He made the front page of today’s Post Gazette:
Santorum: No apology: Remarks on sodomy case continue to draw fire from gays, Democrats.
Is he up for reelection next year? God, I hope so. Let’s get this asshat OUT!!!
I guess I’m not understanding what the standards of the entertainment division of NBC has to do with the ability of its news division to “credibly criticize” Santorum or his stand. I doubt that NBC (or any other network) would have in the 60s aired an entertainment program featuring a man shooting another man point-blank in the head. Does that mean those networks were unable through their news division to “credibly criticize” the My Lai massacre? Even if NBC and its various outlets are out of the credible criticism running, there are still other outlets which, should they choose to take the denegration of gay people as seriously as they do the slagging of other minorities, could keep the story in the public eye. Unfortunately, it’s still socially acceptable to excuse bigotry against gay people by attempting to explain it away as a distinction between what they do and who they are, and to pretend (as your posts in this thread dramatically illustrate) that statements of naked bigotry are simply “comments on pending Supreme Court cases.” There is also no pressure on the Republican Party to pretend to be sympathetic to gay people the way that there is pressure on it to pretend to be sympathetic to black people. The shell gay Republican group Dick Cheney’s daughter set up so that the Bush administration could ignore the Log Cabin Republicans has failed to issue a statement condemning Santorum despite its having filed a brief in Lawrence v Texas urging SCOTUS to overturn it.
So you’re probably right, this story will disappear in a few days. More’s the pity.
PENNSYLVANIA PEOPLE-
VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE!
Not until 2006, unfortunately.
Fuck it all. How did this asshat ever get Senator Heinz’s seat?
:rolleyes:
Look, do you really think there’s a communication problem? Do you really think anyone involved in these types of discussions thinks “forced” means anything other than having a choice imposed indirectly by the threat of money damages?
I’m sorry that this is a little pet peeve of yours, but “forced” is a convenient shorthand for how the tort system operates that confuses no reasonably-informed participant in these discussions. Deal with it.
It was my understanding that non-discriminatory policies don’t mean “You must hire this person specifically because of his/her orientation/status as a transgender person” but “You may not use this person’s sexual orientation/status as a transgender person to exclude this person from employment.” The only way I, personally, can see how a person/company could be “forced” to hire someone gay or bisexual or transgender is if there’s nobody at all else in the applicant field who is qualified. And you’d have to be really bigoted (IMO) to think “Oh, shit! We have to hire this incredibly qualified lesbian or we’ll lose our federal funding!”
Is this understanding incorrect in some way?
It was in our paper today. He claims its the homosexual acts that are bad, not being gay.
Oh. Well.
Thats okay then.
:rolleyes:
You miss my point. The reason NBC doesn’t show Will necking with his boyfriends is because a large portion of their audience is uncomfortable with homosexual activity. That is a tragedy, but is also an uncomfortable reality. Unlike Lott – who espoused a position (pro-segregation) that most of America left behind long ago – Santorum’s comments won’t resonate negatively with much of America. And it is that disquieting fact of life that makes it unlikely that Santorum will share Lott’s fate.
I’m not currently part of the tort system. I’m involved in a discussion of civil rights laws and it is perfectly appropriate to point out that to claim that civil rights laws “force” an employer to hire someone is at best a mis-statement of the law and at worst a manipulative lie designed to distort and deceive people as to the intent and scope of these laws. Not to come off all drama queeny here, but the stated goal of this board is to fight ignorance, and stating (even as “convenient shorthand”) that civil rights laws “force” employers to hire people is ignorant. Is simple correctness in the statement of legal concepts too much to expect from an attorney who routinely (and rightly) lights into people on this board for presenting incorrect legal information?
Personally, i am much more uncomfortable with violence depicted on tv.
iampunha: That is accurate. The courts don’t order anyone to hire a specific person. What antidiscrimination law does is prevent an employer from making a choice on a proscribed basis, on pain of money damages.
Antidiscrimination laws are part of the tort system. Discussion of antidiscrimination laws are necessarily discussions revolving around tort law. A tort is a civil wrong, redressed with money damages. It can be anything from a car accident to defamation to a claim for civil rights violations.
