Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[Iceweasel]

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

Yep, women at a bar are likely going to be hit on. But your point is moot because if your son goes to a gay bar guess what happens? The rest of your point was more of the same. Start a bakery and refuse to make a gay wedding cake and get back to us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.

A restaurant refusing service to someone who is gay is no different than refusing service to a black person. Refusing wedding business to a homosexual couple is refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding.

Nonsense.

It no more constitutes ‘participation’ than baking a birthday cake means the baker is ‘participating’ in the birthday party or baking a cake for a graduation means the baker is 'participating’ in the graduation ceremony.

What confuses me is your assumption that they AREN'T participating, and that everyone automatically knows that assumption to be true.

Your hatred of gay Americans is subjective and irrational, which is why you and others on the social right are incapable of making an objective, rational argument in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties.

Your assumption that disagreeing with you automatically means hatred is subjective and irrational, but then, everything you say is subjective and irrational, so at least you're consistent.

And I'm not incapable of making an objective, rational argument. You're just incapable of recognizing one.

No one has a "civil liberty" to force association onto others.

A business owner’s refusal to accommodate a gay customer has nothing to do with his ‘religious beliefs,’ and everything to do with his fear and hatred of gay Americans.

Well, I'm so glad you're here to tell us all what people REALLY think, contrary to what they think they think, Miss Cleo. While you're at it, can you give me the winning lottery numbers?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

The REAL irony is the proposed law you defend uses the brute force of government to protect discrimination.

Really? Explain where the "brute force of government" is employed in a business owner saying, "Sorry, I don't want to service your wedding", particularly as opposed to a lesbian couple saying, "You don't want to service our wedding? I'm going to sue you broke!"

I know which one looks like "brute force of government". Do you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.

There are probably many homosexuals who struggle with coming to terms with their orientation and do go through a period of vocal anti-gay speech, but that is a homosexual struggling to survive IMO and more akin to sympathisers and collaborators and self-hatred than actual bigotry.

Suspicion, fear and hatred of the "other" is (or was) about survival. Keeping women and children property ensures that your line survives over anothers. Persecuting the odd culture (even wiping them out, which we have been inclined to do) keeps your culture dominant and in power. The strongest survives, the rest perish, from the beginning to today, not just in America but across the globe.

Colonials/Native Americans, Hutu/Tutsi, Canadians/Quebecois, Christians/everyone else, Muslims/everyone else, heterosexual/homosexual. It is the human condition and takes a long time (if it is even possible) to reconcile two groups of "other". It seems to me that assimilation or absorbsion is the only way, but that kills some very interesting cultures. As long as they are "other," it seems they are wrong and that's a shame.

I think we are further along than we were, obviously, but not there. If we ever get there, I bet another "other" appears for us to fear and be suspicious of, therefore hate ... maybe aliens. If so, it will take generations to breed out that fear ... or they can just squash us lol.

You rarely can change a grown person's worldview. His children are less afraid and hate less, and their children begin to see commonalities rather than "other" due to exposure with little to no noticable ill effects. IMO, that is the point that the "other" is no longer a threat or danger. There is a reason that, historically, stranger = enemy. It is one of the reasons we are still here.

For those few it actually was a "choice" to become "heterosexual" and deny their attraction for the same sex as themselves. But that "choice" doesn't alter the way they are wired inside. It is more just a denial of the way they were born because it clashes with the religious dogma they were taught.

The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

And fear is the very core of conservatism.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Another fake study? Or are you just totally misrepresenting it?

Personally, after reading g the first few paragraphs of your link, I have concluded that you are a lying sack of shit.

One thing you should pay close attention to.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

In other words, you should be asking yourself why you hate everyone. Is it because you were taught that from birth? Do you think you have no choice? Are you just a sick fucker who likes to pretend he is tough even though he hasn't left his bedroom since he got beat up in fifth grade?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The First Amendment does a lot more than merely protect religious organizations and people from persecution, or prevent the government from setting up a state religion. What we are addressing right now is the OTHER part of that clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There's simply no way you can say that it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people.

Right, I'm not saying that "it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people."

But this isn't simply a freedom of religion issue, it's a freedom of association issue. And while the freedom of religion established in the first amendment might not protect "any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment", the freedom of association does. We should be free to associate with whomever we want (or refuse association with whomever we don't want) for whatever reasons we want - religious, secular, rational, irrational.

The fact that we have somehow concocted the screwy notion that people have a "right" to associate with people who don't want to participate, or have a "right" to not be made to feel bad because they've encountered someone who doesn't approve of them, does not change the wording or the intent of the First Amendment. I simply don't think you can rationally argue that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention of forcing businesses to attend and service gay weddings against their will.

And I don't. Public accommodations laws are even more heinous than the misinterpretation of the first amendment. But I think addressing them with a religious exemption is bad medicine. It only weakens our case against this kind of government intrusion in matters of conscience.

