And people tend to forget that minorities are generally socially CONSERVATIVE even though they vote democrat (see where the article says that some of the supporters of the bill are dems? there you go..), so you're basically throwing all of them onto the rural vote, and that's why we get bills like this.
Painfully aware of that, sadly. It's how the gay marriage ban was passed in NC. It's honestly sad and confusing to see african americans going out in droves to vote to take away/restrict the civil rights of another minority. It's even more sickening and sad that they suddenly think it's ok for a minority groups civil rights to be determined via a popular vote. (it is absolutely against everything this country stands for as a democratic republic) Where would they be here in the south if THEIR civil rights had been up for a popular vote instead of mandated by the federal government??
One of the most important functions of the federal government in a democratic republic is to protect the rights of a minority from the whims and tyranny of a majority. Ours has not been doing a good job of this for the LBGTQ community.
Shocking just how quickly the oppressed can become the oppressor, and they even use the exact same book their own oppressors used to justify it. Hell, you could take the speech of a white segregationist and just replace the racial slurs against blacks in that speech with popular slurs for homosexuals, and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two when an angry black preacher is screaming it out at a rally while thumping his bible.
They aren't comparable to be honest. Gay people aren't being hosed down in the streets and lynched for trying to vote. Let's not go there. I do agree it's sad but to compare it to the shit that was going on in the 60's isn't true.
There are legitimate protections to religious freedom that need to be in place, but blanket power to discriminate is not one of them.
I discussed this with people this weekend and they were completely shocked that it would be considered discrimination at all. They felt as if they were the ones under attack and these types of laws were just protecting them.
They aren't comparable to be honest. Gay people aren't being hosed down in the streets and lynched for trying to vote. Let's not go there. I do agree it's sad but to compare it to the shit that was going on in the 60's isn't true.
My only points were that they are ok now with a majority voting to determine the civil rights of a minority, and that it is absurd and Un-American. The federal government very much must, is obligated to in fact in our system (which is NOT mob rules simple majority democracy and never has been), step in and set/dictate to the states that minority groups have certain unquestionable civil rights. They did it during the civil rights movement for African Americans, and it was the right thing to do. For any African American to then turn around and say that is wrong and their (LBGTQ people) rights should be up for a vote is flatly absurd, especially to say that it is because of their religion, which leads in to the other major point I made.
My other point was that if you took the speech of a white segregationist preacher from a protest back then, and replaced the slurs for African Americans with slurs for homosexuals, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and the fiery sermons some African American preachers give at rallies to deny homosexuals marriage rights… and they use as justification for their hatred the very same religious book that was frequently used to justify hatred and oppression towards them. (and to keep slavery going in the USA well past it's expiration date, as the God of the Bible does in fact give the ok to slavery)
Both of these parallels that I drew between the African American civil rights movement, and the LBGTQ civil rights movement seem to be, to me, accurate. They are the only ones I was attempting to draw between the two movements, as well as expressing my dismay at how quickly, in general, the oppressed can become oppressors. (especially where it involves religion)
Cool. If you don't like it feel free to boycott. It's called living in a free country, hurt feelings aside. :/
No, it's called violating the laws of that country. Freedoms have limits, if you don't believe me, try yelling fire in a crowded building, or make death threats against someone in public, or establish a restaurant and refuse to serve people based on their skin color. (this law could be used to bring that last one back actually)
Cool. If you don't like it feel free to boycott. It's called living in a free country, hurt feelings aside. :/
No, it's called violating the laws of that country. Freedoms have limits, if you don't believe me, try yelling fire in a crowded building, or make death threats against someone in public, or make a restaurant and refuse to serve people based on their skin color.
Are you really drawing that comparison? smh
Anyway, I think if people want to be assholes about who they do business with...well that's their business.
Cool. If you don't like it feel free to boycott. It's called living in a free country, hurt feelings aside. :/
No, it's called violating the laws of that country. Freedoms have limits, if you don't believe me, try yelling fire in a crowded building, or make death threats against someone in public, or make a restaurant and refuse to serve people based on their skin color.
