Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[Seawytch]

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

See above. The 2 instances are not even remotely similar. We had to enact laws against racial discrimination not because such things should be forced but because to not do so would have rendered equal life impossible for blacks and other minorities. It was a major problem that required governmental involvement or people would have been treated as less than whites. Gays are not facing the same thing or anything even remotely close.

The similarities are there. Racial discrimination was also justified with a freedom of religion defense. Gay folks are tired of discrimination and being treated less than straight folks.

Treated less than straight folk because a dozen wedding cake places would not bake them a cake.
The ONE place they were really discriminated against in a meaningful way has been rectified in most places and will be everywhere very soon. Now they are just pining for special treatment.

In Indiana, a gay person can still be fired from a job or denied a job, simply for being gay.

And 29 others.

 

[Mac1958]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

 

[Mac1958]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that reasonable people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

 

[Edgetho]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that reasonable people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

They don't want to work together, Mac.

That's what I object to. They want it their way and anybody that doesn't agree will be punished.

Look at Chic Fil-et or whatever it's called. Look at the CEOs they forced to resign. Look at the bullying going on.

I'm telling you.... They won this round in the culture war but you know what?

dimocraps are bad winners. Really bad winners.

And they're going to pay for it.

They are SERIOUSLY going to pay for it. They won this battle but they're going to lose the War.

Big time and in a big, really big, way.

Mark my words.

 

[Mac1958]

They don't want to work together, Mac.

That's what I object to. They want it their way and anybody that doesn't agree will be punished.

I don't disagree.

This doesn't have to be so difficult.

I think that, for some, this isn't about homosexuality or race or whatever. It's about control.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

It seems more like the far right is getting much stronger. So far there has been no backlash with Christians boycotting gay businesses. That's a step that needs to be taken.

Hi Tipsycatlover Yes and No
To boycott literally would make the matter four times worse!
The right way to "avoid doing business together" is to accept it as a MUTUAL conflict in beliefs,
and a civil separation. Let customers and businesses sign agreements to either settle any disputes that arise
AMICABLY, freely by mediation and consensus, or REFRAIN from doing business together.

Keep it civil, where it's clear that what is causing the problem
is the fact that both sides' BELIEFS are in conflict, which is not a judgment call on either side.

If one person like jazz and another likes heavy metal,
and they decide not to form a band and play together, that's MUTUAL.

We need to GET AWAY from this thinking that if the
heavy metal person rejects the jazz person or vice versa,
then one needs to sue the other for discrimination.

By treating beliefs with equal respect, we can bypass the whole dilemma
just like Hindus and Muslims, or Protestants and Catholics,
agreeing to have separate church services and not try to impose one on the other.
And certainly not boycott or call for actions against each other!

That's not Christian to try to attach anything negative to it.
When we part it is to be at peace, not to declare war or retribution, which is Antichrist.

But Tipsycatlover I DO AGREE with your concept that
NO they SHOULD NOT do business together where this creates conflicts between clashing beliefs.

I agree with the goal but not using boycotts as the method.

Good point otherwise!

 

[Edgetho]

From a better time.

 

[emilynghiem]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that reasonable people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

They don't want to work together, Mac.

That's what I object to. They want it their way and anybody that doesn't agree will be punished.

Look at Chic Fil-et or whatever it's called. Look at the CEOs they forced to resign. Look at the bullying going on.

I'm telling you.... They won this round in the culture war but you know what?

dimocraps are bad winners. Really bad winners.

And they're going to pay for it.

They are SERIOUSLY going to pay for it. They won this battle but they're going to lose the War.

Big time and in a big, really big, way.

Mark my words.

Thank you, Edgetho
The Democrats who have been demonizing and politicizing rejection of Christians for points in the media
will end up being humbled and eating their words:
* when it is established that spiritual healing is the key to health care reform and universal coverage for all.
* when it is established that the Christian methods of forgiveness to bring about restitution and corrections
to restore justice are universal, and consistent with humanitarian goals of peace and justice.
* when it is recognized that political and secular beliefs are just as abusive when imposed by law/govt against people's will as imposing Christianity, religious beliefs, or anything else that should remain free choice, and in particular
* when it is understand that pushing right to health through govt is just as faith-based and biased in belief
as pushing the right to life through govt "in order to save more lives at the expense of free choice"

We've all been paying the price.

The liberals have been screaming about trillions spent on war because diplomatic solutions were rejected.

