And perhaps if this were some new question. “How dare you judge me based on my opinion of gay people without talking it out after we’ve been talking it out for decades! HOW DARE YOU!”
Sparky, no offense to you at all but they haven’t been fighting alone then or now. And when idiots are throwing taunts at us during a gay rights rally or pride march, they don’t ask if we’re gay or not first. Or add “apologies to all you straight people marching, we don’t mean you”.
Theory? You don’t want to know how many GLBT friends I’ve buried - or panels I helped add to the Quilt way back when that started. Trust me, its more than enough to earn me the right to an opinion - even if that opinion differs from yours. Sitting on a couch? If I, and the rest of the straights in “your” (since you seem to have assumed personal ownership) movement did that, do you think we would be as far along as we are? Sorry – again, I don’t mean it as mad or insulting – but that’s almost laughable.
It’s kind of hard to tell exactly what your position is on discrimination and services for gay weddings.
this whole issue mystifies me. I am a nurse, I have taken care of murderers, kidnappers, mother rapers, father rapers, child molesters, all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly people ( thank you for the terms, Arlo Guthrie) all with civility if not warmth, and someone thinks they can’t bake a cake for a gay couple? F* you.
Actually, I think saying, “FUCK YOU” to people who are opposed to SSM is a good thing.
Exactly what part of post #133 in this thread do you find confusing? I’ll be happy to give it a shot if I can.
a) Jake’s bakery doesn’t want to sell gay-wedding cakes because Jake thinks gay weddings are wrong = Discrimination
b) John won’t buy at Jake’s bakery because Jake thinks gay weddings are wrong = Good
They can’t both be right simultaneously.
Would you help a rapist rape in such a way that it doens’t leave evidence that would incriminate him? Would you advice a wife-beater how not to leave visible marks? Would you help a drunk driver pass a breathalaser test after he had an accident?
I’m not saying they are the same, but they highlight the difference between helping and condoning.
Why did you call out even Sven using the derisive term “sparky” when you and she both seem to be against people who discriminate against gay people? That’s weird.
Yes, they can. Buying and selling goods or services are two different things. The arguments for and against boycotts and discrimination are to some extent overlapping, and there are problematic aspects to boycotting, but they are still different. Please try harder.
Oh, your choice of comparison says plenty. Cub Mistress wrote of performing the same duties for everyone, regardless of their nature, you come up with a list of completely different actions.
You appear to be writing that baking a cake is equal to helping, but that if the baker knows it’s for a gay wedding it becomes condoning. I’m writing appear because despite ample evidence to the contrary I still find it hard to believe people can have such diminished capacity for thought and still be able to type.
That’s a really weird thing to say. Services are to be offered to everyone. Everyone should be able to choose which services they wish to participate in. What if I don’t buy a cake at Jake’s just because I don’t want a cake? Should I be obliged to buy my cake quota just to be fair?
If you meant that it isn’t right for John to try to rally a campaign against Jake’s bakery just because of one of Jake’s private beliefs he found out about, that in no way impacts Jake’s service as a business, I think that argument might have merit. People should be allowed to believe whatever the hell they like.
The second one isn’t “GOOD”, it’s neutral (if anything). The first one is discrimination, just like it would be if Jake thought interracial marriages were wrong.
Well, thank goodness that’s not the situation here, then!
Nobody is promoting a boycott because Jake has a personal belief that gay weddings are bad. If people boycotted every random bigot spouting off at the dinner table, there wouldn’t be a lot of places to shop in many small towns.
People are promoting a boycott because of Jake’s actions. Jake is using his business to publicly ostracize gay people. Jake’s actions are hurting people by making them into social outcasts and normalizing discrimination in the community.
This is not about personal beliefs. This is about equality in front of the law. I don’t care if you hate me, but you have no right to harm me because of that.
I have known plenty of small businesses (bakers, seamstresses, florists, musicians, etc.) that do refuse to provide services to couples whose lifestyles or wedding plans contradict the vendors’ religious preferences. So, it is not always picky-choosy fanaticism.
[quote=“monstro, post:101, topic:716716”]
We must have grown up in different eras. When I was growing up, all I heard was how gay people just want to be treated like everyone else…QUOTE]
Part of being treated like everyone else includes occasionally being rejected by a small business vendor because they just don’t like you. That’s life. If you don’t like it, choose a larger vendor where individual preferences are not factors.
Well, I suppose you could try “you people” and see how that works out.
I’ve never been rejected by a business vendor (small or not) because they don’t like me.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are routinely rejected simpy because of who you are, since you strike me as someone who provokes rejection from random strangers. But I hope you realize that this is not normal.
In the real world it’s perfectly normal to encounter people that don’t care to associate with unless you completely alter your behavior and compromise your principles. Most people respond by finding other people to do business with, not by throwing tantrums that they can’t get their way all time.
I will assume you know even Sven well enough to be correct in the use of “her” in this answer.
Because I don’t see it as a derogatory term I would debate that I called her out; just a generic term people use when they don’t know the person they are addressing very well. All I tried to do was to clarify myself (as a person) when she decided, to borrow your expression, to call me out.
That’s the part I find weird. What did I ever do to her to elicit that response? This is IMHO and not GD after all.
Uh, no, that’s not perfectly normal. I’ve never encountered that in my life, and I suspect that if you took a poll, very few people here have, either. This behavior is beyond the pale.
Change the second one to “…because Jake refuses to serve gay weddings because he thinks they’re wrong,” and sure, it’s good. Consider another formulation:
a) Jake’s bus won’t let black people sit near the front because Jake thinks black people are inferior to white people=Discrimination.
b) John won’t ride Jake’s bus because John thinks Jake’s discrimination is wrong=Good.
This is nearly exactly the formulation used in the most famous and successful boycott in US history (and I limit it the US only because Gandhi’s salt boycott may internationally be more famous, I’m not sure). The application of economic pressure in order to pressure folks to end unethical practices is ethical to the extent that compelling an end to these practices is ethical.
Folks tend to want to exame boycotts in a theoretical vacuum, and though the tactic is always good or always bad. But that’s silly. It’s not something like terrorism or lynching, where you can set some pretty absolute rules. It’s something like passing laws or writing articles, where passing an unjust law or writing a dishonest article is unethical, but passing a just law or writing an honest article is ethical. You gotta examine the content.