Are you really drawing that comparison? smh
Anyway, I think if people want to be assholes about who they do business with...well that's their business.
It was an example of how freedoms have limits. Too often people justify such obviously immoral things by saying "well it's a free country" and forget that freedoms have limitations. Meaning that a business cannot, in fact, discriminate based on something like race or sexual orientation. If this law passes, someone could easily deny service to blacks because of their "religion", until historically recently, Mormons would have used such an excuse gleefully. (the Mormon Church position on blacks used to be rather… crude)
I find it very telling that you chose to zero in on that example, rather than the last one.
Cool. If you don't like it feel free to boycott. It's called living in a free country, hurt feelings aside. :/
No, it's called violating the laws of that country. Freedoms have limits, if you don't believe me, try yelling fire in a crowded building, or make death threats against someone in public, or make a restaurant and refuse to serve people based on their skin color.
Are you really drawing that comparison? smh
Anyway, I think if people want to be assholes about who they do business with...well that's their business.
It was an example of how freedom have limits. Meaning that a business cannot, in fact, discriminate based on something like race or sexual orientation. If this law passes, someone could easily deny service to blacks because of their "religion", until historically recently, Mormons would have used such an excuse gleefully. (the Mormon Church position on blacks used to be rather… crude)
Just because they cannot, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to.
Sorry, not getting in this with you. I am happy about this. Suck it up and deal with it. I could throw a stupid hypothetical question at you as well. I just don't care to. Religious people get trampled on all the time, so you have it all wrong if you think I give two shits about it happening to somebody else for a change. No I am not a religious person, but that doesn't mean I like to see religious people treated like shit all the time and their beliefs ignored in favor of somebody elses.
Religious people have no right to have their beliefs put in law. How is this any different than the Jim Crow laws? Your religious rights do not extend past the privacy of your home or church.
I've seen a few people try to compare this to Jim Crow laws. It's a tasteless comparison to make and not a valid one at all. No different from when people draw political comparisons to Nazis.
So how is it different?
Do you understand what Jim Crow laws did to southern blacks? It's an institution that grew out of human slavery. The laws helped uphold black's status as second tier human beings. One could argue that the effects from this can still be felt today.
Not every law which discriminates can be compared to Jim Crow or Black Codes. Again, it's no different from screaming "communist!" or "nazi!" when calling out a politician. This tactic cheapens history and shows a modern ignorance of past events. If you call Obama a Nazi, you don't understand what National Socialism is. Same concept with evoking the Jim Crow south when talking about the Georgia law.
Awful
There are so many reason why this new law sucks, but I get uncomfortable when people use historical exaggerations to drive a political point home.
There are legitimate protections to religious freedom that need to be in place, but blanket power to discriminate is not one of them.
I discussed this with people this weekend and they were completely shocked that it would be considered discrimination at all. They felt as if they were the ones under attack and these types of laws were just protecting them.
We have a long way to go with this debate still.
That's part of the frustration. Christians are doing all of this in the USA, partially anyway, because they are CONVINCED they are an oppressed minority. Which shows an incredible, mind blowing, and slightly laughable disconnect with reality.
Sorry, not getting in this with you. I am happy about this. Suck it up and deal with it. I could throw a stupid hypothetical question at you as well. I just don't care to. Religious people get trampled on all the time, so you have it all wrong if you think I give two shits about it happening to somebody else for a change. No I am not a religious person, but that doesn't mean I like to see religious people treated like shit all the time and their beliefs ignored in favor of somebody elses.
Religious people have no right to have their beliefs put in law. How is this any different than the Jim Crow laws? Your religious rights do not extend past the privacy of your home or church.
I've seen a few people try to compare this to Jim Crow laws. It's a tasteless comparison to make and not a valid one at all. No different from when people draw political comparisons to Nazis.
So how is it different?
Do you understand what Jim Crow laws did to southern blacks? It's an institution that grew out of human slavery. The laws helped uphold black's status as second tier human beings. One could argue that the effects from this can still be felt today.
