Scattered Light

by Stephen H. Miller on February 2, 2013

More signs that the GOP is confronting the repercussions of intolerance. Via a National Review Online interview with Jim Gilmore, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and former Virginia governor:

“I don’t think the party dies immediately,” Gilmore says. “It’s not going to just disappear like the Whigs did, since there is so much law that supports the two-party system. But Republicans will be locked into a permanent minority at the national level unless we seriously rethink our approach.” …

“Young people today have a more tolerant, hands-off perspective,” he says. “Their libertarian philosophy, for example, has to be taken into consideration. Yet we keep projecting anger at the gay community and the Hispanic community, even though they’re open to many of our ideas.”

Many Republican stalwarts understand that continuing to take marching orders from authoritarian social conservatives will court self-destruction.

More light. I hadn’t been aware of these developments regarding Chick-fil-A. It’s an inspiring account.

Still more light. Via the New York Times:

Kevin L. James, a conservative talk show host running for mayor of Los Angeles, was sitting in his campaign office recently pondering which was his bigger obstacle to victory: being openly Republican, or being openly gay. “Depending on what room you’re in here, sometimes it’s easier coming out gay to Republicans than it is coming out Republican to gays,” he said. …

John Weaver, a Republican political consultant… has increasingly warned that Republicans are marginalizing themselves by moving to the right on issues like abortion, gay rights and immigration. “He is from central casting about what a future Republican candidate can look like in an urban or blue state and win,” Mr. Weaver said.

Look for the LGBT political establishment to unite in opposition to James.

{ 44 comments }

Houndentenor February 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm

The problem with the Chick-Fil-A story is that they are still funding anti-gay groups including those that practice so-called reparative therapy. They claim they aren’t but they are and just lying about it. I guess talking to someone is progress but I won’t eat there (and I did used to eat there sometimes) so long as some of that money is going to torture teenagers whose parents have been conned into thinking they can be “cured” of their homosexuality.

Tom Scharbach February 3, 2013 at 5:40 am

More signs that the GOP is confronting the repercussions of intolerance.

Bit by bit.

I would caution, though, that the majority of voices coming out of the Republican Party seem to be saying “we need to change our messaging” rather than “we need to change our positions”.

The Republican Party has no choice in the long run. It has to break free of the stranglehold of social conservative extremists or it will end up like a bitter 80-year-old man, venting his spleen about how the world has gone to hell at one and all while he soaks up another hour of Faux News talking points, wondering why his grandchildren don’t visit any more.

But, as you observed a few months ago, Stephen, meaningful change on “equal means equal” is going to take a few more election cycles at a minimum. Anti-gay forces in the party are entrenched, and will fight hard. The structural — hard-core social conservatives control the primary process — problems remain a roadblock to change, as does the regional distribution of power within the party, and you can bet your behind that the “Values Voter Summit” is going to be a vehicle for major-league pandering for a long time yet, whatever the more rational candidates may actually think.

The party will eventually change, because the demographics are not with the anti-gay forces in the party. The question is whether the grandchildren will still be coming around when the change happens.

Houndentenor February 3, 2013 at 8:29 am

What it’s going to take is for those who disagree with the party over these issues to stand up and say they will not vote for its candidates or donate any money until the party changes. Instead people make excuses to their gay friends while continuing to vote for candidates who are openly and sometimes vehemently anti-gay. There is not incentive to change so long as those who claim to support their gay friends, family and colleagues will vote for anti-gay candidates running on an anti-gay platform anyway. Karl Rove did his homework before the 2000 and 2004 elections and knew that this was true. Until pro-equality Republicans stand up to their own party, the party will not change. That really hasn’t happened yet. Yes, they make excuses to the gay community but I don’t see anyone leaving the party over this and until that happens in significant numbers there won’t be any real change, just more platitudes. I am not at all impressed when someone who is now retired or who kept silence while gays were demonized in their husband’s campaigns finally says something nice buried deep inside their memoirs. Not in the least. It takes far more than that to change the positions of a party.

Tom Scharbach February 3, 2013 at 10:23 am

I agree.

I do not understand the apparent reluctance of pro-equality conservatives to become active in the Republican Party at local, state and national levels.

The Democratic Party changed because gays and lesbians (and straight allies) in the party got involved from the grassroots up and acted as relentless, pragmatic change agents, transplanting a spine into Democratic politicians and party officials. It wasn’t easy and the work isn’t finished, by any means. But that is what has to happen in the Republican Party, and I don’t see it happening.

