Senate Civil Rights Thread

A business isn't "being nice to you" by selling you goods and services. That's their only purpose for existence.

 

Which would fall under equal rights. I don't really have a problem with serving people different from me. I may not agree with them, but business is business.

 

I don't really see why you say it's a choice. The vast majority of gay, bisexual, pansexual, autosexual, asexual, transsexual, and heterosexual people are born that way. I'm glad you're not upset by us lesbians and others. But Jesus never mentions homosexuality once. In fact, he says the eunuchs, whether they are born that way, choose to be made such, or are forced to be that way, should be accepted. It's in Matthew. That was an ancient person's way of saying he respected asexuals, gay people, and people of orientations. I'm afraid you may not have heard that many Methodists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, and so on actually condemn Leviticus and Paul for their vile statements against these minorities. Secondly, the Bible doesn't say much about Satan or Hell, unlike Milton and Dante who elaborated on them for their own political and literary agendas. (Indeed, Satan is a lawyer and hit man for God in the Old Testament, whereas he's a fallen angel all of a sudden in the New Testament. And Hell has four different versions in the entire Bible, all are symbolic. Did I mention that Lucifer was the second author of Isaiah actually mocking a Babylonian idol and it had nothing to do with Satan? Lol.)

I really shouldn't get on to a deconstruction or sociology of religion on this civil rights thread. But as far as what you said about civil rights, I appreciate you are not upset by us and respect our rights. But it's like Mystique said about mutants in First Class: "Society should aspire to be more like us." Similarly, I have known many gay and bisexual women who have great empathy and compassion. They are fabulous leaders, particularly my sister in Florida. It's like Gandhi said: "I love your Christ, but I hate your Christians. They don't act like Christ." Now, don't get me wrong. I appreciate that you respect our civil liberties. But let's remember that many "Christians" act like the Pharisees and Romans who killed Jesus, not Jesus himself. I love the idea of Jesus. Do I like Christianity? Nope. I think it's a perversion and the dragon with seven heads in Revelation. Lol. Not really that bad, but I'm being a tad Grinchy here. I love most Christian believers I meet who are compassionate to minorities of any kind. But I do I like most preachers and leaders of the churches? Not particularly. They worship money.

(The theology is whatever. I'm just throwing out different belief systems and interpretations that seminaries and Methodist schools encourage. The law protects belief systems, thankfully.)

But as far as the civil rights and liberties go, same-sex marriage is now legal in 72% of the states. It's legal in many European countries, some Latin American countries, Canada, South Africa, etc. One can change one's legal gender without a surgery in some of these countries and even in some US states. These civil rights and liberties are indispensable. The law is also meant to protect us from hate crimes. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think you would hurt any of us, and I'll agree to disagree with you on these points. But still, I do support the rights of other minorities, such as women and others Republicans persecute within our country. Let's say that all us lesbians, gays, nonwhites, and ladies were all sinning. Isn't it just as much a sin to kill, limit, or persecute the sinner? It's like when Pope Innocent used French knights to kill medieval Gnostic Christians. Even if we were all these pagans, like some Christians say we are, I think that under the law we are entitled to "life, liberty, and happiness" as much as all Americans. So, there ya have it.

 

More importantly don't you believe that everyone has the right to be treated as human beings, as individuals, with inherent worth? Discrimination removes the humanity by treating someone as a label, as a "thing". If I was able to discriminate against you because you are religious then I would be ignoring your inherent worth as human being and I would instead be treating you as simply being part of a group with attributes I reject. You would cease being a person to me and would instead become a label. This is why discrimination is inherently destructive and there should be no justification for it, religious or otherwise.

 

Erm. People in the ancient world were quite familiar with sexual practices outside of strict heterosexuality. When they said "eunuchs" they meant that, not some broad endorsement of everything. The New Testament contains multiple specific denunciations of homosexuality, was spun out of a religion that contains similarly broad inhibitions on the practice (Judaism), and went on to inspire other religions that forbade homosexuality (Islam). It's fine to argue such views shouldn't be controlling in the public sphere, but let's acknowledge that there is a pretty clear pedigree for the thought that says it is wrong.

 

It depends on which interpretation of that you espouse. Christianity is a broad tapestry of many different interpretations of a Bible that contradicts itself often. Jesus was compassionate to women and tax collectors. Paul, by contrast, mistreated women and was very sexist. So, I mean, I like the idea of civil rights following that Christ-like ideal rather than Paulist elitism. And you'll find many liberal seminaries and denominations who dispute what "mainstream" Christians say is "Christian."

Judaism and Islam are dualistic religions that worship laws, whereas Christianity is a bit different than them. It's not as monotheistic. Christianity is a copromise between the duality-obsessed laws of Judaism and Islam and the more panentheistic/nontheistic/universalism of the Dharmic religions. So, I guess you're right if you espouse a dualistic interpretation of Christianity. But that's only what the media reports. Nobody talks about the nicer and more inclusive Christians. There's no money in it.

And I'm not saying that modern (secular) Judaism is like that. I'm saying Classical Judaism is. And I'm not saying Sufi Islam is like its more intolerant brothers. You can't say a religion is all about one thing. Every religion, Abrahamic or Dharmic, is a broad tapestry of many different interpretations.

 

I *try* to treat everyone with love and respect, or, often, equally poorly as I am unfortunately a pessimistic person. Anyway.