Not every law which discriminates can be compared to Jim Crow or Black Codes. Again, it's no different from screaming "communist!" or "nazi!" when calling out a politician. This tactic cheapens history and shows a modern ignorance of past events. If you call Obama a Nazi, you don't understand what National Socialism is. Same concept with evoking the Jim Crow south when talking about the Georgia law.
Awful
There are so many reason why this law sucks, but I get uncomfortable when people use historical exaggerations to drive a political point home.
And this law stems from a period where homosexuals were arrested and castrated.
Sorry, not getting in this with you. I am happy about this. Suck it up and deal with it. I could throw a stupid hypothetical question at you as well. I just don't care to. Religious people get trampled on all the time, so you have it all wrong if you think I give two shits about it happening to somebody else for a change. No I am not a religious person, but that doesn't mean I like to see religious people treated like shit all the time and their beliefs ignored in favor of somebody elses.
Religious people have no right to have their beliefs put in law. How is this any different than the Jim Crow laws? Your religious rights do not extend past the privacy of your home or church.
I've seen a few people try to compare this to Jim Crow laws. It's a tasteless comparison to make and not a valid one at all. No different from when people draw political comparisons to Nazis.
So how is it different?
Do you understand what Jim Crow laws did to southern blacks? It's an institution that grew out of human slavery. The laws helped uphold black's status as second tier human beings. One could argue that the effects from this can still be felt today.
Not every law which discriminates can be compared to Jim Crow or Black Codes. Again, it's no different from screaming "communist!" or "nazi!" when calling out a politician. This tactic cheapens history and shows a modern ignorance of past events. If you call Obama a Nazi, you don't understand what National Socialism is. Same concept with evoking the Jim Crow south when talking about the Georgia law.
Awful
There are so many reason why this law sucks, but I get uncomfortable when people use historical exaggerations to drive a political point home.
And this law stems from a period where homosexuals were arresting and castrated.
You seem to be a person that like to argue just for argument's sake. I do not have the time for such games, as it is late where I live. The comparison to Jim Crow is extreme and unnecessary, and shouldn't be used.
I like how these politicans' idea basically boils down to legalizing discrimination against other groups of people so that THEIR group does not get "discriminated" against.
I think we should give them their independence and watch them fall apart.
No shit. The states in the south eastern U.S. have the worst education statistics, the most poverty, and receive more funding from the federal government than any other region, by far.
That said, we pump a shit load of petroleum out of the Gulf of Mexico...
I think we should give them their independence and watch them fall apart.
No shit. The states in the south eastern U.S. have the worst education statistics, the most poverty, and receive more funding from the federal government than any other region, by far.
That said, we pump a shit load of petroleum out of the Gulf of Mexico...
clearly god has a sense of humor. he put the oil in all the shittiest places.
I don't understand how in 2014, this is still an issue in many parts of the US.
Really? Considering we just went through all sorts of issues about racism due to the Trayvon Martin case, you really shouldn't be surprised that bigotry is an issue in 2014 (and pretty much in all parts of the US)
Notice how these are all Republican politicians in primarily Republican states, with the vast majority of support coming from Republican voters in Republican districts. Why, if one strained their eyes, one could almost see a pattern.
Notice how these are all Republican politicians in primarily Republican states, with the vast majority of support coming from Republican voters in Republican districts. Why, if one strained their eyes, one could almost see a pattern.
The Georgia bill, which was introduced last week and was scheduled to be heard in subcommittee Monday afternoon, was sponsored by six state representatives (some of them Democrats).
Notice how these are all Republican politicians in primarily Republican states, with the vast majority of support coming from Republican voters in Republican districts. Why, if one strained their eyes, one could almost see a pattern.
The Georgia bill, which was introduced last week and was scheduled to be heard in subcommittee Monday afternoon, was sponsored by six state representatives (some of them Democrats).
Try again.