I don’t understand why. If pro-equality conservatives can’t stand to learn from the progressives because we are too tainted to serve as a model, they can look at the social conservatives and the Tea Party as a model. Both did, within the Republican Party, exactly what gays and lesbians did in the Democratic Party. The results show in each case.

Waiting around for “someone” — Democrats, HRC, other Republicans — to accomplish the task won’t do it. It isn’t enough to act like a cat who wants to come in, sitting outside the patio door hoping that someone will open the door. Pro-equality conservatives have to start pushing and shoving within the party, and, as you point out, stop heaping money, time and votes on politicians who oppose equality. Change doesn’t just fall from the sky.

Tom Scharbach February 3, 2013 at 11:05 am

I looked at the NR article that Stephen linked, at it turns out to be yet another version of “better messaging is the answer”, rather than a prod toward policy change:

“The world has changed beneath us,” Gilmore says. “Shrillness and extreme language are driving away the voters who could help us build a majority. We’re not speaking to them as reasonable conservatives. Republicans have to decide if they want to govern or play ideological parlor games.”

“Young people today have a more tolerant, hands-off perspective,” he says. “Their libertarian philosophy, for example, has to be taken into consideration. Yet we keep projecting anger at the gay community and the Hispanic community, even though they’re open to many of our ideas.”

Gilmore wants the party to turn away from “shrillness and extreme language” to to stop “projecting anger”. I guess that’s good. But the real problem is the party’s policies and platform, which was the worst ever on equality issues this year.

“Messaging” is like labeling slavery “the peculiar institution” rather than calling it “slavery”. It wasn’t the word “slavery” that was the problem, it was the “peculiar institution” itself.

Similarly with segregation. When Southern segregationists switched over to “Knee-grow” rather than “nigra” or “nigger”, it might have made for better “messaging” but it didn’t change segregation laws or the issue of segregation as the backbone of Southern politics.

Jorge often points out that few Republican politicians other than Dick Armey use the word “fag” or “faggot” in public; the preferred term is “homosexual”. But even if those politicians were transported into modern times and switched over to “gays and lesbians”, what difference would it make if the underlying policies remain the policies stated in the 2012 Republican platform?

The “messaging” guys just don’t get it. Not at all.

Get your heads out, guys.

Houndentenor February 5, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Here’s what happened: political correctness. Everything became about saying nice words instead of bad words. The right learned to play the game. The result was that saying the right thing replaced doing the right thing. You can’t be racist if you don’t say the N-word, right? And here we are today in a big mess of people actually getting away with doing pretty horrible things but calling it something else or just flat out lying about it and the idiot talking head media lets them get away with it. Or they are outplayed because most PR flacks are smarter than most media personalities (and frankly that bar just isn’t that high).

JohnInCA February 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm

I’ll believe it when my choices at the voting booth are a Democrat and Republican who are equally good on LGBT issues.

And seriously, I know I’m not in the urban parts of CA, but I’m still in CA. This shouldn’t be hard.

JohnInCA February 3, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Just read the Chik-Fil-A article.

Yes. It is inspiring when protests, boycotts and public action taken by the public has an impact on CEOs. Perhaps equality-minded Republicans should take a hint and put pressure on their still-active political leaders.

Tom Scharbach February 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Look for the LGBT political establishment to unite in opposition to James.

James is certainly doing his best to backtrack from his views on global warming and immigration, and perhaps other issues, to make himself more acceptable for this highly Democratic (75%+ Obama) city. If he can convince Angelinos that he is sincere rather than pandering, maybe he’ll have a chance.

James stands in favor of marriage equality and was an AIDs sctivist in the past, but I looked at his website, and there doesn’t seem to be a word about “equal means equal” — loads of information about the importance of animal rights and all sorts of other issues, but nothing on LGBT issues. I wonder what that’s about? Is it just a given that James is 100% pro-equality? Silence isn’t likely to attract gay and lesbian votes, particularly in light of the bitter history of Prop 8.

On another note, does anyone know why Republicans statewide aren’t better funding his campaign? He needs $4 million, and he is stuck at $700,000 according to the article Stephen cited. Paid media is critical in a city like Los Angeles.

Houndentenor February 3, 2013 at 6:32 pm

About Mr. James: I don’t know anything about him and I won’t be eligible to vote in that election anyway, but I’m curious…are we to all support this candidate simply because he’s gay? Did you support Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and all the other openly gay Democrats who ran in recent years? I would also like to note that not all gay people are lining up to support Christine Quinn for NYC mayor. They disagree with her on issues they think are important.

