From The Archives -- The Gay Marriage Tipping Point
Program Note: I fully admit that sometimes I run repeat articles because I am lazy and don't feel like writing a column. Other times, I am just too busy with real life, or sick. And then there are slow political news days when I just don't have a handy subject to write about.
But then there are times like today, when I repeat an article to do nothing more than metaphorically spike the football in the end zone and do a victory dance.
Ahem.
Eleven months ago, I wrote the following article. For the time it was written, I was going out on a limb. We had just heard the oral arguments in two pivotal cases at the Supreme Court, but the decision was still months away, and nobody really knew how the Supremes were going to rule. Even so, I argued, the tipping point had already been reached on the subject of gay marriage.
I thought that now, immediately after Arizona's governor just vetoed a very discriminatory bill, was a good time to repeat my claims about how the tide had turned. The bill in question is even instructive, because it shows how the anti-marriage-equality folks are grasping at straws -- they are passing state laws in full anticipation of marriage equality becoming the law in the entire nation. In other words, they know they're fighting a losing battle, and they are looking for ways to strategically retreat.
The real reason I'm rerunning this article, though, is to show just how blindingly fast events on the ground are changing. This wasn't even written a full year ago, and the situation has changed wildly, with state after state losing in court after the Supreme Court's historic decision. "Defense of marriage" laws are being swiftly relegated to the historical garbage heap. It's conceivable that a sweeping Loving v. Virginia type of ruling from the Supreme Court could happen within the next two years, much faster than I would have expected.
Historic changes sometimes happen very slowly and very gradually. But at other times, they happen with astonishing speed. Marriage equality is in the latter group, it now is impossible to deny.
Originally published March 25, 2013
No matter what the Supreme Court decides, after hearing this week's arguments, I think America has reached the tipping point on the subject of gay marriage. I say that because I think that gay marriage is going to win, in the end -- even if the Supreme Court ducks the issue this year. As civil rights battles go, the country has moved extraordinarily fast to where we find ourselves now: the point of no return. Victory for gay rights activists is not assured this time around, but it should now be seen as almost inevitable. Which makes this a very historic point in American progress.
That's a pretty sweeping thesis, but the facts justify it, I think. If you just took a snapshot in time of where we're at now, it might not seem as optimistic as when you put everything in context. After all, something like four out of five states have bans on gay marriage written into their laws in one fashion or another. Over 30 of these state laws passed by voter referenda. That's a pretty daunting fact to begin with.
But context is key. Banning gay marriage has been a favorite for Republicans for the past 20 years or so. It's been a proven winner for them. Put a gay marriage initiative on the ballot, and not only would you get more people out to vote, but they'd be reliably more conservative in the voting booth. Gay marriage initiatives were a big factor in George W. Bush's 2004 win, according to many political analysts -- as a backlash to the mayor of San Francisco pushing the issue to the forefront.
But that was then -- even though it was less than a decade ago -- and this is now. Things have changed dramatically in the meantime. In 2012, for the first time ever, gay marriage actually won at the ballot box, and in more than one state. Add to this the fact that the conservatives are now a victim of their own success -- there are barely any states left which haven't already banned gay marriage. And if gay marriage is already banned, then putting it back on the ballot is pointless, for conservatives.
However, it is not going to be pointless for liberals, from here on out. By winning in a few blue states in 2012, gay marriage supporters -- even without taking into consideration what the Supreme Court may or may not do -- may have shown that banning gay marriage has hit its high-water mark. This tide has now turned. There are plenty of progressive "blue" states where gay marriage is currently banned where future ballot initiatives will likely go the other way. California -- home of Proposition 8 -- is a good example of this. Prop 8 passed narrowly in 2008. Put it back on the ballot in 2014, and legalizing gay marriage is a lot more likely to carry the day. As I mentioned, public opinion is changing fast. What this means is that progressives will be the ones putting gay marriage on the ballot from now on -- in states where they have a good chance of the public voting for legalization. What used to be a wedge issue for conservatives will now cut the other way.
