I agree in some respects, but people can choose where to spend their money, and in this case it’s where to buy your junk food. If that means that the chick people get less business, it also means that the people in other similar businesses do get that business, so their jobs are actually more secure.
They donated to the Family Research Council, which wants homosexuality to be illegal.
You are factually wrong. You are suffering under the usual Christian persecution complex, where you try to claim victim while stomping on the throats of others. Unfortunately, some people on this message board actually care about facts. It makes things inconvenient for you, doesn’t it?
What number are we defining “many” as? Two? Three? For somebody who usually gets so upset, so nitpicky, so enraged when people say “some republicans have…”, you are being very vague here.
I don’t disagree. But I don’t agree, either. Simply put, I have no reason to speculate how many people five years ago felt a certain way, and if you want to go on about how the gay rights groups are hypocrites because of one event five years ago, while ignoring how the groups you belong to are even worse, I encourage you to go make a thread in GD or the Pit about it.
Like, really, from you - “many were willing to apply a double standard”, geeze.
“Many religious groups are more OK with raping children then they are with gay rights. As such, the evilness of religious groups is established”.
Yeah for overall sweeping with ‘many’ ! And from somebody who’s usually against it… except when he gets to use it as a weapon.
Your fidelity to a factual argument is admirable.
For my own edification – and not because I doubt you; the craziness out there is rampant – can you provide a link supporting your factual claim that the Chick-Fil-A owner, or someone else who was boycotted, donated money to groups that fought against condemning a bill that makes homosexuality punishable by death?
Er…what groups are those, specifically, that I belong to? And in what way are they worse?
The problem is that you’re trying to make my argument into a claim that I didn’t make. There’s a gulf of distance between demonstrating a single case of hypocrisy – which my examples clearly do – and demonstrating that LGBT activist groups are pervasively or solely hypocritical, which I did not claim and never would, because I don’t believe it to be true.
Let’s review the bidding. You said:
My response to that line:
While I could have been a bit clearer, I was discussing the fact that there was certainly a non-zero incidence of hypocrisy in LGBT activist groups stemming from the Prop 8 battles. I certainly was not advancing or defending the idea that LGBT activists were wholly, or even substantially, characterized by hypocrisy. In fact, when Esco said:
The very first words I posted in response were:
They donated a thousand bucks. Whoopie doo.
Compared to all the millions they donated to other groups thats nothing.
And they were being boycotted because of their stance on gay marriage, not so much because they donated a lousy grand to some fringe organization.
Also, Chick-Fil-A has never publicly said they wanted to make homosexuality illegal. Just gay marriage
.
That’s not hypocrisy, that’s just a moral right.
Or to put it in terms you’re more familiar with, they wanted sexual orientation to be recognized as an immutable trait and added as a protected class and then use that legal protection to fight against unconstitutional discrimination while not agreeing that expression of bigotry meets the same standards for protection.
Boycott Chick-fil-A? Good, they’re a bunch of evil shitcocks.
Boycott someone who supports rights? No, they’re righteous.
No hypocrisy there
<deleted post>
Yogsooth, would you mind answering the dual hypos I posed in post #120?
Andy’s firing is justified and should be legal, because I believe sexual orientation is should be a protected class everywhere and its fine to fire bigots for being themselves.
Bert’s firing is not justified but should be legal because while Bert’s a good person, the restaurant owners have a right, up to a certain point, to remove things hurtful to their business.
However, in real life, there are other things I would consider. I would question the owners of Bert’s restaurant because I wouldn’t believe, or want to believe, that they fired Bert for sincere business reasons. Therefore, without that affirmation that it is, I would throw up whatever legal roadblocks I could to prevent them from firing Bert (lawsuits, threats of even worse boycotts if they fired him, one star Yelp reviews, etc.). Also, I also believe that since religions are coddled and draw unfair benefits, they should stay out of politics, therefore I would fight against their boycott with whatever legal means I could muster.
Going back to Karrius’s post that you responded with those hypotheticals, I agree with his reasoning that actions and speechs are not thoughts, and add in that I would somehow force Bert’s employers to prove that while granting Andy’s employers a pass.
It goes back to the beliefs I expressed in my post: If you’re a bigot, you get no pass, you dickface. If you’re fighting against discrimination, then you do get leeway
Thanks for the answer.
It gives me a chance to make a point I sometimes find myself trying to explain with respect to some set of positions I have taken. Unfortunately, when I am explaining my own positions, the following comment sounds self-serving.
You have described a double standard. But it’s NOT hypocrisy. It’s simply that the two standards are applied because of an additional factor: the presence, or absence, of bigotry.
I think this an an absolutely unworkable standard to apply in any kind of a legal framework. But it’s not a hypocritical one.
I’m fine with a double standard if it means that some things should be treated differently than other things. Bigotry should be rooted out, shamed, harassed, and bullied. And no, I don’t consider intolerance of the intolerant to be a form of intolerance.
As long as you’re talking about social opprobrium, I don’t have much objection to this.
But if you tried to legalize this kind of dual standard, as I suggest above, it becomes unworkable, or it becomes a dual-edge sword. (The fundamentalist religious practitioner gains political power and declares – just as we saw in Arizona and Kansas recently) that he is the victim of bigotry in the form of forcing him to disregard his religion.
The government simply cannot involve itself in adjudicating religious truths.
Forcing the religious to commit acts that are sinful would be bigotry. Forcing the religious to interact with those they consider sinful is not bigotry.
I don’t see how anyone’s suggesting that, though.
The government certainly can involve itself in regulating behavior related to commerce.
Of course it can, we tell people you can’t have creationism in science class because science deals with facts.
And while I see how the fundamentalist can claim political power and claim the victim, I’m fine with social shaming to bully him into a more tolerant path
No. That’s not the rationale used to decide “No teaching creationism in class.” In fact, the actual rationale supporting the exclusion is the one I offered: The government simply cannot involve itself in adjudicating religious truths. In other words, the government cannot establish religion, and that means it must avoid excessive entanglements in religion. Teaching creationism as a factual truth selects on religion’s story over others; this is not permissible.
Unless the religious believe that it’s sinful to interact with the sinful.
Is that ironclad? Whatever the religious claim is sinful, they cannot be compelled to do by the government?