Everyone should be treat equally; unfortunately for my faith and I, many people do not take Christianity as, what, in my notso humble opinion, is the "correct" interpretation.

I believe in following my conscience moreso than some of the outdated Bible passages. Many Christians often forget that loving and treating everyone farily is more important that women's hair. Yes, according to us, imbracing homosexuality is a sin, but that does not mean we should judge or treat them unfairly. God loves them just as much as everyone else.


Sorry to go religious nut on you, but hopefully I have made my position has been made clear to you.

 

Naw, Commander. You're not a religious nut. I see. Thanks for clarifying. That's very kind.

I suppose we should get back to the legalistic/civil rights aspect before our convo gets transferred to another broad. Now, basically, as far as civil rights go, if someone could answer some questions about why some here have said the Civil Rights Act was bad for African Americans, please help me understand that better. I haven't read about that in a few years, and I need to get fresh on this.

 

Angie's List and Salesforce.com exercised their right to decline to do business with an entity because it felt that entity's actions were wrong and did not want to endorse it. Why should Elane Photography and Masterpiece Cakeshop not have that same right?

The only difference is in the political correctness of the reason to sever ties. Angie's List is goring the right ox, and Elane Photography gored the wrong ox. SalesForce.com's discrimination against Indiana is for the "right" reasons, while Masterpiece Cakeshop's was for the "wrong" reasons.

 

Yet if both companies refused to do business in a state that allowed gays to marry, or permiitted late-term abortions (assuming the federal ban did not exist), then you would have no problem with that, right?

Peace,

V-03

 

If Angie's List can pull out of a state over moral objections, then Hobby Lobby should have the right to do so as well.

If Hobby Lobby is denied the right, then Angie's List shouldn't have that right, either.

Otherwise, you are arguing that "liberals" get conscience rights, while those who disagree with them don't. Can you understand why I might perceive a double standard and/or hypocrisy on your part?

 

You can't have a "conscientious objection" against a demographic of your country existing. This is completely different from objecting to laws passed by a state.

 

Well, yeah, we can see why you have an objection to that. However, the 'left' (psh) conscience right usually has to deal with things like bigotry. Your objections and those are because they hold bigoted views.

Hannity says the dumbest thing ever.

I know he's not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but does he sincerely wonder why a gay person might be mad about a law that affects them as opposed to Sharia law? No one can possibly be that stupid, can they?

 

We've been down such a long and terrible road as a nation that went from slavery to apartheid into a seemingly unending struggle with the enduring cultural toxicity of both those things. Why would anyone ever under any circumstances support the posting of a "we don't serve your kind here" storefront sign for any commercial endeavor?

All legal businesses in the U.S. enjoy the benefits of a public infrastructure that promotes a safe, predictable, reliable business environment paid for and subsidized by all taxpayers. No matter who you are, your business is subsidized and nurtured in small and large ways by local, state and federal government.

Anyone who participates in this stable, largely pro-business environment in which thousands upon thousands of commercial enterprises across the country thrive and compete fairly under a predictable rule of law should be required to forego posting the "we don't serve your kind here" signs on their place of business. It's a simple, straightforward principle that benefits society as a whole.

 

The biggest problem I have from the "freedom of religion" business owners is that the claim seems rather disingenuous. The primary religious freedom being targeted for the bill (and similar bills) is the ability to not provide services only to homosexuals (the Hobby Lobby case is the only different one I recall seeing in the past couple years and that's not really about service provision). So my question is, where are all the holy-roller bakers and photographers refusing services to clients who are prochoice, remarrying divorcees, people who've been having premarital sex or living in sin, or people who use contraceptives? Why are those sins alright for them to take part in, but not this one?

Perhaps if, as part of their practice, these business owners went through a list of all their religious beliefs with all potential clients to make sure they aren't being complicit with any sins then I would take their argument more seriously. Instead, they seem quite content to make money off everyone except this one class of people. In essence, picking out only one specific sin that they just don't like and conveniently using the freedom of religion argument to justify it. This is why it seems less like an issue of religious freedom and more like discrimination.

 

This entire situation is an epic fail for Republicans.

It comes at entirely the wrong time for the GOP, and shifts the focus back to social issues, the one area where they tend to bomb on the national stage. Oh, and they've just killed Hillarymailgate; further attempts to pivot back will look like they're just trying to change the subject.

Pence was thinking of throwing his hat in the 2016 ring, and I think he's just shot himself in the foot.

Arkansas's governor has declined to sign that state's bill as currently written.

What an enormous and unnecessary mess. Sigh.

Peace,

V-03

 

I think they know that targeting 8-10% (or whatever) of the population with punitive social policies is a losing campaign strategy at the national level, but there is so much pressure for it from part of the base that politicians feel unable to resist it, even when they know the price.

 

This is idiotic. Those companies didn't have state contracts. They never denied a specific customer, only relocated some of their offices. If a local bakery wants to respond to the existence of homosexuals by moving out of state too, they are perfectly welcome to do so.what are you even talking about? Do you know?

 

Yeah but Wocky they're being nice to the people of the state by operating in that state.

 

But as I recall, from several years ago, some of the anti-ssm crowd were super offended at equating the civil rights movement with the gay rights movement (which was always rather laughable) so I expect some kind of vitriol to come from this.

 

Yeah, somebody's probably going to come in and bitch about the "race card" being played, or something stupid like that.