Well, what about the cost to society and humanity of rejecting religion, when the spiritual healing taught in Christianity could have already converted prisons and mental health wards into medical school program to serve the public, and cut the costs of crime and disease in order to cover the broader population.

We will come to a mutual realization, and both sides of each conflict will realize
the project of blame was mutual, and so is the responsibility for fixing our side.

We will realize we are all in the same battle together, fighting different facets of the same war; we are not each other's enemy, and we can fight more effectively by teaming up on the same goals instead of dividing against each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

Because gays and Muslims can grow their own food and make their own fuel, right?

Huh?

.

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Dear Seawytch why wait until it becomes a gay issue to set up your own stores, schools, businesses, and cities?
Gee whiz. Does everything have to become a lawsuit or matter of litigation before liberals will do anything?
Does Govt have to play dictator and tell you what to do before you do it?

How many people, even teenagers, started their own businesses
because they didn't like the selections or sizes that were being marketed; they couldn't find what they liked,
and by the time they did, or they created their own products to fill that niche, then OTHER friends came to them
and wanted to buy!

I know someone who started her own beauty product lines by mixing her own blend of natural fragrances with soaps because she didn't like what was out there. And now she has regular customers who order her homemade line.

Why this whiny victim mentality? Isn't this a free country?

How many immigrants come here and immediately set up shop and work their behinds off
because they have that freedom in America to create their own businesses, where they didn't in other countries.

The same way Asians are known to patronize their own business communities, and grow more powerful by keeping the capital circulating within their circles,

How is that much different from how the LGBT community started organizing its businesses and lobbies?
Aren't the LGBT lobbies more powerful than the Blacks still divided as liberal Democrats from Conservative Republicans?

Sorry if I don't sound sympathetic, but economically I don't see the LGBT as victims when they organize and use their dollars to lobby. In Houston, the Montrose and LGBT community got the Mayor elected to pass transgender ordinances and even rewrite the city policies to include same sex partners without going through the proper channels to change Texas law.

The LGBT has become a very powerful lobby, mostly by organizing their business and political networks to unify for progay issues. Where they pay and tell politicians what to say and pass.

Unlike the Black communities that take orders from Party leaders which candidate to get behind in order to get them elected,
and to bash and undercut any Black leader from the other party.

Why do you feel like a victim when you are free to create your own churches, businesses, schools and programs?

Why do you act like everything has to go through government or it's not legitimate?

And even so, even if everything has to be passed through govt to be recognized, the LGBT are far ahead of Blacks who still can't get an equal sense of ownership because of the class division cutting their leadership in half.

For being less than 4-5% of the population, the LGBT has taken over politics and is dictating the narrative to everyone else!
Black leaders should learn lessons from the LGBT movement,
and take note why it costs them to divide between parties, and to undercut and work against each other.

I would say the leadership and political lobby of LGBT is far more advanced than Blacks in terms of
economic and political independence, since the Black leadership can't get past party divisions that perpetuate victimhood.

Seawytch if playing the victim card works for LGBT, you are already doing better than Blacks who are held back by it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, we all are very aware that the far right social cons on this and other Boards "have danced and ducked and dodged around the simple, self-evident point that they are the ones seeking to impose their values on others."

The above is the Rush mirror effect that mike used above: accuse others of what the far right is up to.

Understand this, far right losers: you will not deny others their rights, as you are not losing anything that you already have.

What you don't have, and never had had, is the constitutional right to deny others their civil rights.

 

[dblack]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

Nails it.

 

[dblack]

Yes, we all are very aware that the far right social cons on this and other Boards "have danced and ducked and dodged around the simple, self-evident point that they are the ones seeking to impose their values on others."

The above is the Rush mirror effect that mike used above: accuse others of what the far right is up to.

Understand this, far right losers: you will not deny others their rights, as you are not losing anything that you already have.

What you don't have, and never had had, is the constitutional right to deny others their civil rights.

Was that supposed to make ANY sense?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, we all are very aware that the far right social cons on this and other Boards "have danced and ducked and dodged around the simple, self-evident point that they are the ones seeking to impose their values on others."

The above is the Rush mirror effect that mike used above: accuse others of what the far right is up to.

Understand this, far right losers: you will not deny others their rights, as you are not losing anything that you already have.

What you don't have, and never had had, is the constitutional right to deny others their civil rights.

