Unfortunately, the OP is correct. Heterosexuals are very conscious about their SJW image and tend to be overprotective of homosexuals.
Overprotective? Like they take baseball bats to the people they find out are homophobic, overprotective? Or they're just mean with words? Because there is a certain amount of leeway here when you say 'overprotective'. It assumes that there is too much protectiveness. Parents putting three jackets on their kids in 60 degree weather are overprotective. People who are still physically abused for being who they are not being overprotected when someone calls out a homophobe on the internet.
There also is very much a "Homosexual agenda." To boil it down, homosexuals seek not only equal rights as heterosexuals (can't blame them for that) but also enforced affirmation of their sexuality, which is a very dangerous thing. It has led for social ostracization and even government fines levied on people who are simply following their religious beliefs and not affirming or participating in gay weddings.
I can see how that would be rough. My heart also goes out to the 'whites only' restaurants forced to close down or accept other races eating their food. After all, there were other places they could eat, right? While we're at it, why should we be allowing the races to mix in marriage? The 'logical' arguments against both are essentially the same. And states passed knee-jerk reactionary laws to prevent it in both cases.
The entire idea of a homosexual agenda is a joke. Is there a constitution they all have to sign? Do they owe dues? You really think a disparate groups of individuals could be linked to a single unified social and political agenda? Isn't it far more likely that people just want people to be who they are and it's just the way society is turning?
Back in the 80's there was a paper, entitled "After the Ball" published by a gay rights organization that became widely distributed across the country to gay communities which described how gays should relate with their heterosexual neighbors.
Black Panther materials were also widely distributed during the civil rights movement.
After the Ball basically just advocated that the gay community stop hiding and demand equal rights.
Higher than average sexual addiction, substance abuse, mental illnesses, and infidelity have been well documented among gay communities yet this paper instructed gays to "hide" anyone among them who may be exhibiting these qualities at rallies or events. Instead, they instructed, you should bring out your white middle class attractive community members and show your neighbors that being homosexual is just like heterosexuality, thus trying to hide the higher than average problems that the gay community exhibits.
I'm glad you brought this up, because you defeat yourself here. Your gross misunderstanding of the basic statistics of the problem are exactly why it was important not to let those problems be at the forefront.
The thing about statistics is that people rarely understand how to interpret them. You're looking at the correlation between mental health and substance abuse rates among the homosexual population and thinking 'oh, it must be because they're gay'. But correlation isn't causation. It's not even close in this case, because if you'd actually bother to research the problem, you'd find out that those same individuals are for more likely than their straight peers to experience bullying and violence. And what do you know? Rates of mental illness correlate even more strongly with rates of bullying and violence. I'm sure there is also some undue stress due to identity issues in there, as well. I imagine homosexuals would line up nicely with their heterosexual peers if environmental factors are taken into consideration.
Your basic premise relies 'Gay' being the causal factor, but it's not.
For example: Small kids get their lunch money stolen more often. Small kids therefore can't buy lunch as often as the big kids. Thus, Small kids are hungry more.
Conclusion 1, those kids are hungry because they're small.
Conclusion 2, those kids are hungry because their lunch money is taken. Being small makes them targets.
Conclusion 1 uses the correlation between small kids and hunger to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
Conclusion 2 uses causal factors in its determination.
This technique has worked marvelously. In the media you are only shown happy rich committed gay couples and any mention of the problems statistically associated with homosexuality is meet with vitriol. Furthermore, gay over-representation in the media has Americans thinking that roughly a third of America is gay, when the actual number is much, much lower.
Is there a beautiful people agenda, too? Because people in movies do no represent the average weight or homeliness of the American people.
The number varies significantly depending on your source, somewhere between 2% and 10%. There are some that claim less than 1%, but those are so hugely flawed I'd have to write an entire essay about them. 10% seems a little high, but don't tell any SJWs you might see lurking about. So let's go with 2% for argument's sake. We find, again, that basic fact checking proves you wrong. Unless 3% is much, much lower than 2%, I'm not really sure what your case is, here. If you don't like the GLAAD study, feel free to supply your own percentages on the gay ratio of characters in the Media.
Although, seriously, who thinks 1/3rd of the population is gay? How would that even work?
It might be where I am at (NC from hickory to Charlotte to Wilmington) but I find, come across, and know more people against gay marriage then support it.
Currently we are in the 3rd wave of feminism. Looking back at the first two waves, you can see a lot of similarities going on with the rising gay support and acknowledgment ( you can even ask the same question back then: is the general pop forcing themselves to support women?)
The media never shows any problems with gay people.
There is an impulse in the gay community to close ranks, conform, and try to hide or downplay any of the real internal problems they face. It's out of a legitimate desire not to provide ammunition to people like 1337vanguard, of course, but it can also mean that much-needed conversations don't take place. For example, feminists have said and done a great deal to fight the body-image pressures that result in girls developing anorexia and other disorders, but gay rights advocates tend to say a lot less about those same disorders among gay men, because the body-image pressures are coming from other gay men and they just know that their opponents will seize on any such admission as a sign of moral degeneracy (and never mind what that says about straight men). And then there's AIDS. The stereotype is that every gay guy is a pestilential cesspool of immunodeficiency, and gay guys have been pushing back so hard against that stereotype that many of them come to believe HIV is just a sort of bogeyman, and not a real and potentially deadly threat that the bigots have simply reinterpreted to suit their purposes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. You can say something like "I don't believe gays should be prevented from being married if they like, but I don't think they should legally force people to go along with it either," and to some people you might as well have said that you think Hitler was actually a really cool guy. That's overprotective.
I can see how that would be rough. My heart also goes out to the 'whites only' restaurants forced to close down or accept other races eating their food. After all, there were other places they could eat, right? While we're at it, why should we be allowing the races to mix in marriage? The 'logical' arguments against both are essentially the same. And states passed knee-jerk reactionary laws to prevent it in both cases.
Oh yes, the two scenarios are completely the same, except in the many ways they are different. First, to compare the experience gays have had in this country to the experience of African Americans is absurd. Gays have experienced strong, sometimes brutal, discrimination but it is in no way similar to that experienced by African Americans who were enslaved, publicly lynched by the thousands, and were prevented from even using the same basic services as whites.
Second, even mentioning the preventing of blacks from eating at the same place is a red herring, since we are talking about marriage here, which is a religious issue. When you force someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs that have been established for thousands of years you are violating their basic human rights. It is not a human right to make everyone agree with or participate in your actions. This is like saying every restaurant that does not serve me a meal specific to my religious regulations is discriminating against me.
Third, you managed to bring in another red herring with interracial marriage. I am not advocating preventing gays from getting married, which is what happened to interracial couples, I am saying there are people being forced to go along with it with through state force. You shouldn't be able to prevent gays from being married, but that isn't to say you can use the government to force people to participate either. Both derive from the same fallacy that laws should somehow enforce personal morality. To me, the conservatives and the liberals are making the same fatal flaw. "Not your marriage, not your business" right? Then what right do you have to make it somebody else's business?
The entire idea of a homosexual agenda is a joke. Is there a constitution they all have to sign? Do they owe dues? You really think a disparate groups of individuals could be linked to a single unified social and political agenda?
People do not have to belong to the exact same political group to have the same basic agenda. History has taught us that.