You have a double standard. Gays are supposed to support any Republican who is gay or who is the least bit supportive of gay rights, and yet you wouldn’t do the say for gay Democrats. Curious.

Tom Scharbach February 3, 2013 at 6:50 pm

You have a double standard. Gays are supposed to support any Republican who is gay or who is the least bit supportive of gay rights, and yet you wouldn’t do the sa[me] for gay Democrats. Curious.

Stephen holds to the dogma that progressive gays and lesbians are villains for failing to break out the palm leaves and Hosannas for Republican gay/lesbian candidates, but that conservative gays and lesbians are principled for tossing brickbats at Democratic gay/lesbian candidates.

Its a point of view, I guess.

Jorge February 4, 2013 at 1:46 am

I hadn’t been aware of these developments regarding Chick-fil-A. It’s an inspiring account.

You don’t hear stories like that very often.

Houndentenor February 4, 2013 at 9:13 am

I don’t know what’s inspiring about it. Cathy is using a naive “activist” for PR while continuing to do what he’s always done. When he really stops funding anti-gay abusive “therapies” then I’ll be impressed. The fact that he’s willing to talk would only be interesting if this were 1973, not 2013.

Jorge February 4, 2013 at 8:19 pm

First things first. Are they or are they not still funding “anti-gay” groups? You keep saying they are but you haven’t given any examples.

We are all going to move the goal posts eventually anyway. Might as well force it.

Houndentenor February 6, 2013 at 6:12 am
Jorge February 6, 2013 at 10:38 am

So noted.

But what remains are donations to groups Windmeyer says he and others consider “anti-LGBT” but that perhaps don’t rise to the same levels.

And so noted.

ThomasJeffersonIII February 4, 2013 at 2:08 pm

1. Even before the issue of fast food got mixed in with the issue of gay rights, I had little love for the fried, Southern food that Chick offers. I am sorry, but it just never impressed me to begin with. I have even less interest in eating their food now, but can’t we be a tad bit more worried about folks — heck gay folks — that cannot afford food?

2. Not every single gay person is obligated — last time I read my weekly minutes of the “gay agenda newsletter — to automatically vote for an openly gay candidate or (for what matter) become a fan of every openly gay celebrity. Being gay does automatically mean that you got the right set of ideas for public policy or (in the entertainment world) actual talent.

Heck, it does not automatically mean that we are always going to agree on what the ‘right’ ideas are.

3. Gay Republicans should not run as openly gay candidates with the expectation that every gay voter is going to vote for them and write them a check…or for that matter gay Democrats….or gay Libertarians or gay Greens.

Because of harassment and discrimination, many gay voters will probably relate well to center-left or progressive politics. But, many other facts probably come into play — i.e. socio-economic class, level of education, etc.

Don February 4, 2013 at 3:57 pm

actually you do hear the chick-fil-a story pretty often. it’s a stock pr response to a company trapped in controversy. special points for using the founder/CEO to muddy/denounce his own personal views in the name of money.

it really is a common tactic. it’s not even nefarious, really. it also is a common example of what to do once a company goes from charismatic founder to corporation run solely by board/CEO. the chicken people are making that transition. Cathy’s basically been informed that he isn’t the chief, he’s a paid employee and better start acting as such.

its funny how all the christian morality is tossed so quickly into the dustbin when they have the slightest brush with money. but don’t take my word for it. read any part of the catholic church’s history. talk about your case studies!

Houndentenor February 4, 2013 at 7:01 pm

And it’s working. Chick-Fil-A hasn’t REALLY stopped donating to anti-gay groups. They just talk like they have. And now there’s this little stunt and all my straight ally friends are passing around the link to this article on Facebook. This closes the topic for them and by pointing out that it’s just window dressing while nothing substantive has changed with the company, I’m a big meany whose opposing this positive move. *sigh* It’s bad enough that the topic got switched to his support for “traditional marriage” rather than the company’s funding of destructive quack “ex-gay” therapies. Cathy really should give everyone in his PR department a raise. They have certainly pulled one over on the American people.

Jorge February 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm

actually you do hear the chick-fil-a story pretty often. it’s a stock pr response to a company trapped in controversy. special points for using the founder/CEO to muddy/denounce his own personal views in the name of money.

it really is a common tactic.

I don’t believe you.

