No, saying you don’t like homosexuality is speaking out, refusing to serve homosexual customers is discrimination.
So what’s different? Is there no prejudice against gays? In the past, were their no religious differences regarding race?
How is this new? Do you really believe that not a single person in the past was opposed to interracial relationships, or integration, because they legitimately thought it was against God’s law?
So what? What does this have to do with gays, or religion? Does any religious text say “thou shalt not travel to an event that features gay people”, or “thou shalt not set up equipment and tables, or wait those tables, or clean up, at an event that features gay people”?
Sounds like a good middle ground. I don’t want any sexuality or lifestyles forced on someone. If someone is catering a gay wedding, and they are forced to be part of the gay lifestyle, then whomever is doing the forcing should be prosecuted for assault (or whatever other crimes apply). If someone is taking photographs at a gay wedding, and they are sexually assaulted, than the assaulter should be prosecuted. If a minister is kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to perform a wedding, then the kidnappers should be prosecuted.
I just don’t understand what this has to do with catering gay weddings… I’ve never heard of anyone’s lifestyle being forced on someone at a wedding. Can you describe what you mean by this?
Race is the archetypal American discrimination. Of course it’s part of this thread.
This thread is not about race because that argument has already been (largely) won; It’s exactly the same kind of argument we’re having today about sexuality though.
Wind the clock back 50 years or more and people were making religious arguments in support of racism - and their arguments were not so very different from those being made today in support of homophobia. That’s the point we’re all trying to make; the point that somehow seems to be escaping you.
ace - you are very concerned about people pushing their lifestyles on others. I get that you are sincere in that belief, but could you comment on these two situations, and explain to me who is pushing their lifestyles onto whom?
- Jack and John are getting married and they want to buy flowers for the ceremony.
- Rev. Pete tells his congregation that Jesus has told his followers to spread the Word, and that everyone should try to get people who have fallen on rough times to go to church.
You seem to believe that people need special protection against #1, but what do you think about #2? Because as far as I can see, Jack and John aren’t trying to convert the florist to any particular worldview. Rev. Pete is.
A middle ground? Where was the middle ground when gays were being committed to mental institutions against their will? Where was the middle ground when gays were losing their jobs and being thrown out of their hones? Where was the middle ground when cops were violently breaking up bars? Where was the middle ground when gays were having their children taken away from them?
People like you and jtgain made it perfectly clear what the terms of the fight were going to be over fifty years ago: no quarter, no mercy, don’t give an inch. Right up until the point where you realized that you were losing, and now, after decades of violence and discrimination and open, raging hatred, NOW you want to know why we can’t come to some sort of a compromise?
Look in a fucking mirror. You’re being treated with a tenth of the disdain and disgust you’ve showed us for nearly the entirety of the 20th century, and before. You chose the terms of this struggle, you can fucking die by them for all i care.
/\This
The bible has a number of passages about race and they aren’t particularly favorable about mixing races. Things like hanging people for mixed race marriages. Religions have proven capable of ignoring this in favor of more acceptance.
This is a short read from my Google search
https://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/terrible-parts-of-the-bible-part-5-racism/
I’m not sure I can explain this any better than the article I linked in my OP. I agree the florist should sell the flowers. For right now, at this period in time, he may feel that doing so somehow involves him in something he feels is morally wrong. That type of backward thinking will gradually fade over time. Especially as the younger generation matures and becomes the business owners.
Meanwhile perhaps a carrot instead of a stick is the best approach. Step around the problem for now. He may soften his views as the world changes around him. Give him some space and time to rethink and adjust to the new expectations. If he doesn’t change, then he won’t be in business for that much longer.
That’s what I got from the article. A softer approach instead of the anger and threats that have been coming out recently. Certainly continue pushing for change, but not with so much anger.
You mean those gays shouldn’t act so uppity?
There’s never going to be change slow enough to make people comfortable, because change is itself uncomfortable. The comfort comes a generation after the change does… but if you try to soften the blow and ease into changes, they don’t happen.
Anger is the appropriate response to injustice
Now jtgain is going to scold you and tell you to keep comparing sexual orientation to race—because of the huge backlash he apparently thinks will eventually happen.
So it’s the tone that bothers you the most? That just sounds like whining – especially because the pro-gay-rights folks are winning. How is it any more damaging or freedom-restricting to society for it to be as difficult and unacceptable to refuse service to gays as it is to refuse service to interracial couples or black people?
See this staff report from Dex about use of the bible to justify racism and slavery. I’ll note that it’s more than a throwaway rule in an old testament text next to other (ignored) rules about eating fat, associating with women on their period, mixing fabrics, etc.
A lot of ministers and their congregations are involved in the fight for equal rights for gays. What’s your point?
There’s a problem - are we going to fix it now, or later? And when ‘later’ comes, what will stop us just bargaining for another delay?
The world won’t change if we refrain from making it change.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, but I don’t think you touched on the issue I was truly interested in hearing your thoughts about.
You’ve said many times that people should not force their lifestyles onto others. For some businesses, they apparently believe that doing business with someone is subjecting themselves to the lifestyle of the customer.
On the other hand, virtually all religions urge people to proselytize, spread the Word, and convince people to adopt that religion. This is the dictionary definition of evangelism. So do you believe religions have an obligation not to force their lifestyle upon others by spreading literature or trying to convince people to give church a try?
To put it another way, which is more common in your opinion: gay people trying to convince other people to be gay, or religious people trying to convince others to be religious? Should both be subject to your “don’t force your lifestyle onto anyone else” rule of thumb?
For those unable to see how similar the two movements are - the fight against racism and against homophobia - here is video from a pastor that really highlights it.
Of course the odd thing is many black people are not in favor of gay rights. For example check the vote on prop 8 i Calif for an example.
To repeat from my earlier posts: you don’t think gays should be angry at people who decline to provide services with them because those people judge them to be irredeemable sinners?
When someone refuses services based on their moral judgment of the other person, that other person has every right to be angry.
This would be legitimate if the National Gay Council had decided to drive the pizza parlor out of business, instead of a few Internet yahoos with too much passion and not enough sense.