I'm glad you brought this up, because you defeat yourself here. Your gross misunderstanding of the basic statistics of the problem are exactly why it was important not to let those problems be at the forefront.
The thing about statistics is that people rarely understand how to interpret them. You're looking at the correlation between mental health and substance abuse rates among the homosexual population and thinking 'oh, it must be because they're gay'. But correlation isn't causation. It's not even close in this case, because if you'd actually bother to research the problem, you'd find out that those same individuals are for more likely than their straight peers to experience bullying and violence. And what do you know? Rates of mental illness correlate even more strongly with rates of bullying and violence. I'm sure there is also some undue stress due to identity issues in there, as well. I imagine homosexuals would line up nicely with their heterosexual peers if environmental factors are taken into consideration.
I've actually never attributed it to causation. There are obviously more complex factors at work, which we can debate if you'd like, though that was not my original intention. I was merely making the point that homosexual groups have made enormous efforts to make sure those experiencing mental health remain hidden at events and in the media.
The number varies significantly depending on your source, somewhere between 2% and 10%. There are some that claim less than 1%, but those are so hugely flawed I'd have to write an entire essay about them. 10% seems a little high, but don't tell any SJWs you might see lurking about. So let's go with 2% for argument's sake.
Yes. That would be logical since that's the number the most recent and comprehensive study came up with.
We find, again, that basic fact checking proves you wrong. Unless 3% is much, much lower than 2%, I'm not really sure what your case is, here. If you don't like the GLAAD study, feel free to supply your own percentages on the gay ratio of characters in the Media.
I'm confused. Where did I state the percentage of characters who are gay? I'm talking about the impact that gay characters have on the viewers. Only 3% of characters might be gay, but gay issues can (and have been) harped on in a lot of different ways. Also, if you actually read your own link you'll see some other numbers that prove my point. Between 30% to 50% of Primetime hours feature gay characters. So it's not a number of characters issue, is where they are placed and how much screen time they have. Don't even get me started on Broadway...
Although, seriously, who thinks 1/3rd of the population is gay? How would that even work?
Dunno, but those are the numbers. If you have a problem with the study critique the methodology or something, not the ridiculousness of the participants.
The fault in that poll is that the mean is not a reasonable way of aggregating these answers. The range of possible answers is 0-100. The correct answer is 2-3. If someone guesses 25%, you'd need 25 people guessing 1% to balance that out and get the mean back to 2%. Using the mean drastically favors a huge overestimation. It makes is virtually impossible that the outcome would be anywhere close to the true percentage, because there is no way for a severe underestimator to cancel out a severe overestimator. Thus, any severe overstimators, of which there will surely be many in any sample asked any numeric question, will dominate the result.
It is not a human right to make everyone agree with or participate in your actions. This is like saying every restaurant that does not serve me a meal specific to my religious regulations is discriminating against me.
While I recognize it as a bit unfair, the same basic principle applies. Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and never will be. But if you're going to run a business, you can't discriminate between your patrons. Everyone has the same right to be served by a business as everyone else. And we're talking about the rental of goods and services from businesses, or the rental of a venue. The parallel is pretty clear.
Third, you managed to bring in another red herring with interracial marriage. I am not advocating preventing gays from getting married, which is what happened to interracial couples, I am saying there are people being forced to go along with it with through state force. You shouldn't be able to prevent gays from being married, but that isn't to say you can use the government to force people to participate either. Both derive from the same fallacy that laws should somehow enforce personal morality. To me, the conservatives and the liberals are making the same fatal flaw. "Not your marriage, not your business" right? Then what right do you have to make it somebody else's business?
I should also note that I get a bit heated on this topic, because while you may not think the race is relevant, it's still an issue. Less than 50 years ago there were still places in this country where I couldn't have married my wife because I'm white and she's not. And there were deeply held religious convictions about that, too. And the arguments were exactly the same. Is it completely comparable? No, of course not. But the same principle applies here, too.
'So what right do you have to make it someone else's business' - I don't: they made it their business. And the law is pretty clear about discriminating against individuals. By the same token, I couldn't create a wedding planning business that refuses Christian customers, either.
People do not have to belong to the exact same political group to have the same basic agenda. History has taught us that.
Sure, when you're talking in the very, very general issues. The most you could say about a 'gay agenda' is that they want to be treated like people. The specifics vary considerably, even down to belief in the right to marriage.
I've actually never attributed it to causation. There are obviously more complex factors at work, which we can debate if you'd like, though that was not my original intention. I was merely making the point that homosexual groups have made enormous efforts to make sure those experiencing mental health remain hidden at events and in the media.
So you said:
Higher than average sexual addiction, substance abuse, mental illnesses, and infidelity have been well documented among gay communities yet this paper instructed gays to "hide" anyone among them who may be exhibiting these qualities at rallies or events.
And now you're telling me you weren't making a conclusion about those statistics or the reasons for hiding them? These statistics are frequently used as an indictment of the gay community and are heavily misrepresented. I've established why those statistics are misleading, and I think you're being a little disingenuous here by backing off here with the equivalent of a shrug and a "Hey, I was just sayin'.".
I'm confused. Where did I state the percentage of characters who are gay? I'm talking about the impact that gay characters have on the viewers. Only 3% of characters might be gay, but gay issues can (and have been) harped on in a lot of different ways. Also, if you actually read your own link you'll see some other numbers that prove my point. Between 30% to 50% of Primetime hours feature gay characters. So it's not a number of characters issue, is where they are placed and how much screen time they have. Don't even get me started on Broadway...
Well first of all, don't get started on Broadway. I try to keep my secret love of musical theater on the down low and I would hate to have to expose myself in this instance
So, anyway, I don't think the number of shows that have gay characters is a particularly fair way to look at it. For one, I seriously doubt anyone watches all of primetime television, even if you confine it to just the four major networks. Besides which, if gays make up even just 2% of the population, that makes them about 1 in 50 people. That would mean that, even assuming a Dunbar's Number equivalent of 100 instead of in the 200s, the average person already has exposure to gay people equivalent to the amount of gay characters on TV.
Dunno, but those are the numbers. If you have a problem with the study critique the methodology or something, not the ridiculousness of the participants.
Oh I see what you're referencing. Sorry, it was late last night and I didn't read your links. Taking a look, the issue here is that is uses averages. Averages are notoriously misleading for those who don't know much about statistics. The reason for this is because if you interviewed two people, and one said none and the other said 50%, the average would 25%. Outliers like that tend to skew the data pretty heavily.
While I recognize it as a bit unfair, the same basic principle applies. Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and never will be. But if you're going to run a business, you can't discriminate between your patrons. Everyone has the same right to be served by a business as everyone else. And we're talking about the rental of goods and services from businesses, or the rental of a venue. The parallel is pretty clear.
This is one thing that I really don't understand and really disagree with. Maybe it deserves a separate thread but I have a feeling it would die pretty quickly...
A business' main objective is to make money by providing goods and/or services. If a business wants to refuse to make money on a particular clientele why should we force them to? In theory... a business that accepts the widest variety of clientele will be more successful because they will have more potential customers. If a bakery wants to have a stance of not providing cakes for gay weddings they are losing out on customers, and if I was having a gay wedding I wouldn't trust them to make my cake anyway given their views... Would you rather be refused service and find somewhere else to go or get terrible service?
To parallel the race issue. If I was a black man I think I would rather know that Restaurant X does not want me there and then go to Restaurant Y, instead of risking having my burger spit on or worse.