The country is moving in one clear direction on gay marriage -- towards full acceptance. Poll after poll shows this. Younger people are overwhelmingly more tolerant of gay marriage than their elders. As time goes on, this demographic bulge will wipe out popular opposition. We're just never moving back, to put it another way. No matter how the Supreme Court rules.
It's an odd fact for Democrats to have to face, but the military is leading on the issue in a similar way as they were forced to lead on desegregation. The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has had ripple effects. While the Defense Of Marriage Act still stands in the way, gay spouses and "significant others" are gaining a more-equal status with military wives and husbands as time goes on. Interestingly, when DADT was repealed, there was less teeth-gnashing from Republicans than many would have expected (myself included).
This is because Republicans know this issue is killing their chances of making any inroads among young voters. They still harbor the hard-liners on all gay rights within their ranks, but their voices are a lot more muted than they were five or ten years ago. This is because their influence is waning, even among Republicans. The party's establishment knows full well it has to get this issue behind them soon, or they will have lost an entire generation's voters. Those who want to see a revitalized Republican Party -- and can read polls and follow demographic trendlines -- know that the issue is an absolute deal-breaker among many under the age of 30.
It's beginning to show, too. While only a very few Republicans currently serving in elected office or party leadership positions have come out in support of gay marriage, there's a growing chorus of voices of former officeholders and leaders with less political risk to themselves who are beginning to speak out on the issue. Even those who are still fighting against the gay marriage tide the strongest seem downright dispirited these days. There's a sort of gay marriage gloom which hangs over conservatives on television, and this is only going to increase over time. This was on full display yesterday, on the weekly Sunday morning shows. Virtually no Republican politician or serious conservative analyst was predicting full and complete victory for their side at the Supreme Court. They were -- at best -- hoping for a very narrow ruling which wouldn't force all states to accept gay marriage right away. They projected defeatism and not confidence of their success, to put it bluntly.
On the Democratic side, supporting gay marriage has also just recently reached the tipping point. Up until now, most Democrats (most of those now in or running for office) have either been mealy-mouthed in their support, been otherwise intentionally vague and nebulous about their support, or have wanted to duck the issue entirely. Democrats, for approximately the past six years or so, have known that supporting gay marriage is the right thing to do, but they've also been afraid to champion the issue because they think they'll suffer for their stance at the ballot box. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are two prime examples of this (from the 2008 race). But now the floodgates are opening wide. The people are leading, and the leaders are finally following. Obama "evolved" on the issue in the 2012 campaign, and Hillary wasted no time after leaving the State Department to get on the record herself. No viable Democratic presidential candidate is ever again going to get away with either ducking the issue or actively opposing gay marriage, that's my guess.
It's not just the Democratic Party or the president, either. America has evolved on gay marriage. Now, this doesn't mean that everyone everywhere has gotten fully on board yet -- not by a long shot. There's still a long ways to go. There may, indeed, be a lot more political work to do. Of course, the Supreme Court could indeed surprise everyone and issue a sweeping ruling that gay marriage is a constitutional right (as it did in Loving v. Virginia over interracial marriage). But most court-watchers are predicting a less-monumental outcome. Some sort of incremental ruling or narrowly-targeted ruling would be seen by many as a huge disappointment, but my guess is that such a partial victory will not slow down the march of progress much at all. Such an outcome will leave a lot of work left to do at the state level, many more battles to be fought, and more hearts and minds to win over.
But whether the Supreme Court goes for a bold stroke or not, the tide will still have turned with the public. From here on out -- until marriage equality is indeed declared by the Supreme Court to be the immutable law of the land in all states -- gay marriage is going to win a lot more victories than it loses. The last two decades were a constant string of defeats for gay marriage. The next decade (even if the Supreme Court narrowly rules in the two cases before it) is going to be a lot different. The youth of America is driving the issue forward. Democratic politicians are on board, a handful of even Republican politicians are on board, and the general public is getting more and more supportive with each passing day. The tide has turned, and it's not ever going to turn back.
No matter what the Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8 and the Defense Of Marriage Act, I truly believe the tipping point for gay marriage has now been reached.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's funny, but the SC kind of did give fairly narrow rulings (or so they thought). It was the old one suffering from dementia who should have retired a decade ago who really made it a more expansive ruling with his inability to accept the loss.
Scalia's need to whine in his dissent gave fodder to every justice in the country who would have liked to overturn the bans and even to ones who didn't want to but agreed with the dissenting logic.
I thought that now, immediately after Arizona's governor just vetoed a very discriminatory bill,
If you look at the facts and ignore the Leftist spin, you would realize that there was NOTHING discriminatory about the AZ bill, "very" or otherwise..
Basically, ya'all are celebrating that the Left gets to be discriminatory towards religious people..
I said it before and I'll say it again.
Congrats.. :^/
Michale
M (2)
The bill vetoed by the Governor was an end run subverting gay rights legislation on the books in population centers Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson. Similar end run legislation is being introduced in many other states.
The AZ bill permitted statewide discrimination by allowing personal religious convictions to determine who was, or was not worthy of receiving goods and services. Sealing SB 1062 can of worms was a victory for tolerance, so I'll accept your congrats.
The AZ bill permitted statewide discrimination by allowing personal religious convictions to determine who was, or was not worthy of receiving goods and services.
It did nothing of the sort..
But, as I stated, ya'all do not have the moral foundation from which to complain about the legislation, even if it DID do what you claim it does...
Michale
It's amazing to watch the religious right playing the victim card to justify their discrimination.
I have to deal with people I religiously disagree with every day.
It's called having a job.
Fortunately most Christians I know aren't nearly as idiotic as the pundits out there claiming victimhood.
Religious freedom means you're free to practice your religion. It doesn't mean your religious beliefs trump the laws of our country.
-David
I have to deal with people I religiously disagree with every day.
Can you allow that there are people who are more deeply into their beliefs??
I mean, I am not. I am as agnostic as they come..
But *I* understand that people feel differently about things then I do.
*I* give them the respect and tolerance to feel that way...
It's called having a job.
And your job is dictated by your boss.. And if your boss tells you that you will NOT serve a group of people that he is vehemently opposed to, then you follow his orders or you quit...
Once again, what is afoot here is that religious people are being FORCED to accept a lifestyle that they are a religious objection to.
When it comes to tolerance and respect, the Left is all about that.. But ONLY with people who think as they do...
If ya'all HAD tolerance and respect, you would at least TRY to see things from the other people's point of view instead of just writing them off as hate-mongering bigots...
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
And your job is dictated by your boss.. And if your boss tells you that you will NOT serve a group of people that he is vehemently opposed to, then you follow his orders or you quit...
Now, if YOU were the boss, you would be free to refuse service to those you didn't like.
If you were POTUS, you could even buy beers for the house, except for the guy holding the Romney sign...
YOU have freedom of choice...
Now, how would you feel if it was made MANDATORY that, in your widget shop, you would HAVE to serve, under penalty of law, the guy that walks in with the OBAMA IS A MUSLIM KENYAN T-Shirt holding an I LOVE RUSH sign...
You would be a tad perturbed that you were FORCED to service such an obvious degenerate...
No???
Michale
Can you allow that there are people who are more deeply into their beliefs?
No.
Why would some people's beliefs be "better" than others?
And who determines whose beliefs are better?
I mean, I'd like to believe that I'm superior and much better than everyone else but it's quite likely that other people are going to call me on it. :)
-David
You would be a tad perturbed that you were FORCED to service such an obvious degenerate.
Heheh. Not at all. I can disagree with people without hating them.
It's actually pretty easy.
-David
Why would some people's beliefs be "better" than others?
Why should people hold other people's beliefs more sacred than their own??
Especially RELIGIOUS beliefs..
How would you feel if you were forced to hold REPUBLICAN beliefs before your OWN beliefs??
THAT's the point..
It's not the beliefs themselves... It's that people are being FORCED to supplant their religious beliefs with the beliefs of the state...
I'll ask again for the umpteenth time..
WHERE is the tolerance???
Heheh. Not at all. I can disagree with people without hating them.
Yes, YOU can.. Me too...
But we are the exceptions that emphasis the rule..
I refer you to the rank and file who call people "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "criminals" SOLELY because of a different ideological belief..
You want to see the hate??
Look around...
If ya'all want tolerance, then BE tolerant..
If ya'all want respect, then BE respectful...
Doesn't that make sense??
Michale
Lemme ask ya this..
Do Americans have the RIGHT to hate other people??
To hate other groups of people??
Michale
It's that people are being FORCED to supplant their religious beliefs with the beliefs of the state.
Umm. No.
You can believe whatever you want to believe.
Do Americans have the RIGHT to hate other people?
Sure. I have no problem with that.
What they don't have is the right to legislate their hatred into law so they can act on it in ways that infringe upon other peoples' rights.
Example 1: I can hate you all I want but I can't use that hatred to deny you service.
Example 2: I can hate you all I want but this doesn't give me the right to shoot you.
Freedom doesn't mean people can do whatever the hell they want whenever they want just because they have some belief that tells them they can.
Can you imagine what our society would look like if it did?
-David
What they don't have is the right to legislate their hatred into law so they can act on it in ways that infringe upon other peoples' rights.
But they DO have the right to legislate acceptance...
How is that any different??
Example 1: I can hate you all I want but I can't use that hatred to deny you service.
No??
Did you condemn the IRS when they "denied" service to conservative groups??
No, you did not...
You see the point?
Discrimination is perfectly acceptable as long as the people being discriminated against are politically or ideologically undesirable...
Again, the problem here is one of tolerance..
Saying that one group of people MUST provide service to ANY group, regardless of the moral depravity of said group is discrimination against that group..
But discrimination and bigotry is fine.. As long as it's against people who are undesirable...
Either you are against discrimination PERIOD or you are not..
Michale
Let's say you are an investment broker.. You get a call from Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers and they tell you,
"Hay, David. I gotta make a million bucks in the coming month so I can fund the campaign and insure that Rush Limbaugh is elected our next POTUS. If you make me that million, I can GUARANTEE that Rush Limbaugh will be our next POTUS!!"
Do you take take the job and make certain that Limbaugh is our next POTUS??
Or do you respectfully tell them to shove it up their collective asses and take their business elsewhere??
"What do you do? What DO you do?"
-Keannu Reeves, SPEED
Ain't so black and white now, is it? :D
Michale
I can give you moral dilemma after moral dilemma after moral dilemma that would help illustrate the point.
That would ask the following question.
Is it possible to have a MORAL objection that would prevent an otherwise reasonable and rational person from wanting to provide goods and/or services to another person..
Is that possible?? And is it reasonable??
Michale
Saying that one group of people MUST provide service to ANY group, regardless of the moral depravity of said group is discrimination against that group..
For the record, I am not saying that any group under discussion is morally depraved...
I am simply saying that one group has a sincere and deep-held belief that another group is morally depraved...
And *I* respect that belief, even if I don't agree with it...
And, honestly, I seem to be the only one here who feels that way...
Michale
On another, unrelated note...
It must be COMEDY NIGHT at the White House...
OBAMA WARNS RUSSIA OF 'COSTS' IN UKRAINE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_RUSSIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-02-28-17-18-37
Obama has issued another red line...
Putin is quaking in his boots... From laughter...
NOTE: I know I should have waited for tomorrow to post this. But I am not sure what my weekend will hold, so......
Michale
Let's say you are an investment broker.. You get a call from Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers ... Do you take take the job and make certain that Limbaugh is our next POTUS?
I can take this job if I want to or not. If I want the money or Limbaugh to win I can. If not, I can choose not to. Taking or not taking the job has nothing to do with discrimination.
What I can't do is put up a sign that says "No gays (or blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Christians, etc.) allowed."
Discrimination is when you refuse to serve an entire group just because that group is black, or gay, or women, or Republican.
Sorry, Michale. Your analogy has nothing to do with discrimination. If I put up a sign that says "We don't serve Christians." you'd be getting closer.
-David
p.s. By moral depravity do you mean that they think somehow their shit stinks less than everyone else's?
If so, all I see are self-righteous idiots. Not sure why you're so keen on defending them. Is it because they vote Republican?
Crap. Sorry for the italics. Didn't close off the first quote right.
[Ed. Note: Fixed. Sorry, busy with FTP right now... -CW]
I can take this job if I want to or not.
Yet, you want to FORCE people to "take the job" that might not want to...
What I can't do is put up a sign that says "No gays (or blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Christians, etc.) allowed."
What we are discussing has absolutely NOTHING to do with that..
Sorry, Michale. Your analogy has nothing to do with discrimination. If I put up a sign that says "We don't serve Christians." you'd be getting closer.
It has EVERYTHING to do with discrimination.
You would be discriminating against conservatives when you refused to take the job.
Just like Obama was discriminating against Romney supporters when he bought beers for everyone BUT the Romney guy.
Just like Obama's IRS was discriminating against conservatives when the targeted conservative tax-exempt groups..
Ya'all don't have an issue with discrimination..
YA'ALL only have a problem with discrimination against politically acceptable groups..
And THAT is discrimination right there...
Michale
What I am trying to get you to concede is that, in some circumstances, discriminating against a person or group in a business environment is rational, understandable and even acceptable..
It all depends on one's ideological outlook..
Michale
You would be discriminating against conservatives when you refused to take the job.
If I put a sign up at my financial company that said "We don't serve conservatives" I would be discriminating against conservatives.
If I put up a sign that said "We don't serve white rednecks" I would be discriminating.
If I put up a sign that said "We don't serve gays" I would be discriminating.
And that's what I'm against. Being able to discriminate against a class of people based solely on their skin color or sex or race. This is what discrimination is.
The laws I'm for protect everyone.
I'm curious though. Do you think you're better than other people, Michale?
You've never struck me as this kind of person. Which is why I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're arguing that some people are.
-David
And that's what I'm against. Being able to discriminate against a class of people based solely on their skin color or sex or race. This is what discrimination is.
But that is not what we are talking about here..
No one is talking about putting any kind of sign up.
We're simply talking about the freedom for businesses to refuse service to persons/groups that they find offensive..
And that's what I'm against. Being able to discriminate against a class of people based solely on their skin color or sex or race. This is what discrimination is.
I would agree.
But that is not what we are discussing here.
We're discussing being able to discriminate against a person or group that said business finds personally or religiously offensive.
If you are a travel agent and a group comes in and asks you to book a flight to Bangkok because they are going there to have sex with underage boys, you would refuse to help them.
By YOUR definition, you are committing discrimination...
Even if it's accurate, would you care?? Would anyone fault you??
If someone comes into my computer shop wearing a T-Shirt that says, I LOVE AL QAEDA, guess what? I am going to throw them out.
Am I discriminating against them?
Maybe..
But, again.. Who cares??
You run a political action group that helps elect politicians to office. You put up a sign that says you only help Democrats..
Is that discrimination? By your definition, yes...
But, would you care?? Of course not..
I could go on and on, giving you example after example of how "discrimination" is sometimes rational, understandable and even acceptable..
That's my only point..
If AZ was putting up a law that says businesses have a right to refuse service to conservatives, ya'all would be falling all over yourselves to support that law...
This is evidenced by the IRS scandal, Obama's childish and immature beer moment and tons and tons of other evidence of "discrimination" against conservatives.. Discrimination that none of ya'all ever had a problem with..
I'm curious though. Do you think you're better than other people, Michale?
Some, abso-frakin'-loutly...
Which is why I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're arguing that some people are.
That's not my argument.
My argument is that, in America, Americans have the RIGHT to their beliefs. And the right to live their lives and run their businesses according to those beliefs...
If Acme Travel doesn't want to help a group of perverts book a trip to Bangkok because Acme Travel find the actions of the group to be morally unacceptable, Acme Travel HAS THAT RIGHT...
If Acme Cakes doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple because they find the actions of the gay people to be morally unacceptable, Acme Cakes HAVE THAT RIGHT...
Two examples of "discrimination".
No one here would fault Acme Travel for their actions.
But everyone here would condemn Acme Cakes for the exact same action.
Why??
Solely and completely because of political ideology...
I can't make it any plainer than that..
Michale
I can even provide examples of where discrimination is not only legal and acceptable, it even makes good business sense...
The evidence is overwhelming here that discrimination is not the issue.
The issue here is discrimination against a group that the Left finds politically acceptable and supports the Left's political agenda..
A group, I might add, whose ONLY parameter is based solely and completely on who they are sexually attracted to..
How whacked is THAT??
Michale
My argument is that, in America, Americans have the RIGHT to their beliefs.
You do have the right to your beliefs.
The piece you're leaving out, however, is "so long as those beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others".
This is true freedom.
When you care about the rights of others as much as you do your own.
Otherwise, it's not freedom. It's selfishness.
-David
BTW, there is another important point you're leaving out.
In your examples, wearing an al Qaeda t-shirt is an action you have control over. Being Democrat or Republican is something you choose.
Being gay or black or Caucasian or male/female is how you are born.
This is an important distinction when talking about discrimination.
-David
The piece you're leaving out, however, is "so long as those beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others".
What "right" are you referring to??
The "right" to have a gay wedding cake made by Redneck Cakes Inc???
I have read the Constitution. I don't see anything like that in there..
When you care about the rights of others as much as you do your own.
Otherwise, it's not freedom. It's selfishness.
So, I *HAVE* to sell an asshole with an I LOVE AL QAEDA t-shirt a laptop or I am selfish??
Being gay or black or Caucasian or male/female is how you are born.
Bullshit to the first..
Being gay is what you do, not who you are..
Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant to the charge of discrimination.
You CHOOSE to be a Christian, Muslim or whatever. Yet religion is a protected group..
Even if someone CHOOSES to be a Republican or Democrat, when they are discriminated against, it's STILL (according to your definition) discrimination.
But, the political ideology of the label'er determines whether or not it is acceptable discrimination..
Like Obama's beer stunt. Like the IRS targeting of conservative groups..
Pure discrimination...
Yet, no one said 'boo' here over them..
Why not??
Because, for the Left, it's acceptable to discriminate against the Right.
But gods help whoever discriminates against someone on the Left, eh? :D
Michale
Being gay is what you do, not who you are..
"Being a cop is not what we do, it's who we are!"
-James Woods, THE HARD WAY
:D
Michale
I've read my Constitution too.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
If you allow one religion to discriminate against people based on a "religious belief" you are in a sense making the doctrine of that religious belief superior to the law of the land.
This is how the Supreme Court has decided cases when there is a clash between some religion and federal law.
The law of the land which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, creed, or age.
Not to mention our Declaration of Independence which established that "All Men are Created Equal". (Though it sure did take a while for women and others to gain equal rights.)
-David
The law of the land which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, creed, or age.
And being gay falls into any of those categories..
Unless you want to change to read:
The law of the land which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, who you want to have sex WITH, creed, or age.
Kinda unweildy, don'tcha think??
Not to mention our Declaration of Independence which established that "All Men are Created Equal". (Though it sure did take a while for women and others to gain equal rights.)
And yet, no one here has a problem with Obama's beer stunt or the IRS targeting conservatives.
Two of HUNDREDS of examples of conservatives being discriminated against and no one here said 'boo' about it..
So, I guess we're going to have to alter THAT statement to read:
"All Men are Created Equal, except for conservatives"
You fail to acknowledge one simple fact.
In the here and now, discrimination CAN be reasonable, understandable and even acceptable..
In this case, the ONLY determining factor to cry "DISCRIMINATION" is the ideological bent of the cry'ees....
Michale
And being gay falls into any of those categories..
Of course, that should read:
And being gay falls into NONE of those categories..
:D
Michale
If you allow one religion to discriminate against people based on a "religious belief" you are in a sense making the doctrine of that religious belief superior to the law of the land.
And which "law" would that be??
That, as a business, you MUST serve all comers to the exclusion of ANY OTHER factor??
I don't recall seeing that law on the books anywhere..
Perhaps you could point it out to me.. :D
Michale
Until you acknowledge it, I am going to repeat it over and over. :D
In the here and now, discrimination can be rational, understandable and even acceptable...
It all depends on the person and how they look at things...
I have provided many examples of this fact..
So, since it IS fact that discrimination can be rational, understandable and even acceptable, if one TRIES to view things from another's perspective they will discover that things aren't necessarily as they appear on the surface...
Michale..
"All Men are Created Equal, except for conservatives"
Conservatives and Christians are equally protected against discrimination under the law.
-David
Conservatives and Christians are equally protected against discrimination under the law.
And yet, our POTUS didn't get in trouble for discriminating against a Romney supporter..
And yet, the IRS was able to target conservatives and discriminate against them w/o any consequences..
And so on and so on and so on....
When ya'all start condemning the discrimination that occurs against conservatives and christians, THEN you can complain about the discrimination against gay people..
But not until then...
Michale
When ya'all start condemning the discrimination that occurs against conservatives and christians, THEN you can complain about the discrimination against gay people.
I would if there were any.
No one's trying to create laws to legislate discrimination against conservatives or Christians though.
It's weird though that you think somehow this is all about politics.
-David
<I.When ya'all start condemning the discrimination that occurs against conservatives and christians, THEN you can complain about the discrimination against gay people..
But not until then...
Let me amend that.
Obviously, ya'all have the right and the freedom to complain about ANYTHING..
I wasn't infringing on that whatsoever..
But, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, then you need to be consistent in your condemnations..
Otherwise, it stands out as nothing but ideologically based spin and not a sincere condemnation of discrimination..
Michale
I would if there were any.
Exactly my point.
You don't SEE any discrimination in what has happened to conservatives..
Even though it is text-book definitions of discrimination..
No one's trying to create laws to legislate discrimination against conservatives or Christians though.
And no one is trying to create laws to allow discrimination against gay people..
But the issue (MY issue) isn't the law..
MY issue is why you and everyone else is selective in combating discrimination..
You can't even admit that discrimination exists other than when it is against politically acceptable entities..
Michale
And no one is trying to create laws to allow discrimination against gay people..
But the issue (MY issue) isn't the law..
But if you WANT to address the law, then the law in Arizona states that private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
THAT is the law. And THAT is how it should be..
Michale
MY issue is why you and everyone else is selective in combating discrimination.
Not true. Conservatives and Christians are equal under the law too!
My issue is that the laws being proposed in not just Arizona, but across the country would legalize discrimination. Ohio has their own version.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-or-discrimination
Alas, we're likely going to have to disagree. Take care, Michale!
-David
Not true. Conservatives and Christians are equal under the law too!
We're not talking about the law.
If we were, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it's the LAW in AZ that businesses have the right to refuse service.
What we are talking about it what is morally right and morally wrong.
And it's JUST as morally wrong to refuse to buy a Romney supporter a beer as it is morally wrong to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple..
It's that simple...
Michale
From your own headline:
Why ‘religious freedom’ laws *COULD* be a license to discriminate
Emphasis mine..
So, yes.. Those laws COULD be used for discrimination. But, the law, in and of itself, is NOT discrimination..
Now, if you flip it around and create a law that forces christians to do things that violates their religious beliefs, then there is no "COULD" about it.
It WILL violate the rights of christians' religious freedoms...
It's YOUR proposal that is legalized discrimination.
Not the laws you are fighting against...
Michale
Alas, we're likely going to have to disagree. Take care, Michale!
Yes, we are...
But, it's not the destination, it's the journey..
And how I miss traveling with you :D
Michale
Now I'm just posting because it amuses me that you have to get the last word in.
:)
-David
Heh.
Now I'm just posting because it amuses me that you have to get the last word in.
Naaaw, I just wanted to tell you how appreciated you are around here...
"Just for that, I'll let you get the last word."
"Thank you."
"You're welcome"
-M*A*S*H
:D
Michale
"Just for that, I'll let you get the last word."
"Thank you."
"You're welcome"
-M*A*S*H
Hahahahah ... well played, sir!
Yeah, that was pretty funny.