Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory. In this case, from a sexual perspective, everyone was being treated exactly the same.

Some parents, myself included, like to be able to take a 6 year-old to a parade without any references to sexuality. I don't see why that's so much to ask. If someone wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to their 6 year-old, that's their right. That doesn't mean I want to hear it read every single time I take my kids to the library. Do we need to have a reading of that book played over the loudspeakers, 24 hours a day, at the library? Or is it OK, once in a while, if sexuality can be left out of the equation.

You're looking for something sinister here, and it's not there. Gays were perfectly welcome to march, as long as they followed the same exact guidelines that heterosexuals were asked to follow. Despite what Spence thinks, saying "no" to a group of homosexuals, doesn't necessarily make you a hatemonger. And that's what is at play here, we have a group of people who simply don't want to hear the word "no". When my kids act like that, we call them spoiled brats. But we can't chastise homosexuals like that, because once a group has been anointed with "victim" status by the left, then from that point on, nothing is ever their fault, and anyone who criticizes them is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophob, a bigot, or some other kind of hatemonger.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory.

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

Does it matter to you that the constitution explicitly states that people have the right to exercise their religious beliefs? And that the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that to mean that the government can't favor any one religion, nor can they denounce any one religion?

Constitution, shmonstitution, as long as we are fashionable and politically correct.

Many people, not you I guess, get nervous when the President is so comfortable with rejecting the parts of the constitution that he doesn't happen to like.

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

If the government can force a Christian photographer to attend a gay wedding, then I presume you would be OK with a law saying that black painters cannot refuse to accommodate a customer who wants to paint a confederate flag on the roof of their house. Aftre all, what's the difference there? Last time I checked, "the South" is not characterized as a hate group. Would you, or would you not, allow a black painter to refuse such a request? And if you would allow him to refuse, please tell me why the Christian photographer doesn't have the same right. And good luck with that.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

I think you missed the part where I explained where, exactly, the discrimination with this particular issue (Southie Parade) lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

It has been pointed out, over and over, that the so-called "discrimination" was based on a refusal to participate in something their religion prohibited. The bakers and photographers didn't refuse to take photos or bake cakes for the gay's non-wedding occasions, only for same sex weddings. So they were not "discriminating" based on sexual orientation, but in order not to trespass commandments of their religion.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think you and Jim are disagreeing about not treading on civil rights. The problem, which I described in about 10 posts above this is when civil rights conflict. It is true that people have unalienable rights to love who they wish. But they do not have an unalienable right to demand that someone else participate in or facilitate their right to love. They only have the right not to be interfered in their right to love. And in the case of the photographers, bakers, and gays disputes, the photographers not only have unalienable rights to practice their religion when it doesn't interfere with the right of the gays to love who they wish, but their right is specifically encoded in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination rights, for the most part, actually deny one of the parties their right of association, speech, or religion. As such they are rights prescribed by government, and insofar as they force one party to lose their right in favor of the other party, they are not unalienable rights.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's were, as I've stated, not about blacks having the right to be black. It was about establishing the unalienable rights of blacks such as freedom of speech, of religion, of association, of owning property, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality before the law. But they were not about abrogating others those same rights. It was not about guaranteeing blacks the right to impose their point of view in parades whose purpose is something else.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.



I think you missed the part where I explained where, exactly, the discrimination with this particular issue (Southie Parade) lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I think the civil rights movement meant something"

Everyone agrees with that. Are you implying that Christians don't think the civil rights act meant something? That would be an interesting opinion, since it was the Christian right that led the fight against segregation.

"I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love. "

Here's the difference. Segregationists didn't like black people. They didn't like the people. It didn't matter what blacks did, they were hated by segregationists.

That's not anywhere near the same as a Christian photographer not wanting to attend a gay wedding. Christians don't frown upon homosexuals as people, meaning that Christians don't wish any harm to homosexuals. Some Christians do not condone the act of sodomy.

In thi scase, it's not the person that the Christian objects to, it's the act. Apples and oranges.

The freedoms that our Constitution guarantees, are not only applicable when it's convenient.

Freedom of speech means that an artist can hang a picture of Jesus covered in feces. I don't like that picture, but I recognize the right of the guy to paint it.

Freedom of the press means the Ed Schultz has the right to go on TV and call Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut". I don't like the guy, but I recognize his right to say what he wants.

Freedom of assembly means that the Westboro Baptist Church can say disgusting things at a military funeral. I hate those people, but I recognize their right to gather as they wish.

And like it or not, a Christian photographer has the right not to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs.

If we want to change that, fortunately there are mechanisms to amend the Constitution. But we don't get to ignoree the parts of it that we don't happen to like at the present time.

I don't agree with the Christian photographer. But I don't want his constitutionally-protected freedoms trampled upon, in the name of political corrrectness.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

Correct. Given that there are plenty of photographers who would happily accept, it seems like the "tolerant" thing would have been for the happy couple to say "well, the constitution protects you from being forced to abandon your religious beliefs, so in keeping with the liberal notion of tolerance, I will tolerate your religious beliefs and find another photographer."

What they actually said and did, is something else. Because it'snot about tolerance, it's about doing excatly as they please, exactly when they please, and demonizing anyone who doesn't agree.