Especially in today's culture, I can't imagine too many business doing very well after advertising that they wont serve "A B or C". It would take owners that are truly convicted in their beliefs to do something like that. So for people who believe that strongly... why try to stop them?
To parallel the race issue. If I was a black man I think I would rather know that Restaurant X does not want me there and then go to Restaurant Y, instead of risking having my burger spit on or worse.
Especially in today's culture, I can't imagine too many business doing very well after advertising that they wont serve "A B or C". It would take owners that are truly convicted in their beliefs to do something like that. So for people who believe that strongly... why try to stop them?
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? What if it's you that is refused service? I mean, I could write out a whole counterargument here, but essentially it would boil down to this anyway.
But besides that, the idea that discriminatory business practices would hurt businesses isn't really true. It's hard to get the message out there. People still frequently terrible restaurants or businesses all the time, despite ample warning through all sorts of outlets.
To parallel the race issue. If I was a black man I think I would rather know that Restaurant X does not want me there and then go to Restaurant Y, instead of risking having my burger spit on or worse.
Especially in today's culture, I can't imagine too many business doing very well after advertising that they wont serve "A B or C". It would take owners that are truly convicted in their beliefs to do something like that. So for people who believe that strongly... why try to stop them?
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? What if it's you that is refused service? I mean, I could write out a whole counterargument here, but essentially it would boil down to this anyway.
But besides that, the idea that discriminatory business practices would hurt businesses isn't really true. It's hard to get the message out there. People still frequently terrible restaurants or businesses all the time, despite ample warning through all sorts of outlets.
My point being I find it hard to imagine it being a common practice. Yeah if I was refused service for something I really wanted it would suck... but as I also said if the person I was seeking service from had something against me I probably don't want their service as there is a good chance that the quality will not be what it should be (like spitting in my food, or maybe poor quality repairs).
How hard is it really to get the word out there? A guy at Mozilla donates $10,000 and within days of that becoming public knowledge he's "fired" or however that worked. If it seems like terrible businesses are still being frequented it's because those businesses are not as terrible to some people as others. For example I know some people that are boycotting Olive Garden because of something they said about Obama Care and raising prices... I don't see the big deal and would still eat at Olive Garden if it wasn't terrible quality. If they suddenly hung a sign above the door though that said "no <people from some group>" I wouldn't go there at all even if the food was good.
Because it's not fair to anyone to say "Yeah, you can refuse service to people you don't like." Because guess who people don't like? African Americans, homosexuals, transgender, etc, etc etc. If this law went in effect, I find it very hard to believe there would be any big businesses saying "No whites" or "Straight people not allowed"
Anyway, it's also an emotional thing. Can you imagine how ***** it would feel if, after being bullied and discriminated your whole life, a big business, or even a small local one basically says to you "No, you can't come here. We have the right to hate you."?
Also, to the OP, the reason why your gay friends might say "It's fine" or agree with you (or not say anything on the subject) is because they've probably learned long ago to shut up and put their head down around people who are homophobic, because they've learned that it's easier to sit down and shut up than say anything and risk being attacked (possibly literally physically assaulted)
Besides, just because one gay person says it doesn't make it okay. If one black person told you that they didn't care if you used the N word, would you go around shouting it to every black person you saw? Probably not. Gay people, and black people, and any minority group are all individuals, and they're all going to have their own personal experiences and likes and dislikes, and we should respect that, just like we'd respect anyone else's.
Also, this is the cliche, but since I've seen religious persecution brought up, I just have to ask. Why is the part of the Bible where it says being gay is a sin (I honestly don't know where that is. Please quote it to me.) so much more important than the part about no divorces, or how owning slaves is a great thing to do, or about stoning adulterers to death? Are those parts disregarded because they apply to you, and not to someone else? Or do you want those things to also be legally upheld, but our current "oppressive society" won't allow you to throw rocks at your wife until she dies if she cheats on you?
How hard is it really to get the word out there? A guy at Mozilla donates $10,000 and within days of that becoming public knowledge he's "fired" or however that worked. If it seems like terrible businesses are still being frequented it's because those businesses are not as terrible to some people as others. For example I know some people that are boycotting Olive Garden because of something they said about Obama Care and raising prices... I don't see the big deal and would still eat at Olive Garden if it wasn't terrible quality. If they suddenly hung a sign above the door though that said "no <people from some group>" I wouldn't go there at all even if the food was good.
I don't buy this. It's probably bad for business to put a "No Gays Allowed" sign on your door if you're in Greenwich Village. But in a small town in the deep South? Or rural Utah? I bet you could do just fine with that.
How hard is it really to get the word out there? A guy at Mozilla donates $10,000 and within days of that becoming public knowledge he's "fired" or however that worked. If it seems like terrible businesses are still being frequented it's because those businesses are not as terrible to some people as others. For example I know some people that are boycotting Olive Garden because of something they said about Obama Care and raising prices... I don't see the big deal and would still eat at Olive Garden if it wasn't terrible quality. If they suddenly hung a sign above the door though that said "no <people from some group>" I wouldn't go there at all even if the food was good.
I don't buy this. It's probably bad for business to put a "No Gays Allowed" sign on your door if you're in Greenwich Village. But in a small town in the deep South? Or rural Utah? I bet you could do just fine with that.
Maybe... I have no idea I am not from there. Even so... if you were a gay person would you really want your wedding cake made by a very anti-gay baker?
I might, if that were the baking available in my town.
True, businesses being able to deny service could be a much bigger issue in small communities.
I could argue that nobody is ever guaranteed access to these businesses... in a sense someone living in a small town where the baker refuses them services is in a similar boat to someone living in a town that just plain does not have a baker.
I still prefer the idea of a society where businesses are not forced to provide service but I'll have to think on that some more.
Because it's not fair to anyone to say "Yeah, you can refuse service to people you don't like." Because guess who people don't like? African Americans, homosexuals, transgender, etc, etc etc. If this law went in effect, I find it very hard to believe there would be any big businesses saying "No whites" or "Straight people not allowed"
I dunno, probably some bars and clubs would do it.
Ideally, we would live in a society where people could refuse service for whatever reason they choose. It is a liberally and economically dangerous proposition for the government to force people to perform transactions when they don't want to - not something to be suggested lightly. Imagine if you didn't want to work on Saturdays, but the law said you had to. You'd be paid, but you'd still be working under duress, and generally we don't think "working under duress" is the sort of thing that should happen in a free society. Or imagine if a firm was engaged in business practices you didn't like - say, discriminating against minorities. Surely you think you ought to be free to refuse to patronize them.
On the other hand, if certain people are refused service by a substantial segment of the population, that materially hurts their prosperity and prospects. If I'm turned away from one grocery store because they don't like my haircut, no big deal, I'll shop somewhere else. But if I'm turned away from every grocery store because I'm a gay black Jew, where am I supposed to get food? The aggregation of individual economic decisions, each one on its own compatible with principles of economic freedom, is eroding my economic freedom. And the reason government exists in the economic sphere is precisely to combat such aggregate effects that the free market can't deal with on its own. Its intervention to protect me is justified.