Your claim is severely lacking in examples. If you know so much history, why are you so reticent about your knowledge?

Every crazy conspiracy theory needs a history into which it fits into a context. Blacks have the Tuskeegee experiment and redlining. Women have the “legitimate rape” comments this past election year and similarly scandous comments about domestic violence. Hispanics have numerous (if individualized) examples of bizarre tone-deaf statements to point to, from xenophobia to ignorant statements about language.

You have… zilch.

Mike in Houston February 5, 2013 at 9:17 am

Read the fine print in the original article like they did at the Advocate and Equality Matters – - as well as the follow-up articles on HuffPo to get a clearer picture.

http://www.advocate.com/business/2013/01/28/not-so-fast-chick-fil-hasnt-ended-all-questionable-giving

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-mcgonnigal/no-you-cant-go-back-to-chick-fil-a_b_2569611.html

Don February 5, 2013 at 9:18 am

actually it’s a bachelor’s degree in public relations from the university of florida. i didn’t think i’d need to dig up old textbooks and cite them. well, and then there’s that stint for several years i did as a reporter. and working as a pr flack myself.

I never really thought I would need to cite examples of people lying to protect their financial interests. I thought it was a pretty cut and dried approach.

But if I must, the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. They lied about what they knew, when they knew it, paid to get out of it, then lied that it was all cleaned up and gone.

Jorge February 6, 2013 at 11:05 am

I never really thought I would need to cite examples of people lying to protect their financial interests. I thought it was a pretty cut and dried approach.

You are changing the subject.

You claimed that it is common to hear stories of CEOs having honest conversations with their opponents and moderating their actions for purely self-interested reasons. If so, it should be very easy for you to give a relevant example. The fact that you are hiding behind your education without giving examples suggests to me that you are overreaching.

You claim Dan Cathy is “lying to protect his financial interests.” That is an explosive accusation. You are accusing Dan Cathy of completely fabricating his sincere interest in dialogue, and ultimately friendship, with Shane Windmeyer purely for the financial gain of his business. I *definitely* want to see some examples of that happening in the past.

You are ignoring the strong historical evidence that the primary motivation behind Dan Cathy’s actions is his Christian faith.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, “There is no such thing as a Christian business.”

“That got my attention,” Cathy said. Roach went on to say, “Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.”

“In that spirit … [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are,” Cathy added.

“But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”

It is extremely likely that Mr. Cathy’s his most recent actions are a reflection of his adherance to “biblical principles” about universal love and tolerance. You would cite evidence about CEOs as a class, but it is more relevant to look at Mr. Cathy himself.

I will give one more example, because I do love examples, and I think you are blurring an important distinction. After the BP oil spill, the company released several very classy, very professional PR commercials about their efforts to clean up the Gulf and its employees connection to the region. However, its CEO got caught saying on camera that the reason he wants the crisis to end is because “I want my life back”. With Chick-Fil-A, we have the exact opposite: the CEO doubles down publicly and is conciliatory in private.

Don February 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm

i suspect you and i have very different belief systems. you find it amazing and scandalous to suggest that an avowed christian would lie to the public. ie bearing false witness.

i consider it the operating model of NOM. I would challenge the idea that those people are christian, myself. i find them, Santorum, Bachman, and so many other social conservatives antithetical to christianity. not all, but most. bearing false witness is apparently a virtue in their eyes, not a sin.

you do not see false witness. and therefore no sin on their part. we just aren’t ever going to agree on that.

Houndentenor February 6, 2013 at 10:10 pm

I worked in the financial district for about 10 years as a day job between singing gigs. I heard with my own ears CEOs and other executives say the exact opposite in the office of what they said on CNBC or the equivalent the same day. So yeah, they lie. I heard it myself. Or rather they say what they need to say for PR purposes. Truth matters very little in our culture since there are no repercussions for being caught lying or misleading the public.

Don February 5, 2013 at 9:32 am

Actually, it’s already a case study itself. took a few seconds on The Google to find the Public Relations Society of America’s magazine article on the whole Chick-fil-a scandal. It specifically reminds never to deceive because it comes back to haunt you. It’s referring to Chick-fil-a’s lying about pulling Henson’s toys when in fact Henson pulled his toys from them.

Let’s just call a truce with all of this. You are a social conservative who supports legislating moral questions. I find that political stance unappealing.

We can stop flaming each other at any time. (Actually, i think it’s fair that you say something mean to me and that could be the end of it).