You’re right, I shouldn’t use the term “forced” for discussions of this type with you, because you’re obviously not one of the “well-informed participants” I was referring to.
**
Too late. **
Use of the term is only a problem if it does not adequately convey what is being discussed. I think it does, and thus works as shorthand. I think most participants on this message board are both intelligent and well-informed enough to know how the tort system operates, and to not be confused by the use of the term. YMMV.
May I humbly suggest in future that if your point is that the story won’t have legs because public won’t care that you try to make the point by saying the first time that the public won’t care rather than saying that the media has no credibility to report or “criticize” the story? I didn’t miss your point; you made a different one.
And if people like you made up a substantial portion of the viewing public, you’d have programs filled with Will necking with Jack while Grace places flowers in the barrels of guns. Which is great as far as I’m concerned.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
Antidiscrimination laws are part of the tort system. Discussion of antidiscrimination laws are necessarily discussions revolving around tort law. A tort is a civil wrong, redressed with money damages. It can be anything from a car accident to defamation to a claim for civil rights violations.
[quote]
Thank you, I know what a “tort” is. Did I say that civil rights laws were not part of tort law? No, I said that I was not, that this discussion was not (as it is a discussion rather than a lawsuit).
My first thought upon reading this was, “wow, the guy’s just a dick!” Then I remembered that you’re not one who sets foot in a courtroom and perhaps hasn’t spent a lot of time thinking about or working for civil rights issues. While at the bar y’all may indeed use “force” without any pejorative connotations, for many of us who are part of groups whose rights are routinely violated or ignored, our experience with the word “force” in connection with these laws is markedly different and often heavily pejorative. Take a look at the campaigns in the 70s against “gay rights” laws in Dade County and other communities around the country. Look at the language surrounding the attempted passage of California’s Briggs Initiative and the language used in support of the attempted passage of Oregon’s Measure 9 and the successful campain for Colorado’s Amendment 2. Look at the language used by opponents of hate crimes ordinances or proposed “gay rights” laws even today. Perhaps you don’t read on a daily basis comments in the news which dismiss you as evil and immoral, and characterize your effort to live a life free of discrimination as demands for “special rights” and attempts to “force” your “unnatural life-style” on other people. I do. So perhaps that makes me a bit sensitive to the use of the word “force” in this context. Or perhaps you are just a dick after all. YMMV. Regardless of your reasons for using and being comfortable with the language you’re using, the bald fact of the matter is that it is wrong and an example of perpetuating ignorance among those who, unlike you and me, actually don’t know any better.
Gah. If a mod would take pity upon me and correct the coding to close my quote tag in the above post I would greatly appreciate it.
A large portion of this country (and further, the newsmedia’s demographic targets) are uncomfortable with seeing any number of things shown on TV (and the news, for that matter) for shock value. FOX makes piles of money off that specific idea: that people will tune in wondering what horrid thing is on the news/television that particular night. And they’ll turn their heads and keep on peeking. Rubbernecking from afar, so to speak. At least they don’t cause traffic jams…
All I can say, from here in Topeka, Kansas, is how our local hate group, the Fred Phelps clan, takes the statement Santorum made.
There’s a fax from them out now thanking Santorum for the comments. It’s here:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/apr2003/Rick_Santorum_4-22-2003.pdf
The way I figure things, if the Phelp’s approve of something, then that something has got to have a wrongness in it.:mad:
No, you are a moron because of it.
Saying that by ceasing to make homosexual sex between consenting adults illegal will allow incest, bigamy, shrimping, tea bagging, and hot necrolove is a SLIPPERY SLOPE argument.
gobear lives in that area, you dolt.
I think he, better than most, would know what is going down as he is innundated with that information constantly.
I lived in that area in 1996. I know what it is like and how political news becomes as common as the air one breathes. You do breathe, don’t you? Oxygen does reach your brain facsimile, right?
Senator Heinz died, unfortunately.
I see on cnn.com that the White House is letting Santorum twist in the wind.
Robin