So basically, the system we have in America - where you're free to refuse service for most reasons, but there exist in the law a few carefully defined protected classes that have historically faced these aggregation problems - is a decent compromise between the ideal of freedom and the reality that some prejudices are widespread enough to hurt people. If we were less prejudiced, we would not need such protections; getting turned away from a single store for being a gay black Jew would be no more painful than getting turned away for having a really bad haircut. Protection laws are really an indictment of our society. I support them, but I wish I didn't have to.
Anyway, it's also an emotional thing. Can you imagine how ***** it would feel if, after being bullied and discriminated your whole life, a big business, or even a small local one basically says to you "No, you can't come here. We have the right to hate you."?
While getting your feelings hurt sucks, it is not in and of itself justification for legal protection. It is legal to insult people. And they do have the right to hate - freedom of conscience doesn't just protect idealogies you like, or what would be the point? Like I said, it's the material harm caused by widespread discrimination that justifies protection laws.
Also, this is the cliche, but since I've seen religious persecution brought up, I just have to ask. Why is the part of the Bible where it says being gay is a sin (I honestly don't know where that is. Please quote it to me.) so much more important than the part about no divorces, or how owning slaves is a great thing to do, or about stoning adulterers to death? Are those parts disregarded because they apply to you, and not to someone else? Or do you want those things to also be legally upheld, but our current "oppressive society" won't allow you to throw rocks at your wife until she dies if she cheats on you?
The standard Christian understanding of the situation is that the law codes you mention are in the Old Testament and part of the Old Covenant God made with the Jews. Jesus eliminated the need for the Old Covenant and established a much kinder and gentler New Covenant for Christians. (You may be familiar with Jesus' line on stoning.) But since homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well, it's still a sin under the New Covenant.
More liberal, gay and gay-tolerant Christians argue that none of the condemnations actually come from Jesus Christ himself in the Gospels, but only occur in the epistles written by Paul. They think that Jesus' message of "love everybody" trumps Paul's attitude of "gays are gross." Some even say that Jesus implicitly endorsed a homosexual relationship when he healed a Roman soldier's "servant" or "lover" in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. (Myself, I don't think the evidence for this interpretation of the passages is conclusive, and even if the soldier and servant are having sex, it is most likely an old Greek-style pederastic relationship and not the sort of thing people should want to trumpet Jesus' endorsement of.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
My point being I find it hard to imagine it being a common practice. Yeah if I was refused service for something I really wanted it would suck... but as I also said if the person I was seeking service from had something against me I probably don't want their service as there is a good chance that the quality will not be what it should be (like spitting in my food, or maybe poor quality repairs).
How hard is it really to get the word out there? A guy at Mozilla donates $10,000 and within days of that becoming public knowledge he's "fired" or however that worked. If it seems like terrible businesses are still being frequented it's because those businesses are not as terrible to some people as others. For example I know some people that are boycotting Olive Garden because of something they said about Obama Care and raising prices... I don't see the big deal and would still eat at Olive Garden if it wasn't terrible quality. If they suddenly hung a sign above the door though that said "no <people from some group>" I wouldn't go there at all even if the food was good.
Okay, but what happens when the discrimination is more subtle? Racism hasn't gone away, it's become less overt over time. While I agree with you that major chain restaurants wouldn't be posting signs saying 'No Brunettes', even with anti-discrimination laws in place it still occurs in other forms. The only difference is that people wouldn't have any recourse at all.
And also, despite many of the issues you mentioned, Chick-Fil-A's business is still booming and even got support after their scandal. Rarely do these big headlining issues really do any kind of permanent damage to these large chains.
My point being I find it hard to imagine it being a common practice. Yeah if I was refused service for something I really wanted it would suck... but as I also said if the person I was seeking service from had something against me I probably don't want their service as there is a good chance that the quality will not be what it should be (like spitting in my food, or maybe poor quality repairs).
How hard is it really to get the word out there? A guy at Mozilla donates $10,000 and within days of that becoming public knowledge he's "fired" or however that worked. If it seems like terrible businesses are still being frequented it's because those businesses are not as terrible to some people as others. For example I know some people that are boycotting Olive Garden because of something they said about Obama Care and raising prices... I don't see the big deal and would still eat at Olive Garden if it wasn't terrible quality. If they suddenly hung a sign above the door though that said "no <people from some group>" I wouldn't go there at all even if the food was good.
Okay, but what happens when the discrimination is more subtle? Racism hasn't gone away, it's become less overt over time. While I agree with you that major chain restaurants wouldn't be posting signs saying 'No Brunettes', even with anti-discrimination laws in place it still occurs in other forms. The only difference is that people wouldn't have any recourse at all.
And also, despite many of the issues you mentioned, Chick-Fil-A's business is still booming and even got support after their scandal. Rarely do these big headlining issues really do any kind of permanent damage to these large chains.
Is chick-fil-a actively harming it's customers? I thought they just donated a ton of money to anti-gay marriage stuff? I've stated in other threads on here I see a distinction between what an owner does with his money and actual business practices.
Is chick-fil-a actively harming it's customers? I thought they just donated a ton of money to anti-gay marriage stuff? I've stated in other threads on here I see a distinction between what an owner does with his money and actual business practices.
I only mentioned it because you brought up Mozilla, and as an example of the kind of counter-support (for lack of a better word) these companies can get.
Is chick-fil-a actively harming it's customers? I thought they just donated a ton of money to anti-gay marriage stuff? I've stated in other threads on here I see a distinction between what an owner does with his money and actual business practices.
I only mentioned it because you brought up Mozilla, and as an example of the kind of counter-support (for lack of a better word) these companies can get.
Support or anti-support certainly will not perfectly follow my values, your values, or even necessarily "popular" values, but I think there is good reason to believe egregious miss-steps would be met with some pretty significant backlash.
Support or anti-support certainly will not perfectly follow my values, your values, or even necessarily "popular" values, but I think there is good reason to believe egregious miss-steps would be met with some pretty significant backlash.
The key word there being egregious. As I said, overt displays will obviously have backlash, but what about the black family that's left sitting in the waiting area while people who came in after them are seated on after another (assuming equal party size for simplicity's sake). And this happens frequently, but none of the families involve talk to one another about it. There are tons of subtle ways to be racist without posting a sign outside your door.
Support or anti-support certainly will not perfectly follow my values, your values, or even necessarily "popular" values, but I think there is good reason to believe egregious miss-steps would be met with some pretty significant backlash.
The key word there being egregious. As I said, overt displays will obviously have backlash, but what about the black family that's left sitting in the waiting area while people who came in after them are seated on after another (assuming equal party size for simplicity's sake). And this happens frequently, but none of the families involve talk to one another about it. There are tons of subtle ways to be racist without posting a sign outside your door.
Sure but what's preventing this from happening now?
A couple years ago my wife and I were at a place and the high school kid running the front sat several groups ahead of us and I could see a table that at most could seat 3 people sitting open for over 15 minutes (we were there for about 45 minutes).... I yelled at the kid, who then sat us at that table and then the manager chewed him out. I have no idea why we were not being sat but I don't see how it would be very plausible for anyone to go after a particular establishment for small errors like that now.
Sure but what's preventing this from happening now?
A couple years ago my wife and I were at a place and the high school kid running the front sat several groups ahead of us and I could see a table that at most could seat 3 people sitting open for over 15 minutes (we were there for about 45 minutes).... I yelled at the kid, who then sat us at that table and then the manager chewed him out. I have no idea why we were not being sat but I don't see how it would be very plausible for anyone to go after a particular establishment for small errors like that now.
