. He can, and should, get in trouble for that, professionally. And if he doesn’t heed the reprimand and do his job, then he can, and should, lose that job. Not because he’s a bigot. Because he’s refusing to do his job.
Thanks, John. We’ll be sure to file that with all the other “helpful” advice we’ve gotten from straight people about how we’re not fighting for our rights in the correct manner.
I wonder if some states might revise procedures for issuing marriage licenses so as to eliminate face-to-face contact and thus remove the issue? Make it a by-mail application, or perhaps all online.
By centralizing the processing in a single state office then no couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, would have any idea who issued the license. Less liability for the state that way.
Aside from an alteration to procedures like that, I am sure legal cases will battle out much like pharmacist refusals. The Appeals Court in Illinois in 2012, for example, upheld the right of pharmacists not to fill scripts for emergency contraception on religious grounds. That was private business and not a public government position so perhaps that will make a difference.
A federal court in Washington state ruled in favor of the pharmacists in Stormans v. Wiesman on the same pharmacist refusal issue. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal court) has heard oral argument of the state’s appeal. I can’t find a ruling on that appeal yet. If the opinion diverges from the Illinois court then perhaps SCOTUS will take that up?
I think the biggest impact it has is on the next generation. Most of us grew up with at least a few racists in the older generations in our family. But most of us grew up understanding that those were outdated, socially unacceptable, and offensive views. Old grandpa Joe may be as racist or homophobic as he wants, but having clear words to describe these views ensures that little Joe and Susie grow up rolling their eyes when he spews hate rather than learning to perpetuate it.
Ever read a union contract? Employers dealing with a labor contract may not be able to change duties. Cite (See section on labor unions)
When my (non-union) public service job added substantial duties they had to have me sign a new contract. Had I chosen not to I still had an existing contract and my employer was bound by its terms. This was made plain.
It’s one thing to call a relative, whom you know, a bigot. in that case, you have enough evidence to make a decent judgement. But in the case of this thread, we have no idea who the people are who are being called bigots. That’s way I specifically said “when speaking of broad categories or people we don’t actually know” I don’t think it useful to throw the b-word around.
And how does that affect anything I wrote in my post? Some of the duties the person’s asked to perform s/he has no problem with, others s/he does. If he can’t bear the sinfulness of the latter, s/he can request reassignment or live by their faith and move on.
Nope. You are inventing arguments that I have not made.
I note that images such as those presented in Midnight Cowboy have given way to images such as Jodie Dallas on Soap and later to images such as La Cage aux Folles and Will and Grace, punctuated by revelations, beginning with Rock Hudson, that a number of popular personalities were, themselves, gay.
Against that, the notion that a number of people on the internet expressing anger against anti-gay bigotry was a serious force to change minds seems odd. (I do not ever recall hearing a public figure publicly condemning anti-gay attitudes as bigotry, although I do not claim it never happened. And speeches at gay rallies to which the majority of people never paid attention really don’t count.)
Had there been a prolonged public effort at shaming people away from homophobia, it might have worked. However, since that does not appear to have actually occurred, we don’t know if it would have. I have not claimed that shaming could not work; I simply note that using a different approach seems to have actually been a successful strategy.
What??? People have been trying to reason with them for 20 or 30 years, or more. Your “don’t shame them” them position only works if people had not tried reasoning with them first.