Jorge February 6, 2013 at 11:10 am

Actually I consider myself a center-right moderate, albeit with a social conservative streak. Achieving liberal ends requires legislating morality, too. That’s why I support education reform and anti-bullying laws.

Jimmy February 6, 2013 at 4:59 pm

“Achieving liberal ends requires legislating morality, too.”

Although, when liberals legislate morally, it is done so in keeping with our desire to open up people to the blessings of liberty, especially people in this country who have historically experienced more curse than blessing. In contrast, conservatives seem to legislate form a morally exclusive point of view. It always seems like conservatives operate with the attitude that some have more liberty than others. To them, some people count more (oh, and they usually consider themselves Christians).

Jorge February 7, 2013 at 12:45 am

Although, when liberals legislate morally, it is done so in keeping with our desire to open up people to the blessings of liberty, especially people in this country who have historically experienced more curse than blessing. In contrast, conservatives seem to legislate form a morally exclusive point of view.

I’m sorry but the two strike me as exactly the same.

“open up people to the blessings of liberty”? Would you not agree that giving everyone unfettered liberty something that invariably leads to the strong taking advantage of the weak? Such a situation does not promote liberty at all. You remind me starkly of Catholic pontifications about freedom really being about the freedom to worship God and act within God’s will, not the freedom to do irresponsible things that are against God. That line always struck me as a little arrogant.

“especially people in this country who have historically experienced more curse than blessing”? That kind of thinking gets turned around pretty easily into ideas and policies that are racist, sexist, and homosexist, caring only about what benefits one minority group and refusing to take into consideration the harms they inflict on the many. Those mayors and city councilpeople trying to ban Chick-Fil-A over a non-issue is a good example. Why do the sensibilities of gays matter more than everyone else’s?

Jimmy February 7, 2013 at 5:40 pm

“Would you not agree that giving everyone unfettered liberty something that invariably leads to the strong taking advantage of the weak? Such a situation does not promote liberty at all.”

Except “unfettered” is your word, not mine. No one has unfettered liberty.

“You remind me starkly of Catholic pontifications about freedom really being about the freedom to worship God and act within God’s will, not the freedom to do irresponsible things that are against God. That line always struck me as a little arrogant.”

That’s because it is arrogant, supremely so, and not germane to my point.

“Why do the sensibilities of gays matter more than everyone else’s?”

And therein lies your problem. The sensibilities of gay people matter to more than just gay people, they matter to all who are not bigots, or self-loathing. They matter to people who understand that equal means equal. They matter to the loved ones of gay people who believe their gay peeps are just as deserving of the blessings of liberty as they are.

Jorge February 8, 2013 at 10:12 pm

That’s because it is arrogant, supremely so, and not germane to my point.

It is very germaine. You simply played down the part that says “liberty is not to be used to give other people more curse than blessing”. That why it was necessary for me to get you to admit that liberty is not unfettered, that it has limits. What those limits are is something that has to be decided; some will win, some will lose. Your liberal version of legislating morality is exactly the same as the conservative version.

jimmy February 9, 2013 at 9:06 am

“Your liberal version of legislating morality is exactly the same as the conservative version.”

So, inclusive is the same as exclusive, open is the same as closed?

Houndentenor February 5, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Just FYI here’s the breakdown of today’s House of Commons vote on gay marriage:

Labour 217 Yes, 22 No
Conservatives (Tories) 136 Yes, 144 No
Liberal Democrats 44 Yes, 4 No
Plaid Cymru (Wales) 4 Yes, 0 No.
Democratic Unionists (Northern Ireland) 0 Yes, 8 No
Alliance 1 Yes, 0 No
SDLP (Northern Ireland) 1 Yes, 0 No
Independents 2 Yes, 0 No

Imagine if Republicans were evenly split on gay rights like the Tories. Even stranger all 6 Muslim MPs voted for gay marriage. The whole thing is a bit baffling.

Don February 6, 2013 at 12:38 pm

case study you requested. in 1996-97 I worked for the AIDS Relief Fund (for beauty professionals). Google it. It raised money and gave it to provide direct assistance such as rent, medical bills, etc. for people who could not afford to care for themselves anymore and had worked in the beauty industry. (fashion, hair, clothes, makeup)

The organization started because of a Dan Cathy-like situation. The head of a large hair product company with celebrity-stylists, etc. ordered that no people with HIV could cut hair for their famous salons. He said it out of public health protection. Stuff hit the fan. He bought his way out of the trouble by founding the organization. It took him quite some time to turn around after he was writing the checks. But eventually, the organization disappeared as the scandal faded with time and the vision never clearly materialized.