I was only using one example, based on a family at Denny's that sued years ago (this was a case in the 90's). The thing is, as of right now you have a case for legal recourse when these more subtle racist moves are undertaken. Without those anti-discrimination laws, you have no recourse.
For instance, Arizona doesn't protect sexual orientation, so a gay couple trying to get married can be discriminated against fairly freely.
Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and never will be.
Can you read the future? The way things are going, I would say they will be forced to perform them and perhaps in the matter of a few decades. There is open hostility even perpetuated by official governments against religious organizations and their beliefs on controversial issues.
But if you're going to run a business, you can't discriminate between your patrons. Everyone has the same right to be served by a business as everyone else.
How is this a right? You literally have a right to force someone into a private transaction with you?
I should also note that I get a bit heated on this topic, because while you may not think the race is relevant, it's still an issue. Less than 50 years ago there were still places in this country where I couldn't have married my wife because I'm white and she's not.
You've managed to conflate two very different scenarios. Just because you have the right to marry, that does not mean you have the right to force someone else to participate in your marriage. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your marriage, that does not mean they have the right to prevent you from being married. You are basically committing the same error as the racists, declaring that the law should reflect personal morality. Except that different people having different concepts of morality, always have and always will.
Sure, when you're talking in the very, very general issues. The most you could say about a 'gay agenda' is that they want to be treated like people. The specifics vary considerably, even down to belief in the right to marriage.
Agenda (noun): A set of goals of an ideological group.
I am speaking of the politically active members of the group, obviously. Just because not everyone who happens to belong, demographically-speaking, to a particular group agrees with everything that is popularly called for by said group, that does not mean there is an ideological agenda that the political leaders of that group push for.
And now you're telling me you weren't making a conclusion about those statistics or the reasons for hiding them? These statistics are frequently used as an indictment of the gay community and are heavily misrepresented. I've established why those statistics are misleading, and I think you're being a little disingenuous here by backing off here with the equivalent of a shrug and a "Hey, I was just sayin'.".
I explicitly stated that it is well-documented, in the context of how gay activists have acted towards this data and members of their community that have suffered form these problems, nothing more. You're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. However, you still have the situation of STDs and AIDS among homosexuals being well-documented at abnormally high levels. This is an issue that is both shunned by gay activists and regarded as a myth by the left, even though it is scientifically documented.
Something I noticed from earlier has me interested:
Overprotective? Like they take baseball bats to the people they find out are homophobic, overprotective? Or they're just mean with words? Because there is a certain amount of leeway here when you say 'overprotective'. It assumes that there is too much protectiveness. Parents putting three jackets on their kids in 60 degree weather are overprotective. People who are still physically abused for being who they are not being overprotected when someone calls out a homophobe on the internet.
So here you deny that society could ever be overprotective of gays.
Violating someone's basic human right is "a bit unfair"?
Whose? If the law in your state says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, you don't have a 'right' to discriminate against them. If your state doesn't, it's still not cool (but at least legal).
Can you read the future? The way things are going, I would say they will be forced to perform them and perhaps in the matter of a few decades. There is open hostility even perpetuated by official governments against religious organizations and their beliefs on controversial issues.
No: churches can refuse to marry anyone these days. There is no reason why they'd be forced to marry a gay couple when they don't even have to marry heterosexual members of their own church. It's different when it comes to employment (a catholic school couldn't not hire a gay teacher just because he's gay, for instance - although they could fire him getting married to his partner).
How is this a right? You literally have a right to force someone into a private transaction with you?
No - you have a right to expect that a business can't discriminate against you based on certain qualities. You may have heard of it, it was called the Civil Rights Act. It can vary by state, so in New York, that includes sexual orientation. In Arizona, it does not.
You've managed to conflate two very different scenarios. Just because you have the right to marry, that does not mean you have the right to force someone else to participate in your marriage. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your marriage, that does not mean they have the right to prevent you from being married. You are basically committing the same error as the racists, declaring that the law should reflect personal morality. Except that different people having different concepts of morality, always have and always will.
I haven't conflated two different issues, they're very much the same. If you were talking about private individuals, I would agree with you. But when you set up a business available to the public, it's an entirely different matter. If I had walked into a hotel, who rents space, and been denied the ability to rent said space because they only marry same-race couples, I'd have a case against them.
Now, to be clear, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in all states. As I mentioned, the situation would be different in Arizona than it would be in New York.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
It depends on the situation. Have the Neo Nazis been rude to her? It's one thing to reject a customer because they're ********s. It's another to reject them simply for who they are. If they're paying customers and they're not causing problems or making the person otherwise feel threatened, there is no reason to reject them.
Agenda (noun): A set of goals of an ideological group.
I am speaking of the politically active members of the group, obviously. Just because not everyone who happens to belong, demographically-speaking, to a particular group agrees with everything that is popularly called for by said group, that does not mean there is an ideological agenda that the political leaders of that group push for.
First of all, homosexuality isn't an ideology. It's a sexual orientation.
Second, what about all the Gay Republicans out there? You're assuming all the politically active 'members of the group' have a single ideology.
I explicitly stated that it is well-documented, in the context of how gay activists have acted towards this data and members of their community that have suffered form these problems, nothing more. You're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make.
And the point was? We've already established why what you were talking about happened.
However, you still have the situation of STDs and AIDS among homosexuals being well-documented at abnormally high levels. This is an issue that is both shunned by gay activists and regarded as a myth by the left, even though it is scientifically documented.
The problems of AIDS/HIV aren't ignored among the gay community. In fact, it's a basic fact. It also disproportionately affects young gay black men. Clinics are set up everywhere in the cities for treatment, and AIDS research is a priority for the community.
I'm not really sure why this matters, though. What's your point?
10% seems a little high, but don't tell any SJWs you might see lurking about.
But here you strongly imply that it's happening. So which is it? Are you confused on this issue?
Nope, those are two separate thoughts.
The first thought is about the very real abuse that LGBT people face. My point was that while you and Aldath are worried that homosexuals are 'overprotected', the reality is that they face a disproportionate amount of abuse from a fairly young age. Standing up for them in an argument on the internet isn't really being overprotective.
The second thought was me being a little bit mocking of the entire concept of a SJW as presented in this thread, like one would leap out of the bushes and challenge me to a duel for daring to suggest the statistics are lower. I'm perfectly capable of holding my own independent opinions and evaluating each point on their own merits. I don't have to agree with every statistic being floated out there.
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.)
Furthermore, gay over-representation in the media has Americans thinking that roughly a third of America is gay, when the actual number is much, much lower.
That's been going on forever. Kinsey found that in males, homosexual activity was about one in three, probably more, with exclusive homosexual history being one in fifty. Somehow this became one in ten were exclusively into the same sex, and the other nine wouldn't touch another dude with a half-foot pole.
The media never shows any problems with gay people.
There is an impulse in the gay community to close ranks, conform, and try to hide or downplay any of the real internal problems they face. It's out of a legitimate desire not to provide ammunition to people like 1337vanguard, of course, but it can also mean that much-needed conversations don't take place. For example, feminists have said and done a great deal to fight the body-image pressures that result in girls developing anorexia and other disorders, but gay rights advocates tend to say a lot less about those same disorders among gay men, because the body-image pressures are coming from other gay men and they just know that their opponents will seize on any such admission as a sign of moral degeneracy (and never mind what that says about straight men). And then there's AIDS. The stereotype is that every gay guy is a pestilential cesspool of immunodeficiency, and gay guys have been pushing back so hard against that stereotype that many of them come to believe HIV is just a sort of bogeyman, and not a real and potentially deadly threat that the bigots have simply reinterpreted to suit their purposes.