My point is that freedom of religion isn't, or at least shouldn't be thought of as, a "get out of jail free card". It's not intended to allow religious people to selectively disobey the law for 'religious reasons'.

Then work to repeal the public accommodation laws, don't pretend that, because that is already down the drain, no one else has any rights either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

God, is that YOU?

More like, "We're not perfect, but unlike you, we're at least trying."

I don't actually care about an opinion of my flaws that comes from a group of people that publicly embraces and celebrates their own flaws.

TRYING to do what?
Understand...no.
Accept...no.
Show tolerance...no.
Dictate discrimination using the brute force of government...yes.

Riiight. If someone is opposing the left, it MUST be because they just don't understand them. It could never be because they understand . . . and find it repugnant.

Accept? Only leftists think they're constantly being called on to "accept" things. The rest of us aren't that arrogant.

Tolerance? Just because you think tolerance is the one and only moral absolute in the world - and then, only as practiced by you, which is what anyone else would call "approbation - doesn't mean it actually is.

We've already addressed your new little buzzword of "brute force of government". Unless you can show me government brutes in action anywhere in this, please consider yourself cordially invited to shut the fuck up with that bullshit. It's impressing no one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.

I'm not sure. There are those that oppose because they are different, therefore threatening. There are plenty of those and it looks (at least in my area) like that is the largest block of opposition. I am seeing a smaller but growing group that is reacting to perceived rudeness or hostility or in-your-face innapropriateness in public and on airwaves. People who don't fear or hate resent being lumped in with those that do. One can disagree with another and not hate them or hold them down ... Chick fil a and Roberts of Duck Dynasty. One can support gay rights and find aggressive pushing of that agenda to be rude and innapropriate ... public displays of as nude as possible or as sexual as possible. That is the kind I am seeing from the left and moderate right. I don't lump that in the same category and don't consider that to be opposition to homosexuality. That is a pushback to rudeness and a demand for common courtesy. They are just as opposed to overt sexual behavior of heterosexuals in public as of homosexuals. We respect your rights and will generally fight in varying degrees for them ... until your right smacks against my right to not have obnoxious people in my face and angry at me for all of history, or when they feel they can't take their children out in public without someone's hairy ass in a thong ... much like the rudeness and inappropriateness of pants around ones thigh so far I can see asshairs.

Those are different IMO and I hope "the movement" realizes this soon. One is the problem of the hater (opposed to homosexuality). The other is the problem of the other hater (homosexuals who aggressively lash out at the many who do not fear or hate in order to really goad the ones who do). Personally, I've never feared or hated homosexuals. That does not mean I appreciate public groping between homosexuals. Public space is shared by all and requires us to recognize that others have the right to enjoy that space as well. A little courtesy, please. Just like I speak up to innapropriate sexuality in public among young heterosexuals, I reserve the right to speak up to the same from homosexuals. I also speak up when people's children scream/tantrum in public and their parent ignores it without removing them. It is intrusive and rude. That does not make me a bigot or an asshole, just more conservtive than others.

I guess everyone has their lines, but there needs to be an understanding that not everyone is comfortable with everything. Pushing the line of public decency is not going to help the cause IMO. It gets a lot of exposure, and desensitizes to a degree, but people will push back to keep public spaces a place they can enjoy as well. Most of us have no more problem with gay pride parades than mardi gras parades in New Orleans. Both are fun places to enjoy pushing (and even crossing, if you can get away with it) those lines. People who don't want to see nudity or in-your-face sexuality can and do avoid them. People who do want to see and enjoy it go and some bring their children. I've no problem with that. I've no problem with holding hands, mild kissing, arms wrapped around shoulders or waists or anything like that. Other cultures find ALL public displays of affection innapropriate and I can't think of any culture that finds full sexual contact in public appropriate (although I don't know all cultures). There is a line. On one side, the majority of both can live happily. On the other side, you are just pissing off and/or embarassing the majority of both.

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....

Even more people have family members who are religious, yet you hate them anyway. You really need to stop hiding away from the world just cause you got beat up by a gay kid once.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Oh, would I? How do you know that? Because YOU are a hypocrite who only supports rights for yourself and those you agree with, so you assume everyone else holds your same loathsome attitudes?

Feel free to prove what I would and would not be outraged by, and don't EVER assume that just because you would do something, you are in any way, shape, or form comparable to me.

That would require thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It. Does. Not. Do. That.

It allows anyone, of any religion, even the one that only exists inside their head, to claim an exemption. A good example of this would be that during WWII the government actually told a Jehovah's Witness that he had to work on tank turrets, and argued that the fact that other people with the same religion were willing to do it was proof that his beliefs were not sincere. If the world worked the ay you thing, he would have lost.

He didn't.

It always amazes me how leftists think the dictates of an individual's conscience are decided by committee vote.

Maybe it's because leftists have no conscience, so they have no frame of reference.

Conscience driven unconstitutional actions are still unconstitutional actions.

