Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[Bfgrn]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

You are an expert in practicing "selective freedom"... you support States enacting laws to protect Christian bakeries from serving gays. But when I rightfully questioned whether that same law could be used by EMT's, firemen, police officers and doctors to deny service to gays you falsely accused me of dishonesty.

The funny thing is your statement below "trapped" yourself. And you unwittingly admit that you are not about "religious freedom"...you are defending discrimination.

TemplarKormac said:

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

The Left Loses Ground... Page 149 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your argument is typically dishonest and flawed. You'll need to do better if you want to run with the big boys.

Says the little boy...

 

[NYcarbineer]

He was put to death by lethal injection in 2003. By TemplarKormac's reasoning, he should be a free man,

By my reasoning the man is a murderer who contorted the tenets of his faith to kill an innocent practitioner. He deserves to be dead for what he did.

Okay, so now you have conceded that the 1st Amendment does not protect all exercises of one's religion. In fact, you've taken the position that person doesn't even have the right to decide what his religion teaches.

Isn't the first part of that what we 'liberals' have been trying to tell you for ages?

 

[NYcarbineer]

TK is exhibiting a classic case of one letting his position on the issue dictate which set of principles he brings to the argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination. You telling me that this belief is not valid is just horrible! You are not tolerant of my beliefs. But...I don't hate gay people at all. I just hate their sin. I love gay people. I have gay friends. They know that I feel this way about them. They are tolerant of my beliefs and would never ask me to sacrifice my principles. That is true tolerance!

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

When Conservative Christians question how much money is being asked of them to the State, liberals remind them the need to be more giving as Jesus said. Jesus did say we need to give to the Church and to the poor. So, it is the liberals that insert the State, not Jesus. So why are you bringing up baking cakes for gay people?

What difference does it make as long as the poor are taken care of?

Which Poor are you talking about; the State's poor that get cell phones and big screen TVs after the bloated bureaucracy and union cronies have been paid out or the poor you meet directly in the street or read about around the world that are truly starving. Who should get that money first, according to Jesus?

The same old...."The poor have it so well" whine

Jesus would be ashamed of you

 

[NYcarbineer]

it was not written to protect discrimination.

So, discrimination can be that which a religious business owner refuses to cater to or be part of something he deems religiously offensive

Yet, justice, according to you, is forcing him to be a part of something that violates his faith. How is that not discrimination also?

You're making the argument that 'tie goes to the religious guy'.

Then answer the question I posed elsewhere.

Two Presbyterian women who are getting married go to a baker for a cake. The baker says I don't do gay wedding cakes because it's against my religion.

The women say, same sex marriage is now sanctioned and blessed in the Presbyterian church. Same sex marriage is part of OUR religion. You are trying to discriminate against us because of our religion. We are protected by the Constitution.

Now, Mr. Umpire, you make the call.

 

[Seawytch]

Members of the Gay Community should ask CAIR about standing with them on same sex.

Largest U.S. Muslim Organization Supports LGBT Anti-Discrimination Bill

 

[Seawytch]

What you want is a democracy to represent the few, one which doesn't reflect the will of the rest. While the majority doesn't rule America, the minority shouldn't hijack it. You have all of 1.5% of the American population dictating policy for the other 98.5%. James Madison warned against this, and here we are, watching one of his biggest fears come true.

Where does it not "reflect the will of the rest"? A majority support marriage equality for gays. A majority supports employment protections for gays. A majority supports Public Accommodation protections for gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

I don't see any gay people living on the streets. Do you? Nor do I hear any of them complaining about being homeless.

Is that the criteria for deserving equal rights. How many people would be made homeless if they lost their right to own a gun?

 

[g5000]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

You crack me up. You have your panties in a wad because gays and their supporters boycott against STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries and use the courts to gain equality.

And this differs from WHITE ONLY lunch counters and the black reaction to them...how, exactly?

Same bullshit, different decade. Damn straight.

And I don't know how you got it in your head this is some kind of violent struggle. How old are you? Are you really that ignorant that you actually believe gays are being more violent than during the civil rights struggle for blacks? Really?

 

[g5000]

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination. You telling me that this belief is not valid is just horrible! You are not tolerant of my beliefs. But...I don't hate gay people at all. I just hate their sin. I love gay people. I have gay friends. They know that I feel this way about them. They are tolerant of my beliefs and would never ask me to sacrifice my principles. That is true tolerance!