Cracked.com had a lesbian mention being raped. "Oh, sorry, we would help you, but that would require adding a line to our form, and that's too much work."
A big part of AIDS was degaying it and now deblacking it: Find anyone to stigmatize as a pestilential cesspool of immunodeficiency, instead of people who genuinely are at greater risk for HIV infection.
Or they could take that money and, you know, distribute condoms and HIV testing and reduce the prevalence of the disease.
Is chick-fil-a actively harming it's customers? I thought they just donated a ton of money to anti-gay marriage stuff? I've stated in other threads on here I see a distinction between what an owner does with his money and actual business practices.
Yeah, but there is the argument about boycotting people you disagree with on some major issue. What people don't realize is, I'm not obligated to patronize any business. Nor is any other customer.
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!
Overprotective? Like they take baseball bats to the people they find out are homophobic, overprotective? Or they're just mean with words? Because there is a certain amount of leeway here when you say 'overprotective'. It assumes that there is too much protectiveness. Parents putting three jackets on their kids in 60 degree weather are overprotective. People who are still physically abused for being who they are not being overprotected when someone calls out a homophobe on the internet.
I can see how that would be rough. My heart also goes out to the 'whites only' restaurants forced to close down or accept other races eating their food. After all, there were other places they could eat, right? While we're at it, why should we be allowing the races to mix in marriage? The 'logical' arguments against both are essentially the same. And states passed knee-jerk reactionary laws to prevent it in both cases.
The entire idea of a homosexual agenda is a joke. Is there a constitution they all have to sign? Do they owe dues? You really think a disparate groups of individuals could be linked to a single unified social and political agenda? Isn't it far more likely that people just want people to be who they are and it's just the way society is turning?
Black Panther materials were also widely distributed during the civil rights movement.
After the Ball basically just advocated that the gay community stop hiding and demand equal rights.
I'm glad you brought this up, because you defeat yourself here. Your gross misunderstanding of the basic statistics of the problem are exactly why it was important not to let those problems be at the forefront.
The thing about statistics is that people rarely understand how to interpret them. You're looking at the correlation between mental health and substance abuse rates among the homosexual population and thinking 'oh, it must be because they're gay'. But correlation isn't causation. It's not even close in this case, because if you'd actually bother to research the problem, you'd find out that those same individuals are for more likely than their straight peers to experience bullying and violence. And what do you know? Rates of mental illness correlate even more strongly with rates of bullying and violence. I'm sure there is also some undue stress due to identity issues in there, as well. I imagine homosexuals would line up nicely with their heterosexual peers if environmental factors are taken into consideration.
Your basic premise relies 'Gay' being the causal factor, but it's not.
For example: Small kids get their lunch money stolen more often. Small kids therefore can't buy lunch as often as the big kids. Thus, Small kids are hungry more.
Conclusion 1, those kids are hungry because they're small.
Conclusion 2, those kids are hungry because their lunch money is taken. Being small makes them targets.
Conclusion 1 uses the correlation between small kids and hunger to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
Conclusion 2 uses causal factors in its determination.
Is there a beautiful people agenda, too? Because people in movies do no represent the average weight or homeliness of the American people.
The number varies significantly depending on your source, somewhere between 2% and 10%. There are some that claim less than 1%, but those are so hugely flawed I'd have to write an entire essay about them. 10% seems a little high, but don't tell any SJWs you might see lurking about. So let's go with 2% for argument's sake. We find, again, that basic fact checking proves you wrong. Unless 3% is much, much lower than 2%, I'm not really sure what your case is, here. If you don't like the GLAAD study, feel free to supply your own percentages on the gay ratio of characters in the Media.
Although, seriously, who thinks 1/3rd of the population is gay? How would that even work?
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
Currently we are in the 3rd wave of feminism. Looking back at the first two waves, you can see a lot of similarities going on with the rising gay support and acknowledgment ( you can even ask the same question back then: is the general pop forcing themselves to support women?)
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. You can say something like "I don't believe gays should be prevented from being married if they like, but I don't think they should legally force people to go along with it either," and to some people you might as well have said that you think Hitler was actually a really cool guy. That's overprotective.
Oh yes, the two scenarios are completely the same, except in the many ways they are different. First, to compare the experience gays have had in this country to the experience of African Americans is absurd. Gays have experienced strong, sometimes brutal, discrimination but it is in no way similar to that experienced by African Americans who were enslaved, publicly lynched by the thousands, and were prevented from even using the same basic services as whites.
Second, even mentioning the preventing of blacks from eating at the same place is a red herring, since we are talking about marriage here, which is a religious issue. When you force someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs that have been established for thousands of years you are violating their basic human rights. It is not a human right to make everyone agree with or participate in your actions. This is like saying every restaurant that does not serve me a meal specific to my religious regulations is discriminating against me.
Third, you managed to bring in another red herring with interracial marriage. I am not advocating preventing gays from getting married, which is what happened to interracial couples, I am saying there are people being forced to go along with it with through state force. You shouldn't be able to prevent gays from being married, but that isn't to say you can use the government to force people to participate either. Both derive from the same fallacy that laws should somehow enforce personal morality. To me, the conservatives and the liberals are making the same fatal flaw. "Not your marriage, not your business" right? Then what right do you have to make it somebody else's business?
People do not have to belong to the exact same political group to have the same basic agenda. History has taught us that.
I've actually never attributed it to causation. There are obviously more complex factors at work, which we can debate if you'd like, though that was not my original intention. I was merely making the point that homosexual groups have made enormous efforts to make sure those experiencing mental health remain hidden at events and in the media.
Yes. That would be logical since that's the number the most recent and comprehensive study came up with.
I'm confused. Where did I state the percentage of characters who are gay? I'm talking about the impact that gay characters have on the viewers. Only 3% of characters might be gay, but gay issues can (and have been) harped on in a lot of different ways. Also, if you actually read your own link you'll see some other numbers that prove my point. Between 30% to 50% of Primetime hours feature gay characters. So it's not a number of characters issue, is where they are placed and how much screen time they have. Don't even get me started on Broadway...
Dunno, but those are the numbers. If you have a problem with the study critique the methodology or something, not the ridiculousness of the participants.
While I recognize it as a bit unfair, the same basic principle applies. Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and never will be. But if you're going to run a business, you can't discriminate between your patrons. Everyone has the same right to be served by a business as everyone else. And we're talking about the rental of goods and services from businesses, or the rental of a venue. The parallel is pretty clear.
I should also note that I get a bit heated on this topic, because while you may not think the race is relevant, it's still an issue. Less than 50 years ago there were still places in this country where I couldn't have married my wife because I'm white and she's not. And there were deeply held religious convictions about that, too. And the arguments were exactly the same. Is it completely comparable? No, of course not. But the same principle applies here, too.
'So what right do you have to make it someone else's business' - I don't: they made it their business. And the law is pretty clear about discriminating against individuals. By the same token, I couldn't create a wedding planning business that refuses Christian customers, either.
