“They”? I stand with gay people. Lots of straight people stand with gay people. This is not gay people against straight people. This is people who respect gay people against people who don’t.
You don’t respect gay people? I don’t owe you anything. I don’t owe you my business, and damned straight (heh) I will tell others about it and hope they won’t give you their business either.
I don’t make illegal threats, wouldn’t call or harass. But I’m happy to boycott.
Is the Country Singer’s wedding, itself, sinful? No (unless you are Catholic, which they aren’t. The belong to The Church of Christ, which AFAICT does allow divorce.). Past sins can be forgiven.
But if you think SSM is a sin, then the wedding, itself, is sinful.
Christianity is all about forgiving sins, but it isn’t about aiding and abetting sin.
I don’t think this has been mentioned yet, but one of the arguments for segregation was also a religious one–that God didn’t want blacks and whites to mix, or marry each other. But the U.S. doesn’t allow that argument to be used to let businesses discriminate any more.
Should a mom and pop be destroyed? If they break the law, yes.
Well, I agree with it. Mom and pop stores that refuse to serve gay customers should be burned to the ground, and the earth salted, while the proprietors are driven naked through the streets with bullwhips, until they reach the edge of town, where they are banished forever to wander and cry in the wilderness.
Yes, it is sinful. The divorce itself isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s the remarriage while your ‘first’ spouse lives. Divorce and remarriage equals adultery.
What if the mom and pop store doesn’t agree with mixed race marriages? Should they have the right to refuse?
Or if the couple has a person who has been divorced? Or a criminal background? Or a genetic problem (those hemophiliacs/Down’s syndrome people shouldn’t get married). Or is HIV positive? Or a cancer survivor?
I have a number of problems with this law. But the biggest one is that it pretends that “religion” is one fixed thing. New religions spring up all the time. Even old religions change and adopt new texts, no ideological bents. It’s not practical or fair to allow one set of religious exemptions (die-hard Christians and their hatred for teh gays) but not allow the others that may spring up.
Today it’s gays, and tomorrow it could be some other group.
There’s also no guarantee that we’ll always have protected classes. Laws are repealed all the time.
Here, here! Great post, especially the last paragraph. I have lived long enough to see majority opinions against blacks and women become recognized as the prejudice they are. Prejudice against the gay community is next, and those with that prejudice know deep in their hearts, that they are wrong and they will lose.
I agree. This is not something that is so ingrained the system to the point where gays are denied wedding cakes. It’s just done to be a giant “Fuck You” to people who are religiously opposed to SSM. It’s not enough that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder, not enough that it is legal, not enough that gay marriage is legal. Now it must be that everyone will accept it or suffer the consequences.
The OP is right. Growing up, the argument was that gay people were not forcing anything on anyone; they just wanted the right to live their lives as they pleased and to be left alone. Now that they have that, they are going for the jugular, and by doing so are alienating people who supported their plight by actually, really and truly, forcing their relationships on people.
Yep. It’s not enough to just be discriminated against “a little bit,” or “less than you used to be,” or, as one inestimable intellect on the right has recently suggested, “less than in Iran.” We actually want, surprisingly enough, not to be discriminated against at all. We’d like to see anti-gay discrimination treated with the same legal and social opprobrium as racial discrimination, or gender discrimination. And really, that’s all that’s happening here. People who are anti-gay bigots are, finally, being treated the same way anti-black bigots get treated.
That’s a pretty standard misrepresentation of the anti-gay rights lobby. Unless you grew up back when the Mattachine Society was the only name in gay rights organizations, the goal of the gay rights movement has always been to see sexuality subject to the same protections as race, gender, and religion.
As for alienating supporters, that’s simply not happening. The majority of Americans are on board with these sorts of protections, and that majority is growing steadily. The only people we’ve “alienated” are the soft bigots who were willing to tut their tongues disapprovingly at people like Westboro Baptist, and then pretend that was the same thing as actually supporting gay rights. If those people were too dumb to realize that when gay rights activists talked about “full equality,” they actually meant “full equality,” well, I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for idiots to begin with, and far less when that idiocy is actively malicious.
What pronoun should I use to refer to a group of people to which I don’t belong? Oh, yeah, it’s “they” and “them.” I’ll never understand why your side thinks that it is improper ONLY when referring to favored groups.
As for uppity, well, again, keep making the race parallel without any support to your argument.