This happens a lot.

I believe it is happening with Dan Cathy because he would have to renounce all of his conservative christian beliefs about gays in order to be genuine in his sentiments now. Do you actually believe that? I don’t.

Houndentenor February 6, 2013 at 4:36 pm

I hated the way this played out in the media. They made it sound like everyone was up in arms because of what he believes. I could give a crap what he believes. That’s his business. I care that money I might spend in one of his restaurants would be going to fund harmful, discredited “therapies” to try to turn gay teenagers into heterosexuals. Some of it also went to fund anti-equality groups as well.

Mike in Houston February 6, 2013 at 6:32 pm

I, for one, thought it this could all have been avoided if Cathy (and Chik-fila) had simply made the statement that they abide by employment non-discrimination laws, campus policies, etc. that include LGBT…

Had the Mayors of Chicago & Boston simply asked that question (along with the other gayhto organizations) — rather than threatening to use their governmental powers — then the outrage-christians-are-victims noise machine would have been shut down.

Focus on behaviors not beliefs… change the behavior, the attitude change will follow.

JohnInCA February 6, 2013 at 9:34 pm

I think you forget that in most places Chik-Fil-A operates there *are* no LGBT employment protections.

So asking if they abide by such would be, well, irrelevant. Not to mention that whatever the real answer is, Cathy would have be a moron of colossal proportions to say “nah, we ignore that shit”.

Houndentenor February 6, 2013 at 10:12 pm

I agree that was stupid (and probably illegal). Cathy has every right to donate to despicable organizations just as I have the right to eat elsewhere.

Jorge February 7, 2013 at 12:27 am

I suppose we shall see.

I believe it is happening with Dan Cathy because he would have to renounce all of his conservative christian beliefs about gays in order to be genuine in his sentiments now.

Wait, what?

Opposition to gay marriage is the only conservative Christian belief about gays Dan Cathy is known to have. In effect you are saying that one has to renounced one’s opposition to gay marriage in order to be disturbed about anti-gay harassment and modify your actions accordingly? This is false.

Jorge February 7, 2013 at 12:30 am

(Hmm. That’s overreaching a bit. He or his company gave to Exodus for a reason.)

Eh, my point still stands.

Houndentenor February 7, 2013 at 11:19 am

That’s not enough? Words, schmords! Actions are what tell you about a person. he donates to Exodus. Nothing could scream ANTI-GAY louder than that.

Jorge February 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm

I do not have the same opinion of Exodus as you do.

Don February 7, 2013 at 11:01 am

I see your point, Jorge. But I think the donation to Exodus demonstrates he believes being gay is wrong period. So I think my point still stands.

I agree with Jorge wholeheartedly that liberals do wish to ban or limit other people’s freedoms just as much as conservatives. Liberals who would never own a handgun want them banned. They lose nothing and make sure that other hew to their beliefs about guns. Conservatives do the same with gay marriage. They will never have one and want no one else to have one. They lose nothing and care nothing for other people’s freedoms being trampled in the name of their belief systems. Both say we would all be happier and better off if we all lived more like me.

Politics is the art of resolving these conflicts. Both sides think they are nobly guiding society in a way to benefit all. They simply cannot see how they are limiting the other side’s rights. The views are that one side wants the freedom to arm crazy people and the other side wants to destroy the fabric of our society. Neither is true.

However, I must admit the social conservatives I find the most odious of all the groups because they simply cannot pass what I call the Amish test. The Amish don’t need their beliefs to be the law for everybody to practice their faith. Why can’t social conservatives do the same? I can’t think of a single policy position they have that would pass that test. But I’d readily admit I’m wrong if Jorge or someone else here can think of one.

Houndentenor February 7, 2013 at 11:23 am

Yes, there are liberals (I’m not one of them) that would ban “hate speech”. That why we have the first amendment. People have a right to say douchy things. We also have a right not to watch their tv show any more or shop at a different store or vote for a different candidate based on what they say. As I said earlier, I thought at the time that keeping Chick-Fil-A from opening franchises in a specific location was illegal. If it’s not it should be. Cathy has a right to be an anti-gay bigot. People who aren’t anti-gay bigots have just as much right not to give him their money. The government should not be involved unless there is a violation of law (as in firing an employee who is a lesbian which is only illegal in about 20 states anyway).

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: