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

[Skylar]

How is someone getting married an act of 'hate and subversion'?

How is refusing to cater that same wedding for religious beliefs an act of hatred and bigotry?

Who said that refusing to cater a wedding is 'hate'? Its religiously motivated intolerance. And in some states, an illegal act of discrimination.

Again, opposition to gay marriage isn't necessarily hate of gays. It is most often religiously motivated. And hate of gays is most often religiously motivated. Though as I've pointed out before, those Venn diagrams don't form a circle.

So I ask again......how is someone getting married an act of 'hate or subversion'? You avoided the question you responded to like it were on fire.

How does it stop them from getting married? I recall asking you similar questions on another thread, but you chose not to answer it. Perhaps you care to try now?

Since when is 'stopping them from getting married' the threshold of illegal discrimination under State PA laws?

If it isn't, then what is the relevance of your standard? As it wouldn't matter either way.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since when is 'stopping them from getting married' the threshold of illegal discrimination under State PA laws?

That's not what I asked. We can do the Sabre Dance all day long. Someone has to get tired. Answer the question.

People of your stripe often equate denying catering services, or flowers, cakes, cupcakes or photos to a gay couple as an effort to stop them from getting married. So, how does "illegal discrimination" stop them from legally marrying elsewhere?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who said that refusing to cater a wedding is 'hate'?

Just about every far leftist on this board.

Its religiously motivated intolerance.

Or hate.

And hate of gays is most often religiously motivated.

Like so. Add yourself to the list of those who think refusing to cater a gay wedding for religious reasons is a form of hatred against gays.

 

[Skylar]

Since when is 'stopping them from getting married' the threshold of illegal discrimination under State PA laws?

That's not what I asked. We can do the Sabre Dance all day long. Someone has to get tired. Answer the question.

Demonstrate its relevance to PA laws and I'll gladly answer. But you can't, as there is no relevance. Your standard is arbitrary and has no impact on the application of PA laws. If a gay couple could still have their wedding when denied goods and services or if they couldn't....

....PA laws are violated either way. And you know this already.

I'll gladly answer any relevant question. But yours has no relevance to anything we're discussing. As 'still being able to have the wedding' isn't a legal standard. Its just one you made up.

People of your stripe often equate denying catering services, or flowers, cakes, cupcakes or photos to a gay couple as an effort to stop them from getting married. So, how does "illegal discrimination" stop them from legally marrying elsewhere?

So you're attributing an argument to me I've never made...and then demanding I justify it.

Laughing....um, no. I'm not taking responsibility for some argument that you made up. I'll take responsibility for my own claims. And I've never said anything that you just did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Blacks were subjected to some pretty sick civil rights violations and gays keep trying to equate their cause with blacks. Okay can anyone list the top 5 civil rights violation gays endure? How do they compare to what blacks endured?

Well let's see: they get harassed at drug stores for buying KY Jelly in the 10lb size. Thats just for starters.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

 

[Skylar]

Who said that refusing to cater a wedding is 'hate'?

Just about every far leftist on this board.

So once again, you ignored what I posted, ignored the question you responded to....and attributed an argument to me that I never made, demanding I justify it.

You are a one trick pony.

Its religiously motivated intolerance.

Or hate.

I didn't say that. You did. If you're simply going to ignore anything I say and then put in your own words....

....do I even need to be here? As you're clearly reading both sides of a script that I'm not privy to and only you can see.

Do you have any other strategy but this one....demanding that I justify arguments I've never made? This is like the fifth time in a row you've played this same silly game.

 

[Skylar]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

44 of 46 federal rulings said otherwise when they struck down laws that forbid gays from entering into same sex marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

44 of 46 federal rulings said otherwise when they struck down laws that forbid gays from entering into same sex marriage.

Yes, the other argument: we are winning in court with gay activist judges.
Those laws applied to any same sex couple, not just gays.
/fail.

 

[Skylar]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

44 of 46 federal rulings said otherwise when they struck down laws that forbid gays from entering into same sex marriage.

Yes, the other argument: we are winning in court with gay activist judges.
Those laws applied to any same sex couple, not just gays.
/fail.

44 of 46 times? One or two might be 'activist judges'. But 95% of all the case?

That's judicial consensus. Which the Supreme Court is poised to affirm.

And we've been through the rest of your argument: you insist that race and being gay aren't the same thing. And ignore any reference to any case involving race.

Alas, the Supreme Court has cited 4 different race based cases when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. You say they have no relevance. The Supreme Court contradicts you. On issues of legal relevance, they win.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Okay, dumbass, people didn't make a change because Dr. King was preaching love. They made a change because the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were threatening to burn the country to the ground if there weren't changes.

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.

Really? Which gay person told you this?

Okay, news flash, we don't expect you funditards to be tolerant of anything. We expect you to keep following whatever shit your ministers and pastors feed you to keep you angry and scared and sending in money. So pretty much like ministers stopped preaching Segregation 40 years ago because society wouldn't tolerate that shit anymore, no matter what the Bible says, the same will be true of gays.

But until your Ministers tell you what to think, we do expect you to FOLLOW THE LAW just like the rest of us have to. If I have to do business with Christian assholes, you Christian assholes have to do business with gays.

Here's the real reason why you are going to have to just suck it up, though, guy.

Big Business has decided that there's no profit in homophobia. They've decided that gay marriage is how it's going to be.

 

[Sunni Man]

That basically says it all........

 

[JoeB131]

How is refusing to cater that same wedding for religious beliefs an act of hatred and bigotry? How does it stop them from getting married? I recall asking you similar questions on another thread, but you chose not to answer it. Perhaps you care to try now?

That's an easy one.

This has nothing to do with religion beliefs, and everything to do with bigotry. This is just trying to use religion to cover the bigotry.

There are a whole bunch of practices that are int he bible that "religious" people ignore every day, because they are either silly or have no place in the modern world.

For instance, the epistles of Timothy and Peter both tell women not to braid their hair or wear jewelry. But these Bakers, Florists and Photographers will have no problem with that.

The Torah says women should be virgins on their wedding nights. Very few women are today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Did you miss the part where Martin Luther King was assassinated?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

It is legal in a majority of states to refuse employment to a person because he or she is gay.

 

[Seawytch]

Why is religious homophobia so much more acceptable than religious racism?

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

44 of 46 federal rulings said otherwise when they struck down laws that forbid gays from entering into same sex marriage.

According to Rabbi all 44 of those judges are gay.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.

You mean like the dems claim they were at the forefront of civil rights, women's rights, ending slavery, etc? You're a dumb ass

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

A black man has no obligation to be tolerant of a racist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.

You mean like the dems claim they were at the forefront of civil rights, women's rights, ending slavery, etc? You're a dumb ass

Liberals were. Conservatives fought that progress every step of the way.