The only possible agent of an unconstitutional action is the government. Until you understand that basic concept you really have no business posting anywhere, much less on a political message board.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

You obviously aren't looking very hard, then. Maybe if you actually got out and met some people who aren't clones of yourself . . . but no, leftists don't really hold with that sort of thing, do they?

As for gay men being "more respectful", that's laughable. Sure, they don't hit on women, that's quite true. Treating them like hostile adversaries, exactly the same way other women do? That's a different story.

Which is not to say that I don't have one or two gay friends, but mostly, hanging with gay men is exactly like hanging with women, which I almost never do.

Maybe your daughter ought to look into learning not to hate and fear men. I'm just sayin' . . .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.

On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?

So long as they do not substantively conflict with United States Law, no problemo.

Cross that line and all bets are off.

It's the answer and open-door that you've been waiting for all morning.

Run with it.

And thus an Arizona religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?

Are you admitting you lost the debate?

 

[Chaussette]

Arizona's full of fucking beaners anyways, so who fucking cares anyways that they hate gays?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Oh, would I? How do you know that? Because YOU are a hypocrite who only supports rights for yourself and those you agree with, so you assume everyone else holds your same loathsome attitudes?

Feel free to prove what I would and would not be outraged by, and don't EVER assume that just because you would do something, you are in any way, shape, or form comparable to me.

That would require thinking.

I know. That was kinda where I was going with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?

Dimwit, THE US CONSTITUTION gives religious beliefs special status. Do you now want to tell us that your extra-special, personal revelation that any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment should be given the exact same weight should take precedent over the most basic, fundamental legal framework we have? Because the answer is going to be, "Shut the fuck up" if that's the case.

I realize that you would like to believe that the First Amendment mandates governmental indifference and even hostility toward religion, and you have gone to great lengths to facilitate that belief by never, EVER reading the First Amendment and having precious little understanding of the English language, but in fact, the First Amendment (among other things) specifically PROTECTS religion, and it prohibits government from promoting one specific religion over any other. It does NOT prohibit government from protecting ALL religion.

Now personally, I'm a believer in freedom of thought and association as a general rule. But it is a fact that it is RELIGIOUS BELIEF that is specifically protected in our founding laws. Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the hate-filled religiophobic world you'd like to live in, but . . . actually, I'm not sorry. I'm kinda glad it chafes your hide.

The onus is on you to prove that this "special status" exists for religion and that there is anything that religion needs to be "protected" from.

Actually, given current law and the COTUS, the burden is on you to prove exactly the opposite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

All of our rights are inalienable, but they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the state – including religious rights enshrined in the First Amendment. This is why human sacrifice, child molestation, and the use of illegal drugs as part of some ‘religious dogma’ are lawfully prohibited, and where those prohibitions are not in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

As already correctly noted, a unanimous Supreme Court held that religious belief is not justification to ignore or violate a just and proper law. In Employment Division, a Native American was convicted of using an illegal drug, peyote, and lost his job with the state of Oregon consequently. The Native American claimed that the use of the drug was warranted by his religion, and that he should not be subject to punitive measures for its religious use.

The Supreme Court wisely and appropriately rejected this argument, maintaining that criminal suspects would attempt to contrive a defense predicated on their ‘religious belief,’ which would result in judicial chaos as courts would be forced to determine what constitutes a ‘legitimate’ religion and what does not.

This, then, is why public accommodations laws are appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional. In addition to the state’s regulatory authority with regard to commerce, that one is of the opinion that homosexuality is offensive to his faith is not justification to refuse to serve gay Americans who seek to patronize his business, in violation of the law. And to compel a business owner to indeed accommodate gay customers in no way ‘violates’ the business owner’s religion or right to practice that religion.

Tell me something, O purveyor of all things legal, what happened after the Smith decision? Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ring a bell?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

No, it would be my personal opinion, which is not based on what the Supreme Court says is, or is not, legal. Learn the difference, asshole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

The REAL irony is the proposed law you defend uses the brute force of government to protect discrimination.

Feel free to point out how that would happen.

Keep in mind that the bill is actually patterned on the RFRA, which was signed by Clinton after all but 2 Democrats in Congress voted for it.

While you are at it, you might want to point out how a law that keeps the government from infringing on religion enables discrimination, but a law that deliberately targets a religion doesn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.

Unless you became God while I wasn't looking you have no right to tell anyone what they can, and cannot, believe. Insisting that you can, and demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others, makes you the moral equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Is that really the side of history you want to be on?

And what side are you on? Demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others and sanction discrimination.

Yes, because insisting that the government doesn't have the power to tell people what to do is proof I want the government to tell people what to do.

I suggest you just go hide in a corner until someone who is your intellectual equal comes along, no one else is going to fall into your stupid traps. If you like, I could invite Tank to the thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

You haven't met very many gay people, have you?

I forgot, you have been hiding in your bedroom for years.

 

[syrenn]

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

Really... you have never met one? You must only have interactions with classy gay people.

And.....obviously you have never been to san francisco......