The bill is sponsored by four representatives, all of whom are Republicans. The three sponsors of the Senate bill are also all Republicans. The three sponsors of the Arizona bill are all Republicans, and the senator who introduced the bill in Missouri is, gasp, a Republican.
I like how these politicans' idea basically boils down to legalizing discrimination against other groups of people so that THEIR group does not get "discriminated" against.
Ridiculous.
Technically it could lead to their group being discriminated against. It could be "against the religion" of someone to service a Christian, as they are not members of the "correct" faith, and their own religion could give orders not to have dealings with people who are of the wrong faith. Their are many bad precedents this incredibly stupid new movement could set. I have faith none of them will survive a Supreme Court challenge, if any are signed into law. So far, Jan Brewer seems to moving to veto the Arizona one.
Not too sure what Governor Deal will do, depends on if some whack job lunatic from the far right threatens to primary him in his re-election bid.
I don't understand how in 2014, this is still an issue in many parts of the US.
Really? Considering we just went through all sorts of issues about racism due to the Trayvon Martin case, you really shouldn't be surprised that bigotry is an issue in 2014 (and pretty much in all parts of the US)
I'm aware of that. I'm just still surprised that a country like the USA still battles with these kind of Issues. In Canada this kind of thing never happens.
I don't understand how in 2014, this is still an issue in many parts of the US.
Really? Considering we just went through all sorts of issues about racism due to the Trayvon Martin case, you really shouldn't be surprised that bigotry is an issue in 2014 (and pretty much in all parts of the US)
I'm aware of that. I'm just still surprised that a country like the USA still battles with these kind of Issues. In Canada this kind of thing never happens.
really? we're supposed to believe that bigotry isn't an issue in canada?
I don't understand how in 2014, this is still an issue in many parts of the US.
Really? Considering we just went through all sorts of issues about racism due to the Trayvon Martin case, you really shouldn't be surprised that bigotry is an issue in 2014 (and pretty much in all parts of the US)
I'm aware of that. I'm just still surprised that a country like the USA still battles with these kind of Issues. In Canada this kind of thing never happens.
really? we're supposed to believe that bigotry isn't an issue in canada?
Yes? Just because the US has problems with discrimination towards minorities does not mean Canada does too. We have had gay marriage since 2005.
I don't understand how in 2014, this is still an issue in many parts of the US.
Really? Considering we just went through all sorts of issues about racism due to the Trayvon Martin case, you really shouldn't be surprised that bigotry is an issue in 2014 (and pretty much in all parts of the US)
I'm aware of that. I'm just still surprised that a country like the USA still battles with these kind of Issues. In Canada this kind of thing never happens.
really? we're supposed to believe that bigotry isn't an issue in canada?
Yes? Just because the US has problems with discrimination towards minorities does not mean Canada does too. We have had gay marriage since 2005.
Okay, that doesn't mean you don't have discrimination issues
Okay, that doesn't mean you don't have discrimination issues
Okay, maybe my wording was wrong - but what I meant was it's not anywhere near the same as the US. Compare political issues with the US. We don't have debates about gay marriage, abortions, "right to discriminate" bills, etc. We're far, far more progressive and accepting.
@lostrib: No shit, but you're the one that implied that we do have problems with it which is just hilarious.
So you're saying there aren't any bigotry or discrimination issues in Canada?
@_hazbro_ said:
@lostrib said:
Okay, that doesn't mean you don't have discrimination issues
Okay, maybe my wording was wrong - but what I meant was it's not anywhere near the same as the US. Compare political issues with the US. We don't have debates about gay marriage, abortions, "right to discriminate" bills, etc. We're far, far more progressive and accepting.
If that's the lie you need to tell yourself so you can avoid confronting the fact that the people there are still bigots, then go right ahead
@lostrib: What? I said it's not a problem. We do not have large groups of politicians enacting legislation to oppress others.
that doesn't mean discrimination and bigotry isn't an issue
The whole point was it's not a political issue in Canada. Which is factually correct, none of those things are political issues. People can still be bigots in Canada for sure, but on a political scale none of those issues come up here.
