So, is it real that heterosexuals are trying maybe TOO HARD?
No, it is not.
Well, there's always Tumblr, where the concept of context is oppressive, where an 18-year-old white girl who just started college on her daddy's money is the ideal emissary for the rest of us, and where fire-breathing dragon is a gender category.
tl;dr: Laugh at them, or ignore them.
(Half my time in the SJW thread was separating legitimate struggles from SJW fools. Oh, and the SJWs are pro-Redskins; apparently, protesting the Washington Redskins is anti-Asian. If someone here can make sense of that statement to me, I'd like to know how.)
(Addendum: Fun game: Catch a SJW failing to check his/her/shkler privilege, engaging in stereotyping, etc. Doing this makes them actually entertaining.)
I would hope someone looking for a legitimate social commentary on an issue would NOT stop at tumblr
Part of the problem with the internet is that it has given everyone a voice. However, not all voices are created equal, and our culture hasn't yet transitioned to looking at anything 'published' (be it TV, books or media) with a critical eye.
What I meant is, people tend to take that element of it. Like, in the UK several years ago, Charlotte's Web was banned from a school because books with pigs as characters might offend Muslims. No one actually complained, but they took the initiative. But that's a problem itself, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Unfortunately, the OP is correct. Heterosexuals are very conscious about their SJW image and tend to be overprotective of homosexuals.
This is absolute nonsense. Gay is still an insult. Late night television stars still make jokes at the expense of the gays. "Oh No My Butt!" is still the punchline of every Michael Sam story out there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
This is absolute nonsense. Gay is still an insult. Late night television stars still make jokes at the expense of the gays. "Oh No My Butt!" is still the punchline of every Michael Sam story out there.
Whehter the OP is correct or incorrect, something can simultaneously "need protection" and be "overprotected". The issue is whether the amount of protection they are getting is more than they need.
Whehter the OP is correct or incorrect, something can simultaneously "need protection" and be "overprotected". The issue is whether the amount of protection they are getting is more than they need.
If they were overprotective we wouldn't see any of the things I mentioned, which are all part of mainstream culture. You can't be both overprotective and the aggressor at the same time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
If they were overprotective we wouldn't see any of the things I mentioned, which are all part of mainstream culture. You can't be both overprotective and the aggressor at the same time.
You absolutely can -- assuming you treat all heterosexuals as a monolithic group. Heterosexuals *aren't* a monolithic group. Which kind of makes both your proposition (heterosexuals are not overprotective) and the OP's proposition (heterosexuals are overprotective) meaningless.
I think a more reasonable question would be: In light of negative historic and current treatment and attitudes toward gay people, are the more protective heterosexuals *over*protective, or properly protective? And I think the answer to that one is "they can be". If the people being protected aren't offended by something, then the protectors being offended is unnecessary and overreactive. I do think this occurs wsometimes. I'm not sure it's particularly common though.
You can't be both overprotective and the aggressor at the same time.
I agree that we're not overprotective of gay people generally, but I don't see why this couldn't be the case in theory. Human interactions are complicated, not binary. I'd argue, for example, that the traditional ideal of chivalry towards women is both overprotectiveness and - not aggression exactly, but certainly sexism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can't be both overprotective and the aggressor at the same time.
I agree that we're not overprotective of gay people generally, but I don't see why this couldn't be the case in theory. Human interactions are complicated, not binary. I'd argue, for example, that the traditional ideal of chivalry towards women is both overprotectiveness and - not aggression exactly, but certainly sexism.
Tangential idea... given what has happened in the NFL the past week with domestic violence:
1) Would you say the reaction to what Ray Rice did was warranted or an overreaction?
2) Would you say the same reaction should be applied if he did that to a male friend?
3) If not, is it sexist to think violence against women should be punished more harshly than violence against men?
I find it hard to believe that Rice would have lost his job if he was video taped punching out a GUY he was arguing with. Especially if that guy then came out and said "hey man it's all good I'm not pressing charges".
@LordOwlington:
We are incorrectly using heterosexuals as a one minded entity. Yes, some heterosexuals are -ist against homosexuals. The question and topic of discussion being are some other heterosexuals over-compensating for their less socially liberal counterparts.