So... gays are an abomination and are the downfall of our nation.

This is your idea of "like". BWA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[bodecea]

Your personal opinion cannot be acted upon if it violates the rights of others

There's a difference between personal opinion and religious belief. Or did you not know that? Religious belief is actionable in where the person works to obey religious teachings.

But personal opinion is no excuse for negative behavior, but wait, liberals are good at that aren't they?

You misspelled "conservatives". You want to look at excuses for negative behavior, read any of the recent Duggar threads.

 

[The Rabbi]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

You are an expert in practicing "selective freedom"... you support States enacting laws to protect Christian bakeries from serving gays. But when I rightfully questioned whether that same law could be used by EMT's, firemen, police officers and doctors to deny service to gays you falsely accused me of dishonesty.

The funny thing is your statement below "trapped" yourself. And you unwittingly admit that you are not about "religious freedom"...you are defending discrimination.

TemplarKormac said:

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

The Left Loses Ground... Page 149 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your argument is typically dishonest and flawed. You'll need to do better if you want to run with the big boys.

Says the little boy...

Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.
Next.

 

[The Rabbi]

What you want is a democracy to represent the few, one which doesn't reflect the will of the rest. While the majority doesn't rule America, the minority shouldn't hijack it. You have all of 1.5% of the American population dictating policy for the other 98.5%. James Madison warned against this, and here we are, watching one of his biggest fears come true.

Where does it not "reflect the will of the rest"? A majority support marriage equality for gays. A majority supports employment protections for gays. A majority supports Public Accommodation protections for gays.

Wrong.
Gay marriage was a loser in actual referenda held. If gays had any integrity they would work through the political system to get gay marriage enacted instead of running to gay activist judges to do their dirty work for them.

 

[g5000]

If them damnable negroes had any integrity, the would have worked through the political system to get their rights!

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[mdk]

What you want is a democracy to represent the few, one which doesn't reflect the will of the rest. While the majority doesn't rule America, the minority shouldn't hijack it. You have all of 1.5% of the American population dictating policy for the other 98.5%. James Madison warned against this, and here we are, watching one of his biggest fears come true.

Where does it not "reflect the will of the rest"? A majority support marriage equality for gays. A majority supports employment protections for gays. A majority supports Public Accommodation protections for gays.

Wrong.
Gay marriage was a loser in actual referenda held. If gays had any integrity they would work through the political system to get gay marriage enacted instead of running to gay activist judges to do their dirty work for them.

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

 

[The Rabbi]

If them damnable negroes had any integrity, the would have worked through the political system to get their rights!

Same bullshit, different decade.

Idiot. They did work through the system. Voting Rights Act. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Remember those?
You are a dolt and a half.

 

[The Rabbi]

What you want is a democracy to represent the few, one which doesn't reflect the will of the rest. While the majority doesn't rule America, the minority shouldn't hijack it. You have all of 1.5% of the American population dictating policy for the other 98.5%. James Madison warned against this, and here we are, watching one of his biggest fears come true.

Where does it not "reflect the will of the rest"? A majority support marriage equality for gays. A majority supports employment protections for gays. A majority supports Public Accommodation protections for gays.

Wrong.
Gay marriage was a loser in actual referenda held. If gays had any integrity they would work through the political system to get gay marriage enacted instead of running to gay activist judges to do their dirty work for them.

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

 

[rightwinger]

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination. You telling me that this belief is not valid is just horrible! You are not tolerant of my beliefs. But...I don't hate gay people at all. I just hate their sin. I love gay people. I have gay friends. They know that I feel this way about them. They are tolerant of my beliefs and would never ask me to sacrifice my principles. That is true tolerance!

So... gays are an abomination and are the downfall of our nation.

This is your idea of "like". BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Sarcasm detector not functioning today?

 

[mdk]

What you want is a democracy to represent the few, one which doesn't reflect the will of the rest. While the majority doesn't rule America, the minority shouldn't hijack it. You have all of 1.5% of the American population dictating policy for the other 98.5%. James Madison warned against this, and here we are, watching one of his biggest fears come true.

Where does it not "reflect the will of the rest"? A majority support marriage equality for gays. A majority supports employment protections for gays. A majority supports Public Accommodation protections for gays.

Wrong.
Gay marriage was a loser in actual referenda held. If gays had any integrity they would work through the political system to get gay marriage enacted instead of running to gay activist judges to do their dirty work for them.

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.