JakeStarkey
* The difference is that when Christians are called to account using Christian laws, they accept rebuke
* When Conservatives and Constitutionalists are called to account using Constitutional laws, they accept rebuke
(examples: Guiliani in NY and Hutchison in TX both defended prochoice based on Constitutional principles;
both Ted Nugent and Andrea-Shea King acknowledged and apologized for offensive remarks about Obama)

But when I ask liberals and Democrats to respect PROCHOICE and FREE CHOICE in health care,
or INCLUSION of diversity instead of discrimination against people for creed, affiliation or beliefs,

Do I get any kind of correction or retraction?

Mostly justifications and rejection, BLAMING the other side for why it is right to exclude them or dismiss free choice!

Jake, I have an easier time explaining and defending prochoice, gay rights, alternatives to capital punishment, etc.
to CHRISTIANS and CONSERVATIVES Who at least respect the CONSTITUTION so I can make those arguments.

but when it comes to liberals who DON'T commit to Constitutional principles
but only want to push onesided agenda, they will even contradict their own agenda!

There is a difference.

The Conservatives and Christians can be checked individually by explaining using Constitutional principle they commit to enforce. So I don't have to pass a law to convince them, I can explain using the laws they equally agree to uphold and follow.

But since the liberals and Democrats Don't all commit to following the laws,
then it looks like the President has to declare something, or Congress or Courts have to endorse something,
or they don't have any basis. It's like depending on govt like a CULT. And the CULT has to approve anything
before that is acceptable as truth.

With Christians and Conservatives, as long as they are equally committed to enforcing the laws,
they can automatically be held in check by agreeing on those principles. No lawers, lawsuits or litigation required.

Apparently for liberals, unless the Court orders them to respect the equal religious freedom of someone else,
they don't expect to hold themselves or others accountable to these principles.

They depend on things going through GOVT before something is established as truth,
like some kind of Jesus you have to go through to get to GOD. Like making an idol out of Govt, a religious process.
You no longer have the right to believe or practice beliefs on your own BUT IT MUST BE PASSED THROUGH GOVT.
So you HAVE TO PRAY religiously, and WIN FAVOR OF THIS DEIFIED GOVT before your beliefs are true and valid.

Not unlike cult mentality.
If I'm wrong, JakeStarkey, if there is a way to compel liberal Democrats
to respect and invoke Constitutional authority for people equally, and not just lobby around their
own political agenda, please let me know what language I need to use to hold Democrats to their own policies
and principles.

So far the ACA goes against any sense of freedom of choice from govt control, regulations or penalties
that discriminate on the basis on creed.
And now these gay marriage and business law disputes, again, show there is no respect for beliefs
unless they already agree with yours.

How can we expect to check Democrats against their own policies?
Why can't they be held to their own principles, the way Christian respond to Christian rebuke using Bible sources,
and Constitutionalists respond to corrections made based on citing Constitutional laws.

If Democrats don't respond to either one, what should we use?
The Democratic platform as its own creed and statement of faith?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your prepared diatribe misses the point, Emily. Dissent in politics is a fact, a reality, of American decision making. Christians and conservatives don't respect the opposition; the opposition does not respect the opposition. There is no requirement of "respect" in these negotiations.

You and I and the others don't like being called names, but guess what: it is not illegal.

Americans will not accept your concept to Balkinize American decision making.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Was that supposed to make ANY sense?

To any one of normal intellect, sure. Rush accuses his enemies of doing what he does. Rove does the same thing. It's good propaganda for the unintelligent of the far right.

 

[Seawytch]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

 

[Mac1958]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

Holy crap, I didn't expect THAT response.



By the way, the second part of my little plan: Once this is done (and don't hold your breath, of course) we get to the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds with reason, civility and patience, rather than anger, intimidation and punishment. Get some momentum going, maybe make most of these laws irrelevant.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your prepared diatribe misses the point, Emily. Dissent in politics is a fact, a reality, of American decision making. Christians and conservatives don't respect the opposition; the opposition does not respect the opposition. There is no requirement of "respect" in these negotiations.

You and I and the others don't like being called names, but guess what: it is not illegal.

Americans will not accept your concept to Balkinize American decision making.

1. Again there is nothing wrong with dissent and compromise on issues where people agree to majority rule or other means of working it out anyway.

2. JakeStarkey the point that seems to be missed here is on
RELIGIOUSLY HELD BELIEFS --
these TYPES of differences CANNOT BE LEGISLATED OR RULED BY GOVT
without violating Constitutional principles. There are Constitutional RULES against this.

THAT is the issue. these are SPECIFIC cases where
* THESE particular conflicts involve BELIEFS. * These are NOT LIKE other conflicts
that can be fought out politically.

Sorry Jake but it makes NO SENSE to "make an exception and let govt decide religious conflicts" just because ONE of the parties has SECULAR BELIEFS. that is NO EXCUSE to disregard First Amendment restrictions where Congress cannot establish religion (and also Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights legislation that extended these protections beyond just Congress and to States and public institutions.)

What is going wrong, is that because the liberals/secularists are taking advantage that
their POLITICAL BELIEFS are not being treated equally as other RELIGIOUS beliefs such as Christianity,
then these lobbyists and advocates are ABUSING the party system of collective representation, the
democratic legal and legislative process, and other governmental process, and the media to
PUSH those beliefs through govt, WHEN IT IS CLEARLY NOT ALLOWED FOR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
to be pushed through government this way.

This is like getting away with a loophole, where one groups BELIEFS are allowed to be mandated
just because they are SECULAR and not considered RELIGIOUSLY affiliated.

When Black Slaves were not considered equal humans or citizens,
they could be abused for their labor and not have equal rights of representation and defense as persons.
So this perpetuated disparity and abuse.

Where people can incorporate as a Corporation, and have rights of individuals, but not be held accountable for collective pressure and undue influence that is GREATER than other individual citizens,
this also creates inequality that isn't checked by laws, because of this loophole that allows
corporation to remain unchecked as "any other private citizen."

What is coming out and getting exposed is how the Democrats have been abusing
the secular standing to impose beliefs through govt that religious groups would be stopped from doing.

JakeStarkey you can at least see that some Christians are denying the beliefs of homosexual persons or advocates, by saying those beliefs are less than equal to theirs and not deserving of equal protection by law.

Why can't you see the same is going on the other way, that Christian beliefs are being dismissed
on account of affiliation with religion, but when another groups beliefs are pushed through govt,
those are ALLOWED to be established just because they are secular and not an organized religion?

so if the Christians changed the terms, and took all the same beliefs and made it a POLITICAL PARTY
agenda, then it would be legal to take those CONCEPTS and PRINCIPLES and have Congress and Courts
vote or rule by majority or political force and MAKE other people comply with them?

Just because the principles are LABELED as a secular political party platform?
Because the Democrats are allowed to take their BELIEFS and spell them out in secular terms to railroad
them through even if other citizens and whole parties DISAGREE and find these BELIEFS to VIOLATE theirs!

This makes no sense, Jake.

It cannot be by the LABEL of secular or religious that determines if something is a belief or not.
Or that would be discriminating and giving people unequal protection BASED ON THEIR AFFILIATION.

Please reconsider how this is happening with BOTH sides of these debates.
BOTH have beliefs, so why aren't policies written neutrally or inclusively to accommodate them both equally?

How is taking one belief over another NOT discriminating on the basis of belief, and
denying them equal protection?

 

[Seawytch]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

Holy crap, I didn't expect THAT response.



By the way, the second part of my little plan: Once this is done (and don't hold your breath, of course) we get to the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds with reason, civility and patience, rather than anger, intimidation and punishment. Get some momentum going, maybe make most of these laws irrelevant.

.

I'd add to your plan that the businesses that didn't want to serve gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. would have to advertise that fact. Businesses that don't come into my home don't usually know I'm gay so I don't want to waste my money on them when they don't want it.

People have been working on these issues with reason, civility and patience...how do you think we got to the point where gays aren't used as the evil that must be protected against? How do you think we got to the point where bigots try to pass laws to discriminate against gays and the backlash is instantaneous?

 

[emilynghiem]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

Holy crap, I didn't expect THAT response.



By the way, the second part of my little plan: Once this is done (and don't hold your breath, of course) we get to the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds with reason, civility and patience, rather than anger, intimidation and punishment. Get some momentum going, maybe make most of these laws irrelevant.

.

how do you think we got to the point where gays aren't used as the evil that must be protected against? How do you think we got to the point where bigots try to pass laws to discriminate against gays and the backlash is instantaneous?

Seawytch
It will probably be at the same time
people no longer target and project onto Christians as the group to blame over others.
And quit looking for cases to sue over that involve Crosses, Bibles, prayers
just because these are more visible.

And maybe by then, people will figure out that
just because gay couples are more visible doesn't meant they should be targeted more than other couples that have as many problems. Since there are more heterosexual relations,
by % alone there are going to be more heterosexuals suffering from abuses that are against the Bible also!

The realization and change will likely come about mutually
when both groups understand if they don't appreciate beings targeted,
they shouldn't target other groups either!