Sure, when you're talking in the very, very general issues. The most you could say about a 'gay agenda' is that they want to be treated like people. The specifics vary considerably, even down to belief in the right to marriage.
So you said:
And now you're telling me you weren't making a conclusion about those statistics or the reasons for hiding them? These statistics are frequently used as an indictment of the gay community and are heavily misrepresented. I've established why those statistics are misleading, and I think you're being a little disingenuous here by backing off here with the equivalent of a shrug and a "Hey, I was just sayin'.".
It's probably a little closer to 3% in the adult population, but that's just me nitpicking.
Well first of all, don't get started on Broadway. I try to keep my secret love of musical theater on the down low and I would hate to have to expose myself in this instance
So, anyway, I don't think the number of shows that have gay characters is a particularly fair way to look at it. For one, I seriously doubt anyone watches all of primetime television, even if you confine it to just the four major networks. Besides which, if gays make up even just 2% of the population, that makes them about 1 in 50 people. That would mean that, even assuming a Dunbar's Number equivalent of 100 instead of in the 200s, the average person already has exposure to gay people equivalent to the amount of gay characters on TV.
Oh I see what you're referencing. Sorry, it was late last night and I didn't read your links. Taking a look, the issue here is that is uses averages. Averages are notoriously misleading for those who don't know much about statistics. The reason for this is because if you interviewed two people, and one said none and the other said 50%, the average would 25%. Outliers like that tend to skew the data pretty heavily.
Edit: What Tiax said.
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
This is one thing that I really don't understand and really disagree with. Maybe it deserves a separate thread but I have a feeling it would die pretty quickly...
A business' main objective is to make money by providing goods and/or services. If a business wants to refuse to make money on a particular clientele why should we force them to? In theory... a business that accepts the widest variety of clientele will be more successful because they will have more potential customers. If a bakery wants to have a stance of not providing cakes for gay weddings they are losing out on customers, and if I was having a gay wedding I wouldn't trust them to make my cake anyway given their views... Would you rather be refused service and find somewhere else to go or get terrible service?
To parallel the race issue. If I was a black man I think I would rather know that Restaurant X does not want me there and then go to Restaurant Y, instead of risking having my burger spit on or worse.
Especially in today's culture, I can't imagine too many business doing very well after advertising that they wont serve "A B or C". It would take owners that are truly convicted in their beliefs to do something like that. So for people who believe that strongly... why try to stop them?
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? What if it's you that is refused service? I mean, I could write out a whole counterargument here, but essentially it would boil down to this anyway.
But besides that, the idea that discriminatory business practices would hurt businesses isn't really true. It's hard to get the message out there. People still frequently terrible restaurants or businesses all the time, despite ample warning through all sorts of outlets.
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
My point being I find it hard to imagine it being a common practice. Yeah if I was refused service for something I really wanted it would suck... but as I also said if the person I was seeking service from had something against me I probably don't want their service as there is a good chance that the quality will not be what it should be (like spitting in my food, or maybe poor quality repairs).
How hard is it really to get the word out there? A guy at Mozilla donates $10,000 and within days of that becoming public knowledge he's "fired" or however that worked. If it seems like terrible businesses are still being frequented it's because those businesses are not as terrible to some people as others. For example I know some people that are boycotting Olive Garden because of something they said about Obama Care and raising prices... I don't see the big deal and would still eat at Olive Garden if it wasn't terrible quality. If they suddenly hung a sign above the door though that said "no <people from some group>" I wouldn't go there at all even if the food was good.
Anyway, it's also an emotional thing. Can you imagine how ***** it would feel if, after being bullied and discriminated your whole life, a big business, or even a small local one basically says to you "No, you can't come here. We have the right to hate you."?
Also, to the OP, the reason why your gay friends might say "It's fine" or agree with you (or not say anything on the subject) is because they've probably learned long ago to shut up and put their head down around people who are homophobic, because they've learned that it's easier to sit down and shut up than say anything and risk being attacked (possibly literally physically assaulted)
Besides, just because one gay person says it doesn't make it okay. If one black person told you that they didn't care if you used the N word, would you go around shouting it to every black person you saw? Probably not. Gay people, and black people, and any minority group are all individuals, and they're all going to have their own personal experiences and likes and dislikes, and we should respect that, just like we'd respect anyone else's.
Also, this is the cliche, but since I've seen religious persecution brought up, I just have to ask. Why is the part of the Bible where it says being gay is a sin (I honestly don't know where that is. Please quote it to me.) so much more important than the part about no divorces, or how owning slaves is a great thing to do, or about stoning adulterers to death? Are those parts disregarded because they apply to you, and not to someone else? Or do you want those things to also be legally upheld, but our current "oppressive society" won't allow you to throw rocks at your wife until she dies if she cheats on you?
WUBRGCommander Decklists - PaperWUBRG
CCCCCommander Decklists - TheorycraftCCCC
Sig Credit: Pegasus Bishop
I don't buy this. It's probably bad for business to put a "No Gays Allowed" sign on your door if you're in Greenwich Village. But in a small town in the deep South? Or rural Utah? I bet you could do just fine with that.
Maybe... I have no idea I am not from there. Even so... if you were a gay person would you really want your wedding cake made by a very anti-gay baker?
True, businesses being able to deny service could be a much bigger issue in small communities.
I could argue that nobody is ever guaranteed access to these businesses... in a sense someone living in a small town where the baker refuses them services is in a similar boat to someone living in a town that just plain does not have a baker.
I still prefer the idea of a society where businesses are not forced to provide service but I'll have to think on that some more.
Ideally, we would live in a society where people could refuse service for whatever reason they choose. It is a liberally and economically dangerous proposition for the government to force people to perform transactions when they don't want to - not something to be suggested lightly. Imagine if you didn't want to work on Saturdays, but the law said you had to. You'd be paid, but you'd still be working under duress, and generally we don't think "working under duress" is the sort of thing that should happen in a free society. Or imagine if a firm was engaged in business practices you didn't like - say, discriminating against minorities. Surely you think you ought to be free to refuse to patronize them.
On the other hand, if certain people are refused service by a substantial segment of the population, that materially hurts their prosperity and prospects. If I'm turned away from one grocery store because they don't like my haircut, no big deal, I'll shop somewhere else. But if I'm turned away from every grocery store because I'm a gay black Jew, where am I supposed to get food? The aggregation of individual economic decisions, each one on its own compatible with principles of economic freedom, is eroding my economic freedom. And the reason government exists in the economic sphere is precisely to combat such aggregate effects that the free market can't deal with on its own. Its intervention to protect me is justified.
So basically, the system we have in America - where you're free to refuse service for most reasons, but there exist in the law a few carefully defined protected classes that have historically faced these aggregation problems - is a decent compromise between the ideal of freedom and the reality that some prejudices are widespread enough to hurt people. If we were less prejudiced, we would not need such protections; getting turned away from a single store for being a gay black Jew would be no more painful than getting turned away for having a really bad haircut. Protection laws are really an indictment of our society. I support them, but I wish I didn't have to.
While getting your feelings hurt sucks, it is not in and of itself justification for legal protection. It is legal to insult people. And they do have the right to hate - freedom of conscience doesn't just protect idealogies you like, or what would be the point? Like I said, it's the material harm caused by widespread discrimination that justifies protection laws.
Here is a handy tool.