Sorry, not getting in this with you. I am happy about this. Suck it up and deal with it. I could throw a stupid hypothetical question at you as well. I just don't care to. Religious people get trampled on all the time, so you have it all wrong if you think I give two shits about it happening to somebody else for a change. No I am not a religious person, but that doesn't mean I like to see religious people treated like shit all the time and their beliefs ignored in favor of somebody elses.
Religious people have no right to have their beliefs put in law. How is this any different than the Jim Crow laws? Your religious rights do not extend past the privacy of your home or church.
I've seen a few people try to compare this to Jim Crow laws. It's a tasteless comparison to make and not a valid one at all. No different from when people draw political comparisons to Nazis.
So how is it different?
Do you understand what Jim Crow laws did to southern blacks? It's an institution that grew out of human slavery. The laws helped uphold black's status as second tier human beings. One could argue that the effects from this can still be felt today.
Not every law which discriminates can be compared to Jim Crow or Black Codes. Again, it's no different from screaming "communist!" or "nazi!" when calling out a politician. This tactic cheapens history and shows a modern ignorance of past events. If you call Obama a Nazi, you don't understand what National Socialism is. Same concept with evoking the Jim Crow south when talking about the Georgia law.
Awful
There are so many reason why this law sucks, but I get uncomfortable when people use historical exaggerations to drive a political point home.
And this law stems from a period where homosexuals were arresting and castrated.
You seem to be a person that like to argue just for argument's sake. I do not have the time for such games
Which is why I never bothered replying to him. Not worth my time.
Which is why I never bothered replying to him. Not worth my time.
Wow, the dude who thinks we should legislate discrimination based on beliefs from thousands of years ago thinks it's not worth replying to someone else. The irony...
TC's source seems a bit one sided, plus Mother Jones is a liberal site named after a prominent labor-activist. Also as far as police not enforcing domestic violence laws being allowed by that law it seems a bit far-fetched.
Anyways most large corporations probably have their own anti-discrimination policies and a restaurant employee refusing to serve someone would probably get fired. The bill is most being motivated by cases in New Mexico, Washington and other liberal states where the government has penalized private business owners, namely photographers and bakers with fines or possible jail sentences for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings/commitment ceremonies.
As far as the Arizona law goes, it merely clarifies existing law.
I don't know how this is any different than the segregation of blacks and whites. These laws will (had better) not get past the Supreme Court...
There is a big difference. Segregation was legally mandated by the state or local government (e.g. Jim Crow laws), in other words private businesses were forced to discriminate whether they wanted to or not. In the cases of the law we are talking about here the state government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. The law merely allows business owners to decide what to do with their own business.
Also people's religious rights do apply outside of their homes and churches just like their other rights. A right isn't really a right if you can only exercise it in your house or a dedicated building. People don't have free speech only in their homes or in debate halls and then be liable to fines or jailtime for saying "Obama sucks" or "Congress is filled with idiots" while on a public sidewalk.
And for Aljosa's "what about the civil rights of gays" this law would protect the rights of gays who oppose gay marriage and who wouldn't want to take photos of gay weddings or such.
I don't know how this is any different than the segregation of blacks and whites. These laws will (had better) not get past the Supreme Court...
There is a big difference. Segregation was legally mandated by the state or local government (e.g. Jim Crow laws), in other words private businesses were forced to discriminate whether they wanted to or not. In the cases of the law we are talking about here the state government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. The law merely allows business owners to decide what to do with their own business.
Also people's religious rights do apply outside of their homes and churches just like their other rights. A right isn't really a right if you can only exercise it in your house or a dedicated building. People don't have free speech only in their homes or in debate halls and then be liable to fines or jailtime for saying "Obama sucks" or "Congress is filled with idiots" while on a public sidewalk.
And for Aljosa's "what about the civil rights of gays" this law would protect the rights of gays who oppose gay marriage and who wouldn't want to take photos of gay weddings or such.
and what about the rights of homosexuals? How is it any different than refusing t serve someone for being religious or black?
Log in to comment