To counter something you brought up... I don't think removing homosexuality from humor comes anywhere close to equal treatment. It is normal to make jokes about people's differences... whether those differences are race, age, gender, sexuality, taste in music... comics make fun of everyone for everything... saying gay jokes are off the table is kind of ridiculous.
I find it hard to believe that Rice would have lost his job if he was video taped punching out a GUY he was arguing with.
Whether he would or he wouldn't, he should. Not that any sort of punching is acceptable, but he didn't just punch her, he knocked her unconscious. That can leave permanent damage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I find it hard to believe that Rice would have lost his job if he was video taped punching out a GUY he was arguing with.
Whether he would or he wouldn't, he should. Not that any sort of punching is acceptable, but he didn't just punch her, he knocked her unconscious. That can leave permanent damage.
Sure it's unacceptable... but he lost his job over it. I can't imagine that anyone would have been clamoring to have an NFL player lose his job over a bar fight where he punched someone out. The regular legal process sure.. but not a lifetime suspension from his job.
I've already told you that I think the firing was fair and deserved. You're basically just asking, "Reeeeally?" Yes, really. Now, this really is a tangent, so if you want to discuss it in more detail, take it to a new thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I meant is, people tend to take that element of it. Like, in the UK several years ago, Charlotte's Web was banned from a school because books with pigs as characters might offend Muslims. No one actually complained, but they took the initiative. But that's a problem itself, though.
I think 'fear of offense' is a bit of a different debate here. The removal of the book is a symptom of the overall lack of knowledge people have about particular groups. If anyone in power had known anything about actual Muslim beliefs, they'd know that the existence of pigs isn't remotely offensive.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
But you ARE comparing them. Some restaurants don't allow gay people and you came up with an example "But should a Jewish restaurant serve neo-Nazis?". You can't conflate the two. No one's saying that a certain group should have no rights at all, but discrimination against and/or actively harming a group is illegal. Should gay people be allowed to go any restaurant? Yes. Is killing Jews a right? No. No one has the right to kill anyone.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
But you ARE comparing them. Some restaurants don't allow gay people and you came up with an example "But should a Jewish restaurant serve neo-Nazis?". You can't conflate the two. No one's saying that a certain group should have no rights at all, but discrimination against and/or actively harming a group is illegal. Should gay people be allowed to go any restaurant? Yes. Is killing Jews a right? No. No one has the right to kill anyone.
Should neo-nazis have the right to go to any restaurant, even if the owners of said restaurant are ghastly afraid of or offended by neo-Nazis? Nobody said anything about killing Jews. Being a neo-nazi is not the same as murdering Jewish people.
Should neo-nazis have the right to go to any restaurant, even if the owners of said restaurant are ghastly afraid of or offended by neo-Nazis? Nobody said anything about killing Jews. Being a neo-nazi is not the same as murdering Jewish people.
What, exactly, do you think Neo-Nazis are? If they aren't actively harming the groups that were victimized during the Holocaust, it's only because they're disenfranchised to the point where they can't get away with it.
Being a Neo-Nazi is an entirely indefensible life decision. Being homosexual is a natural occurrence for people. They're two wildly different things.
I get where you're coming from regarding looking at legal rights rather than directly comparing the two groups, but frankly, I don't see the merit in your argument. Tolerance isn't about giving everybody, good or evil, a fair place in society. It's about stopping prejudicial practices against groups that don't deserve it. I have no qualms about giving rights to a group of gay people and not to a group of Neo-Nazis.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
What, exactly, do you think Neo-Nazis are? If they aren't actively harming the groups that were victimized during the Holocaust, it's only because they're disenfranchised to the point where they can't get away with it.
Being a Neo-Nazi is an entirely indefensible life decision. Being homosexual is a natural occurrence for people. They're two wildly different things.
I get where you're coming from regarding looking at legal rights rather than directly comparing the two groups, but frankly, I don't see the merit in your argument. Tolerance isn't about giving everybody, good or evil, a fair place in society. It's about stopping prejudicial practices against groups that don't deserve it. I have no qualms about giving rights to a group of gay people and not to a group of Neo-Nazis.
It doesn't matter what they are. Being a neo-Nazi is not illegal. If the decision is that businesses have to treat their customers as featureless entities that deserve to be served no matter what their views are, then that should hold true for everyone, not just those people whose views are popular today.
It doesn't matter what they are. Being a neo-Nazi is not illegal. If the decision is that businesses have to treat their customers as featureless entities that deserve to be served no matter what their views are, then that should hold true for everyone, not just those people whose views are popular today.
But your analogy falls apart when you consider that, while businesses can't discriminate against groups due to religion/orientation/politics etc., they do have the right to refuse service based on any number of other factors, including the customer's demeanor or actions. So no, a Jewish wedding planner doesn't have the right to refuse service to a Neo-Nazi purely due to the latter's political ideals. But I find it very hard to believe that such a transaction would occur without incident, given the extremely hateful ideologies of Neo-Nazis. And when an incident does happen, the wedding planner is certainly within their rights to refuse service.
No reasonable person can attribute negative attributes to the entire gay community. The same is not true for Neo-Nazis.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
But your analogy falls apart when you consider that, while businesses can't discriminate against groups due to religion/orientation/politics etc., they do have the right to refuse service based on any number of other factors, including the customer's demeanor or actions. So no, a Jewish wedding planner doesn't have the right to refuse service to a Neo-Nazi purely due to the latter's political ideals. But I find it very hard to believe that such a transaction would occur without incident, given the extremely hateful ideologies of Neo-Nazis. And when an incident does happen, the wedding planner is certainly within their rights to refuse service.
No reasonable person can attribute negative attributes to the entire gay community. The same is not true for Neo-Nazis.
So as long as the neo-Nazi is no worse than any other client the Jewish restaurant owner/wedding planner should be forced to provide their services?
So no, a Jewish wedding planner doesn't have the right to refuse service to a Neo-Nazi purely due to the latter's political ideals.
They actually do have that right. Political affiliation is not a protected class in any American anti-discrimination statutes. They could refuse service to ordinary Democrats or Republicans if they wanted to. After all, it's not the job of the law to pick which ideologies are right and wrong; it's got to treat them all equally.
I wrote a post earlier in the thread about why protected classes exist. While you're getting to basically the correct conclusion that sexual orientation is justifiably a protected class and political affiliation is not, it seems to me like the logic you're using to get there is dangerous. You're looking for reasons to deprive the right to service from neo-Nazis on the basis of their being evil or whatever. And "Group X is evil, so it's okay that we deprive them of their rights" is not something I ever want to hear a government say. But in fact, neither neo-Nazis nor anyone else has a right to service in the first place. To establish that right would be to force the people providing the service to work under duress. That's a pretty bad thing to do. In order to do it, extraordinary circumstances have to justify it. So while you're looking for reasons to deprive service from neo-Nazis, you ought to be looking for reasons to enforce service for gay people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So no, a Jewish wedding planner doesn't have the right to refuse service to a Neo-Nazi purely due to the latter's political ideals.
They actually do have that right. Political affiliation is not a protected class in any American anti-discrimination statutes. They could refuse service to ordinary Democrats or Republicans if they wanted to. After all, it's not the job of the law to pick which ideologies are right and wrong; it's got to treat them all equally.
I wrote a post earlier in the thread about why protected classes exist. While you're getting to basically the correct conclusion that sexual orientation is justifiably a protected class and political affiliation is not, it seems to me like the logic you're using to get there is dangerous. You're looking for reasons to deprive the right to service from neo-Nazis on the basis of their being evil or whatever. And "Group X is evil, so it's okay that we deprive them of their rights" is not something I ever want to hear a government say. But in fact, neither neo-Nazis nor anyone else has a right to service in the first place. To establish that right would be to force the people providing the service to work under duress. That's a pretty bad thing to do. In order to do it, extraordinary circumstances have to justify it. So while you're looking for reasons to deprive service from neo-Nazis, you ought to be looking for reasons to enforce service for gay people.
It's also worth mentioning that sexuality is only a protected class in some states, not all. I know its been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.
So, moving forward on that topic: What are the justifications for enforcing service for a class of people, and how does that apply to people objecting to gay marriage?
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
But you ARE comparing them. Some restaurants don't allow gay people and you came up with an example "But should a Jewish restaurant serve neo-Nazis?". You can't conflate the two. No one's saying that a certain group should have no rights at all, but discrimination against and/or actively harming a group is illegal. Should gay people be allowed to go any restaurant? Yes. Is killing Jews a right? No. No one has the right to kill anyone.
1. Sorry, I was not actually calling you stupid. I was working on a paper for one of my classes while responding to you and must've forgotten a couple words in that sentence.
2. Nope. You're missing the point yet again. When did I say anyone has a right to kill Jews? I'm saying the law shouldn't be able to pick favorites. It is immoral and hypocritical for the law to say "Gays should have these rights, but skinheads? Nobody likes them, so it should be okay to discriminate against nazis." This is not a value judgment in any way, in fact it is the lack of a value judgment. When the government begins making value judgments on which classes should get particular rights you have have an unjust government.
But I find it very hard to believe that such a transaction would occur without incident, given the extremely hateful ideologies of Neo-Nazis.
Actually, I'm friends with a serious metalhead who hangs out with some Neo-Nazis. I try to avoid them at all cost on principle, but I have observed that they are quite placid if they are put into a situation (like say, being served by a black waiter) that requires them to hide their "unpopular" views. In short, it would be wrong to not give skinheads the same rights as anyone else just because you think they will cause trouble. This applies to Communists and Socialists as well.
I would hope someone looking for a legitimate social commentary on an issue would NOT stop at tumblr
Part of the problem with the internet is that it has given everyone a voice. However, not all voices are created equal, and our culture hasn't yet transitioned to looking at anything 'published' (be it TV, books or media) with a critical eye.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
On phasing:
This is absolute nonsense. Gay is still an insult. Late night television stars still make jokes at the expense of the gays. "Oh No My Butt!" is still the punchline of every Michael Sam story out there.
Whehter the OP is correct or incorrect, something can simultaneously "need protection" and be "overprotected". The issue is whether the amount of protection they are getting is more than they need.
You absolutely can -- assuming you treat all heterosexuals as a monolithic group. Heterosexuals *aren't* a monolithic group. Which kind of makes both your proposition (heterosexuals are not overprotective) and the OP's proposition (heterosexuals are overprotective) meaningless.
I think a more reasonable question would be: In light of negative historic and current treatment and attitudes toward gay people, are the more protective heterosexuals *over*protective, or properly protective? And I think the answer to that one is "they can be". If the people being protected aren't offended by something, then the protectors being offended is unnecessary and overreactive. I do think this occurs wsometimes. I'm not sure it's particularly common though.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Tangential idea... given what has happened in the NFL the past week with domestic violence:
1) Would you say the reaction to what Ray Rice did was warranted or an overreaction?
2) Would you say the same reaction should be applied if he did that to a male friend?
3) If not, is it sexist to think violence against women should be punished more harshly than violence against men?
I find it hard to believe that Rice would have lost his job if he was video taped punching out a GUY he was arguing with. Especially if that guy then came out and said "hey man it's all good I'm not pressing charges".
@LordOwlington:
We are incorrectly using heterosexuals as a one minded entity. Yes, some heterosexuals are -ist against homosexuals. The question and topic of discussion being are some other heterosexuals over-compensating for their less socially liberal counterparts.
To counter something you brought up... I don't think removing homosexuality from humor comes anywhere close to equal treatment. It is normal to make jokes about people's differences... whether those differences are race, age, gender, sexuality, taste in music... comics make fun of everyone for everything... saying gay jokes are off the table is kind of ridiculous.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure it's unacceptable... but he lost his job over it. I can't imagine that anyone would have been clamoring to have an NFL player lose his job over a bar fight where he punched someone out. The regular legal process sure.. but not a lifetime suspension from his job.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think 'fear of offense' is a bit of a different debate here. The removal of the book is a symptom of the overall lack of knowledge people have about particular groups. If anyone in power had known anything about actual Muslim beliefs, they'd know that the existence of pigs isn't remotely offensive.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Infraction for trolling. - Blinking Spirit
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
Warning for flaming. - Blinking Spirit
But you ARE comparing them. Some restaurants don't allow gay people and you came up with an example "But should a Jewish restaurant serve neo-Nazis?". You can't conflate the two. No one's saying that a certain group should have no rights at all, but discrimination against and/or actively harming a group is illegal. Should gay people be allowed to go any restaurant? Yes. Is killing Jews a right? No. No one has the right to kill anyone.
Should neo-nazis have the right to go to any restaurant, even if the owners of said restaurant are ghastly afraid of or offended by neo-Nazis? Nobody said anything about killing Jews. Being a neo-nazi is not the same as murdering Jewish people.
What, exactly, do you think Neo-Nazis are? If they aren't actively harming the groups that were victimized during the Holocaust, it's only because they're disenfranchised to the point where they can't get away with it.
Being a Neo-Nazi is an entirely indefensible life decision. Being homosexual is a natural occurrence for people. They're two wildly different things.
I get where you're coming from regarding looking at legal rights rather than directly comparing the two groups, but frankly, I don't see the merit in your argument. Tolerance isn't about giving everybody, good or evil, a fair place in society. It's about stopping prejudicial practices against groups that don't deserve it. I have no qualms about giving rights to a group of gay people and not to a group of Neo-Nazis.
It doesn't matter what they are. Being a neo-Nazi is not illegal. If the decision is that businesses have to treat their customers as featureless entities that deserve to be served no matter what their views are, then that should hold true for everyone, not just those people whose views are popular today.
But your analogy falls apart when you consider that, while businesses can't discriminate against groups due to religion/orientation/politics etc., they do have the right to refuse service based on any number of other factors, including the customer's demeanor or actions. So no, a Jewish wedding planner doesn't have the right to refuse service to a Neo-Nazi purely due to the latter's political ideals. But I find it very hard to believe that such a transaction would occur without incident, given the extremely hateful ideologies of Neo-Nazis. And when an incident does happen, the wedding planner is certainly within their rights to refuse service.
No reasonable person can attribute negative attributes to the entire gay community. The same is not true for Neo-Nazis.
So as long as the neo-Nazi is no worse than any other client the Jewish restaurant owner/wedding planner should be forced to provide their services?
I wrote a post earlier in the thread about why protected classes exist. While you're getting to basically the correct conclusion that sexual orientation is justifiably a protected class and political affiliation is not, it seems to me like the logic you're using to get there is dangerous. You're looking for reasons to deprive the right to service from neo-Nazis on the basis of their being evil or whatever. And "Group X is evil, so it's okay that we deprive them of their rights" is not something I ever want to hear a government say. But in fact, neither neo-Nazis nor anyone else has a right to service in the first place. To establish that right would be to force the people providing the service to work under duress. That's a pretty bad thing to do. In order to do it, extraordinary circumstances have to justify it. So while you're looking for reasons to deprive service from neo-Nazis, you ought to be looking for reasons to enforce service for gay people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's also worth mentioning that sexuality is only a protected class in some states, not all. I know its been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.
So, moving forward on that topic: What are the justifications for enforcing service for a class of people, and how does that apply to people objecting to gay marriage?
1. Sorry, I was not actually calling you stupid. I was working on a paper for one of my classes while responding to you and must've forgotten a couple words in that sentence.
2. Nope. You're missing the point yet again. When did I say anyone has a right to kill Jews? I'm saying the law shouldn't be able to pick favorites. It is immoral and hypocritical for the law to say "Gays should have these rights, but skinheads? Nobody likes them, so it should be okay to discriminate against nazis." This is not a value judgment in any way, in fact it is the lack of a value judgment. When the government begins making value judgments on which classes should get particular rights you have have an unjust government.
Actually, I'm friends with a serious metalhead who hangs out with some Neo-Nazis. I try to avoid them at all cost on principle, but I have observed that they are quite placid if they are put into a situation (like say, being served by a black waiter) that requires them to hide their "unpopular" views. In short, it would be wrong to not give skinheads the same rights as anyone else just because you think they will cause trouble. This applies to Communists and Socialists as well.