The standard Christian understanding of the situation is that the law codes you mention are in the Old Testament and part of the Old Covenant God made with the Jews. Jesus eliminated the need for the Old Covenant and established a much kinder and gentler New Covenant for Christians. (You may be familiar with Jesus' line on stoning.) But since homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well, it's still a sin under the New Covenant.
More liberal, gay and gay-tolerant Christians argue that none of the condemnations actually come from Jesus Christ himself in the Gospels, but only occur in the epistles written by Paul. They think that Jesus' message of "love everybody" trumps Paul's attitude of "gays are gross." Some even say that Jesus implicitly endorsed a homosexual relationship when he healed a Roman soldier's "servant" or "lover" in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. (Myself, I don't think the evidence for this interpretation of the passages is conclusive, and even if the soldier and servant are having sex, it is most likely an old Greek-style pederastic relationship and not the sort of thing people should want to trumpet Jesus' endorsement of.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, but what happens when the discrimination is more subtle? Racism hasn't gone away, it's become less overt over time. While I agree with you that major chain restaurants wouldn't be posting signs saying 'No Brunettes', even with anti-discrimination laws in place it still occurs in other forms. The only difference is that people wouldn't have any recourse at all.
And also, despite many of the issues you mentioned, Chick-Fil-A's business is still booming and even got support after their scandal. Rarely do these big headlining issues really do any kind of permanent damage to these large chains.
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
Is chick-fil-a actively harming it's customers? I thought they just donated a ton of money to anti-gay marriage stuff? I've stated in other threads on here I see a distinction between what an owner does with his money and actual business practices.
I only mentioned it because you brought up Mozilla, and as an example of the kind of counter-support (for lack of a better word) these companies can get.
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
Support or anti-support certainly will not perfectly follow my values, your values, or even necessarily "popular" values, but I think there is good reason to believe egregious miss-steps would be met with some pretty significant backlash.
The key word there being egregious. As I said, overt displays will obviously have backlash, but what about the black family that's left sitting in the waiting area while people who came in after them are seated on after another (assuming equal party size for simplicity's sake). And this happens frequently, but none of the families involve talk to one another about it. There are tons of subtle ways to be racist without posting a sign outside your door.
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
Sure but what's preventing this from happening now?
A couple years ago my wife and I were at a place and the high school kid running the front sat several groups ahead of us and I could see a table that at most could seat 3 people sitting open for over 15 minutes (we were there for about 45 minutes).... I yelled at the kid, who then sat us at that table and then the manager chewed him out. I have no idea why we were not being sat but I don't see how it would be very plausible for anyone to go after a particular establishment for small errors like that now.
I was only using one example, based on a family at Denny's that sued years ago (this was a case in the 90's). The thing is, as of right now you have a case for legal recourse when these more subtle racist moves are undertaken. Without those anti-discrimination laws, you have no recourse.
For instance, Arizona doesn't protect sexual orientation, so a gay couple trying to get married can be discriminated against fairly freely.
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
Violating someone's basic human right is "a bit unfair"?
Can you read the future? The way things are going, I would say they will be forced to perform them and perhaps in the matter of a few decades. There is open hostility even perpetuated by official governments against religious organizations and their beliefs on controversial issues.
How is this a right? You literally have a right to force someone into a private transaction with you?
You've managed to conflate two very different scenarios. Just because you have the right to marry, that does not mean you have the right to force someone else to participate in your marriage. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your marriage, that does not mean they have the right to prevent you from being married. You are basically committing the same error as the racists, declaring that the law should reflect personal morality. Except that different people having different concepts of morality, always have and always will.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Agenda (noun): A set of goals of an ideological group.
I am speaking of the politically active members of the group, obviously. Just because not everyone who happens to belong, demographically-speaking, to a particular group agrees with everything that is popularly called for by said group, that does not mean there is an ideological agenda that the political leaders of that group push for.
I explicitly stated that it is well-documented, in the context of how gay activists have acted towards this data and members of their community that have suffered form these problems, nothing more. You're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. However, you still have the situation of STDs and AIDS among homosexuals being well-documented at abnormally high levels. This is an issue that is both shunned by gay activists and regarded as a myth by the left, even though it is scientifically documented.
Something I noticed from earlier has me interested:
So here you deny that society could ever be overprotective of gays.
But here you strongly imply that it's happening. So which is it? Are you confused on this issue?
Whose? If the law in your state says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, you don't have a 'right' to discriminate against them. If your state doesn't, it's still not cool (but at least legal).
No: churches can refuse to marry anyone these days. There is no reason why they'd be forced to marry a gay couple when they don't even have to marry heterosexual members of their own church. It's different when it comes to employment (a catholic school couldn't not hire a gay teacher just because he's gay, for instance - although they could fire him getting married to his partner).
No - you have a right to expect that a business can't discriminate against you based on certain qualities. You may have heard of it, it was called the Civil Rights Act. It can vary by state, so in New York, that includes sexual orientation. In Arizona, it does not.
I haven't conflated two different issues, they're very much the same. If you were talking about private individuals, I would agree with you. But when you set up a business available to the public, it's an entirely different matter. If I had walked into a hotel, who rents space, and been denied the ability to rent said space because they only marry same-race couples, I'd have a case against them.
Now, to be clear, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in all states. As I mentioned, the situation would be different in Arizona than it would be in New York.
It depends on the situation. Have the Neo Nazis been rude to her? It's one thing to reject a customer because they're ********s. It's another to reject them simply for who they are. If they're paying customers and they're not causing problems or making the person otherwise feel threatened, there is no reason to reject them.
First of all, homosexuality isn't an ideology. It's a sexual orientation.
Second, what about all the Gay Republicans out there? You're assuming all the politically active 'members of the group' have a single ideology.
And the point was? We've already established why what you were talking about happened.
The problems of AIDS/HIV aren't ignored among the gay community. In fact, it's a basic fact. It also disproportionately affects young gay black men. Clinics are set up everywhere in the cities for treatment, and AIDS research is a priority for the community.
I'm not really sure why this matters, though. What's your point?
Nope, those are two separate thoughts.
The first thought is about the very real abuse that LGBT people face. My point was that while you and Aldath are worried that homosexuals are 'overprotected', the reality is that they face a disproportionate amount of abuse from a fairly young age. Standing up for them in an argument on the internet isn't really being overprotective.
The second thought was me being a little bit mocking of the entire concept of a SJW as presented in this thread, like one would leap out of the bushes and challenge me to a duel for daring to suggest the statistics are lower. I'm perfectly capable of holding my own independent opinions and evaluating each point on their own merits. I don't have to agree with every statistic being floated out there.
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
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.)
That's been going on forever. Kinsey found that in males, homosexual activity was about one in three, probably more, with exclusive homosexual history being one in fifty. Somehow this became one in ten were exclusively into the same sex, and the other nine wouldn't touch another dude with a half-foot pole.
Cracked.com had a lesbian mention being raped. "Oh, sorry, we would help you, but that would require adding a line to our form, and that's too much work."
A big part of AIDS was degaying it and now deblacking it: Find anyone to stigmatize as a pestilential cesspool of immunodeficiency, instead of people who genuinely are at greater risk for HIV infection.
Or they could take that money and, you know, distribute condoms and HIV testing and reduce the prevalence of the disease.
Yeah, but there is the argument about boycotting people you disagree with on some major issue. What people don't realize is, I'm not obligated to patronize any business. Nor is any other customer.
On phasing: