Over at Overlawyered.com, in No conscience clause for California fertility doctors IGF contributing author Walter Olson questions a recent California Supreme Court ruling that would require the fertility doctors in question, against their religious convictions, to inseminate (artificially) a lesbian patient. (Just why the lesbian patient wants to force the fundie doctors to do this when San Diego isn't lacking alternative fertility services appears more a matter of bile than babies.) Olson writes:
The ruling also allows doctors to excuse themselves on the basis of religious scruples if there is a second doctor within the same practice-but not, apparently, a doctor across town at a different practice-willing to perform the work in question. And of course the legislature in Sacramento could readily help bring peace to the culture war by inserting into the law a generously drafted conscience clause-if it wanted to.
But then, how would that stick it to the 'phobes?
More. In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights to order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple's commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.
Across the page, IGF contributing author John Corvino argues in When Tolerance Isn't Enough that acceptance, rather than tolerance (or, I assume, mere legal equality) should be our goal. But expressions of acceptance must be voluntary and achieved via convincing arguments and moving examples, not coerced through threat of punishment by the state.
66 Comments for “Mandatory Insemination?”
posted by Mack on
Really?
The last time I checked, it appeared to me that the practice of medicine, much like the dispensing of pharmaceuticals, is a government-protected monopoly dominated by a trade guild. Just try to practice medicine without state and AMA certifications.
For these government restrictions on trade, it seems reasonable that some protections against discrimination should apply. It’s not as if medicine is any kind of free market – the artificial barriers to entry are tremendous. I’m not going to argue whether they’re useful or not, I merely point out that they are there, and BECAUSE they are there, the government has a very legitimate interest in seeing that this restricted profession is practiced in a way that benefits all the persons of the state, and not the chosen few who hew to some particular interpretation of holy writ.
In this case, the people of California have granted a tremendous trade concession to doctors. That doctors, in turn, must treat the people of California if those people can pay does not seem such an undue burden.
And if it is an undue burden, perhaps the doctors in question should take up some profession more in keeping with their moral scruples.
Mack
posted by AKN on
“(Just why the lesbian patient wants to force the fundie doctors to do this when San Diego isn’t lacking alternative fertility services appears more a matter of bile than babies.)“
Actually, it appears the “fundie” clinic had an exclusive contract with her health insurance plan, so she and her partner couldn’t go anywhere else without having to pay the cost of treatment entirely out of their own pockets (and they eventually did; the decision notes that she finally got pregnant via IVF administered by another doctor at a different practice). See hereand here. Given the very high cost of IVF, it?s pretty obvious why Benitez would have preferred to be treated at the clinic where her insurance covered part of the bill.
What irks me is that the clinic gave her preparatory treatments (and accepted the insurance and co-payments for those treatments) for 11 months before finally refusing to perform the donor insemination. They took her money for almost a year, all the while never intending to perform the final procedure.
posted by AKN on
The second link (to the actual court decision PDF) was messed up. Here it is again.
posted by AKN on
Alright, my remedial HTML skills give in: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S142892.PDF
posted by Richard II on
Again, the devil — if you will — is often in the details.
The lesbian couple’s health care provider only gave them this one option and the provider in question did not seem to have any objections for several months.
If the couple had a viable alternative within their health insurence and the doctor had raised objections earlier, I can see the religious/moral objection be a valid issue to raise.
posted by Doc on
No, don’t treat physicians like they are a special class of business provider.
CA doesn’t let hotels discriminate by saying ‘they can stay at another hotel’ so don’t give physicians a special right not allowed to the lesser educated business owners/operators. They can pick up that damn turkey basetr and get on with it.
posted by Craig2 on
As a matter of interest, lesbians down here have been able to access assisted reproductive services for the last fifteen years. It’s been covered by our anti-discrimination laws for that duration.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I’ve been working with a young woman who is an egg donor. She’s very pretty, and of Chinese origin. She’s doing it for the money and she’s past the age limit for donors which is 29, she’s 32.
Religious communities have quite a list of reprobations, and a service provider with objections should just have the list on a sign by their business door and wear a badge.
The problem is, gay folks know when they are SINGLED out for religious objections. Most of know what the REST of the list is.
Does this same doctor refuse a couple based on divorce and remarriage or how many times? Do they base their objections on whether or not the couple drinks alcohol?
Funny, when discussing matters on gay lives, how many religious scholars declare themselves from the woodwork, and how can a gay person AVOID someone of faith?
So, why DON’T people with certain religious convictions put up a SIGN, wear a badge…give someone a heads up?
I think we all know the answer to that one. It’s because they DON’T discriminate against the heterosexual equivalent of homosexuals, that’s why.
I was refused a medical procedure that had to do with sterilization after I went through ALL the requisite standards and qualifications. And I was in fact qualified, but still denied.
The doctor didn’t give me specifically a religious reason, nor a medical one. It was one of HIS personal opinion and feelings, not MINE.
But it was MINE that mattered because it was MY LIFE, not his.
I’m truly sick of the gender and sexual orientation bias in the medical establishment and the casual betrayals.
My doctor should have posted a sign, ‘I won’t do this procedure for the unmarried who have never had children’. Then I wouldn’t have let that man touch me anywhere or even THINK of giving me a pelvic exam, which…he DIDN’T recuse of himself of.
I wasn’t given a referral either (which was unethical) and me NOT being married, nor ever having children WAS why I sought the procedure.
In this case and mine…it was bias as if we were’nt all adult, well informed and paying customers. We’re there for OUR needs, NOT the doctor’s. As long as there is no physical risks FROM the procedures and their results, WTF?
More importantly, religious freedom and choice IS not enforced by our government. Not on any level. There is no enforcement of who, where, how or in what way one worships or assembles to that the government can interfere with.
So, since religion is NOT ENFORCED as mandatory for any citizen, that alone means that no one has the right to assume or make the government assume such a responsibility on any of us.
If you have a personal objection on religious grounds for certain people the service MUST go to…then a sign, or getting out of that business for lack of consistency in those objections would be in order.
posted by Richard II on
The State Supreme Court was probably stuck with what the law says, rather then what it might say.
Again, I feel that a religious exemptions could, and probably should, exist but under different set of circumstances then this particular case.
posted by GeorgeNJ on
Does anyone have an absolute right to a child?
posted by LeBain on
I’m very much in favor of individual choice in this matter, but I’m also very much in agreement with Mack (above) on this. If there were truly a free market in doctors, rather than a protected monopoly, I would say that any doctor should refuse whatever she or he wanted. But when a government-sanctioned monopoly is involved, the government must ensure equality. The governmet needs to allow for more than one accreditation beaureaucracy.
posted by Richard II on
Well, their are never any ‘absolute’ legal rights.
Yet, an adult woman generally does have rights over her own body and that does include reproductive rights.
Ca State law probably does not bar adults having custody or adoption of kids based soley on sexual orientation.
Again, if she had another option within her health care plan and this current doc had not been taking her money for months, knowing full well that he had moral objections, I might be more eager to say that the law should be changed to have a religious objection.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi George, yes…they do. Even in cases of criminal neglect of children, there is no denial to be able to continue to conceive them or have them returned with a minimal of court ordered probation.
Procreation, and the myth of it’s all importance, seems to translate in that way.
The objection is just to gay people being parents.
Despite the obvious, that the ability to nurture and child, isn’t bestowed on someone because of their heterosexual orientation or even their gender…the hetero majority considers this THEIR birthright, if no one else’s.
Stupid, even dangerous…I know, but there it is.
Personally, what I’ve seen in my own family, and so many others…
Once criminally cited for neglect of children, evidence of drug addiction for BOTH father and mother, or children taken and put into public or blood relative custody: should put you in line to be court ordered sterilized. Permanently.
Sometimes these issues are just shy of being enough for permanent incarceration. Such as in child murder.
However, Susan Smith..the famous case of drowning her two young sons, is not only a case for the death penalty, but also WHY…if not that penalty, sterilization is in order.
At two different times, she was found to have had a sexual affair with male jailhouse deputies.
This alone could have gotten her pregnant and then what?
Another ward for the state.
Preventing conception seems a far better option, than having children suffer for lack of decent parents.
The prejudice against adults who choose to not be parents, or homosexuals further defies logic and rationality.
I just got baby pictures from a lesbian couple I know. Their little boy has four doting grandparents and four uncles and two aunts who are crazy about him. And the baby is so healthy and handsome.
In my experience as a crime scene photographer, I have seen terrible conditions that children are kept in, and the degradation of children is so casual and accepted simply because a man and woman CAN make a baby SO easily.
The anti marriage advocates are spending a lot of money to keep my friends from securing THEIR baby boy fully and legally.
If they have nothing against HIM, why would they against his parents who are looking after him with such responsible and excellent care?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mack makes a good point. The practice of medicine is extensively regulated. The awful consequences of abolishing such regulation ought to be clear. So the question is where to draw the line. Libertarians on principle want as little government regulation as possible. That can serve as a healthy brake on government overreach.
Trouble is, one person’s government overreach is another person’s equal protection. The question is, why is someone who performs a licensed service entitled to deny that service to people he personally disapproves of? A professional service is not a religious function; no one is saying that any church should be told how to conduct its worship services or how or what to preach. Allowing anyone to claim an exemption from non-discrimination laws simply by invoking his or her religion effectively allows that person to turn religious freedom on its head by imposing his or her religious beliefs on others with different beliefs and entirely outside the religious context. Insisting on the right to impose the dictates of one’s own faith on one’s fellow citizens could not be more contrary to the intent of the First Amendment.
Libertarians tend to oppose non-discrimination laws in general, except to prohibit government itself from discriminating. While I disagree with them, I respect those who are intellectually consistent about it. But since we are not about to abolish nor severely circumscribe such laws, there is no reason in principle why gay people should defer to those who would disadvantage us.
There is, however, a pragmatic political reason for us to accept religious exemptions as much as possible in these situations–if only to give those on the religious right as little basis as possible for portraying themselves as the real victims. But that does not make their endless claims of victimhood legitimate.
Steve Miller writes, “”In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple to have the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple’s commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.”
But that seaside pavilion in Ocean Grove had nothing to do with the Methodists’ religious function. No one sought to force them to permit the lesbian wedding in their church. The case was about renting a public accommodation. As to the Canadian case, they were unconstrained by the American First Amendment, which would not permit such interference in a pastor’s expression of his beliefs. Anti-gay activists such as Maggie Gallagher love to invoke Canadian cases like this one; but the greatest assaults upon the First Amendment in the U.S. are by their own side, and in any case the First Amendment still applies in the U.S. as it does not in Canada. And what the fundie fanatics refuse to grasp is that it protects not just their right to preach against me and bar me from their churches and sacraments, but my right not to have their beliefs imposed upon me.
As a practical political matter, I would avoid pressing cases like the insemination case if at all possible, because I agree with John Corvino that persuasion is our path to victory, not coercion. At least, persuasion must precede coercion. Even if we can make an airtight legal case, that is of little value if state constitutions are amended against us in response.
posted by Richard II on
Again the facts do matter in a legal dispute, although they seem to matter less to gay partisans.
Dont take someone money for several months, promising to do a service and then — near the deadline so to speak — refuse to perform the service based on a sudden moral objection.
Dont treat something as a public entity and expect government special privileges if you really want it to be a private entity that can exclude who it wants to.
Dont engage in slander or libel if, or at least not in public.
Mack makes a good point. The practice of medicine is extensively regulated. The awful consequences of abolishing such regulation ought to be clear. So the question is where to draw the line. Libertarians on principle want as little government regulation as possible. That can serve as a healthy brake on government overreach.
Trouble is, one person’s government overreach is another person’s equal protection. The question is, why is someone who performs a licensed service entitled to deny that service to people he personally disapproves of? A professional service is not a religious function; no one is saying that any church should be told how to conduct its worship services or how or what to preach. Allowing anyone to claim an exemption from non-discrimination laws simply by invoking his or her religion effectively allows that person to turn religious freedom on its head by imposing his or her religious beliefs on others with different beliefs and entirely outside the religious context. Insisting on the right to impose the dictates of one’s own faith on one’s fellow citizens could not be more contrary to the intent of the First Amendment.
Libertarians tend to oppose non-discrimination laws in general, except to prohibit government itself from discriminating. While I disagree with them, I respect those who are intellectually consistent about it. But since we are not about to abolish nor severely circumscribe such laws, there is no reason in principle why gay people should defer to those who would disadvantage us.
There is, however, a pragmatic political reason for us to accept religious exemptions as much as possible in these situations–if only to give those on the religious right as little basis as possible for portraying themselves as the real victims. But that does not make their endless claims of victimhood legitimate.
Steve Miller writes, “”In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple to have the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple’s commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.”
But that seaside pavilion in Ocean Grove had nothing to do with the Methodists’ religious function. No one sought to force them to permit the lesbian wedding in their church. The case was about renting a public accommodation. As to the Canadian case, they were unconstrained by the American First Amendment, which would not permit such interference in a pastor’s expression of his beliefs. Anti-gay activists such as Maggie Gallagher love to invoke Canadian cases like this one; but the greatest assaults upon the First Amendment in the U.S. are by their own side, and in any case the First Amendment still applies in the U.S. as it does not in Canada. And what the fundie fanatics refuse to grasp is that it protects not just their right to preach against me and bar me from their churches and sacraments, but my right not to have their beliefs imposed upon me.
As a practical political matter, I would avoid pressing cases like the insemination case if at all possible, because I agree with John Corvino that persuasion is our path to victory, not coercion. At least, persuasion must precede coercion. Even if we can make an airtight legal case, that is of little value if state constitutions are amended against us in response.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard Rosendall said “There is, however, a pragmatic political reason for us to accept religious exemptions as much as possible in these situations–if only to give those on the religious right as little basis as possible for portraying themselves as the real victims.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Once you give in to this kind of extortion you only encourage more of it. Already the religious right claims they are victims if they are not allowed to discriminate against gays, that it infringes on their freedom of religion. Just because a motive is religiously based doesn’t make it good and moral. If a doctor were refusing to treat a black person because they claimed it waa against their religion to do so there’d be no way that idea would be tolerated – it shouldn’t be any different with gays and lesbians.
posted by tavdy on
“Does anyone have an absolute right to a child?” – GeorgeNJ
<1>“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
____
“The problem is, gay folks know when they are SINGLED out for religious objections.” – Regan DuCasse
I’d like to remind people of a recent court case in the UK involving a Registrar, Lilian Ladele, who refused to perform Civil Partnership ceremonies because they were against her faith. As a part of her case she made the statement that she considered that “marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others”, yet according to that description Ms. Ladele should also be refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for divorcees, yet she has not refused to do so. Ms. Ladele was clearly treating divorcees differently from homosexuals, even though both fail to fulfil her requirements for marriage.
I’d prefer to take the same line as John Corvino – that persuasion is preferable to imposition – however persuasion is not always an option. For the lesbian couple it means the difference between whether or not they qualify for a basic human right – the right to have a family – and by association the difference between whether or not they qualify as fully human. That is why Ms. Ladele was comfortable marrying divorcees but not gays.
The queer community has fought too hard for too long to just roll over and allow rights to be denied us. Yes, persuasion should be the key tool – but that happens on an interpersonal basis more effectively than anything else.
Governments have an obligation to protect the human rights of the citizens and residents of the nations they govern. Licensing a doctor who then breaches those rights does not sound like protecting human rights to me. Especially when a distinction can easily be made between genuine religious faith, and the use of religious “belief” as an excuse for bigotry, as in the case of Ms. Ladele.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Further to my previous post, if we do as Richard says and give into the religious right every time they claim to be a victim it’ll only encourage them to play the victim everytime they want some special accomodation for themselves that imposes on the rights of others. Eventually we’d end up with religious apartheid where right wing Christians rule with an iron fist all who aren’t like them.
posted by Bobby on
Lesbians, would you really want to be inseminated by someone who HATES your guts? I wouldn’t let a homophobic mechanic repair my car, I wouldn’t want a homophobic accountant helping me with my taxes, and I would never choose to deal with a homophobic doctor! At the very least you can choose to stay in the closet with doctors, mechanics and accountants, but if you come on and they don’t like you, find another freaking doctor!
I don’t care what the law says, there’s no way I’m putting my life on the hands of an enemy. And you shouldn’t either. It’s just like dealing with those pissed off waiters that take your food back to the kitchen, urinate upon it, and then bring it back to you.
Or those housekeepers that do ungodly things with your sheets, toothbrush, and phone.
Doctors can do real damage. They can be careless, unprofessional, they can “forget” to tell their patients important things. There’s a BIG difference between a doctor that likes his patient and one who doesn’t.
For God sakes, if you’re gonna spend $30,000 on fertility treatments, do it with someone that’s excited about it as you are!
posted by Richard II on
I would make the following legislative suggestion;
(1) Faith based groups should be allowed to freely discriminate on the basis of religion, sex or sexual orientation.
If they are up front about, and if they are willing — when it comes to proving social services-public contracts to follow a non-discrimination policy in terms of serving people decently.
posted by Richard II on
Again, from what I have read about the particular cause, the hospital doctor was taking the lesbian couples money for months before they objected.
Right off that bat that, if true, makes it really hard for me to by symapthic with the religious objection claim.
If the lesbians money was green enough months ago, it should be green enough now.
If the objection had come up at te start or if the couple had been hiding their status and the doctor/hospital objected after finding out I would have more sympathy for their claim
Also, if their was another health care provider, on the couple’s plan, it would also make me much more sympathetic. Having dealt with the health care system in this nation — with and without good insurence, I am leery of giving some one a blank check to deny health care services to some one by claiming moral or religious objections.
posted by dalea on
What Marc and Richard said. To which I would add: training of health care professionals is heavily subsidized by the taxpaying public. Including the Doctor’s education. The solution, to my mind, is those not willing to provide services to all should not be admitted to professional schools.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard II said ” Faith based groups should be allowed to freely discriminate on the basis of religion, sex or sexual orientation”.
Nonsense, no special rights for religionists. Justice demands that everyone must follow the law, including faith based groups.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, it’s interesting to reflect on how long-term lesbian access to reproductive technology affects our child-bearing patterns. In our own context, it’s bedded in, so other than coparent adoptions, inclusive adoption reform is going to end up being a wet firecracker in terms of major LGBT issues.
And quite frankly, while religious organisations should be free to select their own ordination candidates, if they’re providing social services, or if it’s a case of individual religious conservatives competing against secular alternative providers in the public sphere, then the latter should stop whining and provide the services or products promised, particularly if they have accepted money beforehand, especially if contracted to do so.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If the objection had come up at te start or if the couple had been hiding their status and the doctor/hospital objected after finding out I would have more sympathy for their claim
And, interestingly enough, it did come up at the start.
In August 1999, Benitez and Clark first met with defendant Christine Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist employed by defendant North Coast. Benitez mentioned that she was a lesbian. Dr. Brody explained that at some point intrauterine insemination (IUI) might have to be considered. In that medical procedure, a physician threads a catheter through the patient?s cervix and inserts semen through the catheter into the patient?s uterus. Dr. Brody said that if IUI became necessary, her religious beliefs would preclude her from performing the procedure for Benitez.
Pages 3, 4, and 5 detail the sequence of events.
Faith based groups should be allowed to freely discriminate on the basis of religion, sex or sexual orientation.
Indeed they should, just as gay and lesbian groups should be allowed to freely discriminate if they so choose.
However, since gay and lesbians demand that other people be prevented from discriminating, gay and lesbian social service and other agencies should be sued and required by law to give equal amounts of money and service to straight people, religious people, and everyone else that they do to gay and lesbian people.
posted by John on
This is one of the important evidence how the doctors are treating the patients through this they can know what they are doing either it is wrong or right.
John
[url=”http://www.drugaddiction.net/south-dakota”]South Dakota Drug Addiction[/url]
posted by JOHN on
Yes, the doctors has to ashame themselves and they have to behave like doctors, but not like devils.
John
[url=http://www.drugaddiction.net/south-dakota]SouthDakotaDrugAddiction[/url]
posted by Richard II on
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution ought to give all citizens a right to — among other things — religious freedom.
A religious, sectarian or faith based group should have a 1st Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of its religious or moral beliefs.
It is not an absolute right, no right is. However, telling a religious or faith based group or individual citizen that they have to change their religious or moral beliefs is not something that should be done lightly, if the 1st Amendment is to have any meeaning.
As someone who has a bit of professional legal experience, court documents do not always tell the entire story and sometimes — often — people on both sides lie or simply do not remember everything entirely accuratly.
Again, if the religious objections were aired from the get go, that would work in their favor, in my opinion.
Yet, their are other issues to consider; is this a religious hospital, how large is it, does the employer allow for such rights of refusal, did the lesbian couple look into other local alternatives.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard II said “Faith based groups should be allowed to freely discriminate on the basis of religion, sex or sexual orientation.”
Northdallass responded “Indeed they should, just as gay and lesbian groups should be allowed to freely discriminate if they so choose.”.
And while we’re at it lets bring back “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed” signs.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately for you, Priya, your attempt to invoke racism is undercut by the fact that liberals and the Democrat Party fully support and endorse it when carried out by black people.
For example:
Det. Brian White, a sheriff’s officer assigned to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, said Kilpatrick threw him off the porch of a home owned by Kilpatrick’s sister Ayanna. The mayor shouted obscenities and racial remarks, White told the court.
White went to the front door of Ayanna Kilpatrick’s home with his partner, Joanne Kinney, looking for Bobby Ferguson. Ayanna Kilpatrick is married to Daniel Ferguson, Bobby Ferguson’s relative.
“He grabbed me and threw me,” White testified, adding that Kilpatrick was irate. Under cross-examination he said he was thrown into a collision with Kinney.
White also testified the mayor shouted at Kinney: “How can a black woman be riding in a car with a man named White?”…….
Kinney also took the stand. She had been a former Detroit homicide cop. She confirmed White’s story that the mayor pushed White and launched into a tirade.
“He was irate,” she said. She also recalled how Kilpatrick, whom she had never met before, told her: “You are a black woman with a man with the last name White … You should be ashamed of yourself.”
Or the latest:
Cobb said the confrontation started when she and Jones, who is also African-American, were talking about an earlier conversation they had at the Bud Billiken Parade in Chicago. “One day, you’ll be on the right side,” Cobb said Jones told her. She told him she was on the right side. She said Jones pointed at his Obama hat and said, “No, this is the right side,” she said.
“Then he came up behind me. He said ‘Thirty-five thousand people went to Springfield [to support Obama on Saturday],'” she said. “I said, ‘Then 35,000 people drank the Kool-Aid.,’ He said, ‘Barack is a clean-cut guy. He never liked gutter politics, that’s why the Clintons did so-and-so. …’ I said, ‘I don’t want to get into this. So I went over to the elevator, and he said, ‘Uncle Tom!’ Then he grabbed me and hugged me and started laughing. I said, ‘What did you say?’ I turned to Freddrenna Lyle, and I said, ‘What did he say?’ She wouldn’t say anything, That’s when I said some bad things to him.”
Taking a final shot at Jones, Cobb said, “Calling me an ‘Uncle Tom’ is beyond the pale, especially considering where he is [close] with Mayor Daley and with [Gov.] Blagojevich, I am hardly the Uncle Tom here.”
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Priya, your attempt to invoke racism is undercut by the fact that liberals and the Democrat Party fully support and endorse it when carried out by black people.”.
Yawn…
Once again the isolated actions of one individual is not representative of all members of a group. You want to suggest “liberals and democrats fully endorse and support racism” you’ll need a randomly sampled representative national survey of Democrats and liberals demonstrating that this is indeed what they believe.
Until then your logic is no more convincing then saying all that because RJ Rushdoony, Gary North, and George Grant all advocated the death penalty for gays all Christians fully support and endorse killing gays. If you had any moral integrity you’d stop using this sort of lie which you’ve relied on over and over and over – its not at all convincing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Until then your logic is no more convincing then saying all that because RJ Rushdoony, Gary North, and George Grant all advocated the death penalty for gays all Christians fully support and endorse killing gays.
Unfortunately, Priya, you have insisted that all Christians support murder.
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
Furthermore, elsewhere, you have demonstrated that you yourself refuse to provide any such evidence or to review it fairly.
Meanwhile, I have such proof; all of the Democrats I mentioned were elected officials, elected by a vote of and supported by the Democrat Party.
Why would people vote for these racists if they opposed their racism? What is more likely is that Democrat voters like you, Priya, fully endorse and support and will vote for black racists — just like you fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth, all because they’re Democrats.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Unfortunately, Priya, you have insisted that all Christians support murder.”.
No where in that quote did I make such a statement, you lie, again.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, elsewhere, you have demonstrated that you yourself refuse to provide any such evidence or to review it fairly.”.
Check it out yourself, Leviticus 20:10:
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”.
And more of that “wonderful” bible for you”
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#10
As to your claim that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth,”, provide the quote or admit you’re lying.
Now let’s get back to your original point: “Unfortunately for you, Priya, your attempt to invoke racism is undercut by the fact that liberals and the Democrat Party fully support and endorse it when carried out by black people.”.
Let’s assume this is true. What you’re saying is that because Liberals and Democrats are racists that this makes it okay for Christians and Republicans to be racist. That because Liberals and Democrats are racist that I can’t argue that its wrong to have “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs”….Absolutely preposterous, but of course that is typical for you.
posted by Priya Lynn on
And answer me this Northdallass, if Christians and gays should be allowed to freely discriminate, on what basis do you oppose whites runnning “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No where in that quote did I make such a statement
In the very first sentence:
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Next:
As to your claim that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth,”, provide the quote or admit you’re lying.
That’s easy; notice your endorsement and support of the Democrat Party and your insistence that all gays must vote Democrat.
Finally:
Let’s assume this is true. What you’re saying is that because Liberals and Democrats are racists that this makes it okay for Christians and Republicans to be racist. That because Liberals and Democrats are racist that I can’t argue that its wrong to have “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs”
You can argue it all you want, Priya; the problem is that both you and your Democrat Party are making it perfectly clear that “black only” and “no whites allowed” signs are OK, that blacks should be publicly shamed and humiliated for even daring to ride in a car with white people, and that working with white people makes you an “Uncle Tom”.
Worse, you are arguing that gays and lesbians should support racists like this because they’re “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass, my statement “Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.” is not a statment that “all Christians support murder.”. You lie.
I said “As to your claim that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth,”, provide the quote or admit you’re lying.
Northdallass said “That’s easy; notice your endorsement and support of the Democrat Party and your insistence that all gays must vote Democrat.”.
As was inevitable, you have provided no evidence that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth,” because I have never done so – you are a liar.
Northdallass said “You can argue it all you want, Priya; the problem is that both you and your Democrat Party are making it perfectly clear that “black only” and “no whites allowed” signs are OK, that blacks should be publicly shamed and humiliated for even daring to ride in a car with white people, and that working with white people makes you an “Uncle Tom”.
No, I oppose “black only” or “no whites allowed signs just as I oppose “whites only” or “no blacks allowed” signs just as I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and religion. It is YOU who stated that “faith based groups should be allowed to discriminate freely just as gay and lesbian organizations should be allowed to”. Its YOU that thinks “blacks should be publicly shamed and humiliated for even daring to ride in a car with white people, and that working with white people makes you an “Uncle Tom”.”.
You think gays, lesbians and Christians should be allowed to freely discriminate, you have no objection to whites discriminating against blacks or blacks discriminating against whites.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Don’t hide from the question Northdallass, if Christians and gays should be allowed to freely discriminate, on what basis do you oppose whites runnning “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs?
posted by Richard II on
Having a religious exemption for the sexual orientation part of a civil right law does not mean that we abolish all such laws.
At least one state, Minnesota, that has sexual orientation civil rights laws also has exemptions for faith based organizations.
Typical such also exempt certain youth groups and small levels of economic activity.
It would seem that this thread has fallen down into another, “well all liberals eat kittens” and “No, no, all conservatives eat kittens and babies”..
Not too much fun for an Independent, like myself, to watch.
posted by Richard II on
Few religions formally endorse racial discrimination in the context of modern America.
The notable exceptions would be the faith based group that were tied to the KKK or other such white supremacists groups.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard, only Northdallass is taking the line that all members of the opponents party eat kittens.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Same question to you Richard, if Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gays, why shouldn’t they be allowed to discriminate against blacks as they’ve done in the past?
One need only look to Alexander Stephens’ famous Cornerstone Speech, where he laid out the case for fighting the Civil War in order to maintain slavery as God intended and specifically contrasted this with the naturalistic ideas of those who opposed slavery:
“I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal…
With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.”
posted by Priya Lynn on
Jesse Helms was a prominent Republican racist, by Northdallass’s logic since Republicans voted him in, and he supports Republicans he and all Republicans are racists.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, my statement “Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.” is not a statment that “all Christians support murder.”.
LOL….if there is any ambiguity whatsoever in that statement, there are others as well, you know.
Nonsense. Islam and Christianity are the problem. Both the Koran and the bible contain loads of hate speech calling for the death of non-believers and gays. You’re in no position to claim they are not the problem when you fail to demand that such hate speech be removed from both. Both PROVIDE justification to fanantical extremists like Phelps and suicide bombers. You can’t claim they aren’t a problem and then happily distribute such books calling for the death of innocents.
As was inevitable, you have provided no evidence that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth,”
Certainly I have; you have proudly proclaimed how you endorse and support Democrat Party members like John Kerry, Harold Ford, Howard Dean, and Jesse Jackson, just to name a few.
And finally, the only person you are hurting by discriminating is yourself. I don’t know a business yet that can afford to turn down customers or qualified employees, and the vast majority won’t. You have the right to post your sign and run your business as you see fit; I have the right to shop elsewhere if I see fit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jesse Helms was a prominent Republican racist, by Northdallass’s logic since Republicans voted him in, and he supports Republicans he and all Republicans are racists.
LOL…and again, Priya tries to spin and protect her living racist Democrat Party members with references to a dead person who’s been out of office for years.
If she’s so obsessed with ending racism, why is she not attacking her fellow Democrats who are clearly racist?
Answer: Because her sexual orientation requires her to defend and support everything that Democrats do.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass saqid “you have proudly proclaimed how you endorse and support Democrat Party members like Harold Ford, Howard Dean, and Jesse Jackson, just to name a few.”
Provide a quote or once again prove you lied.
Once again you’re hiding from the question Northdallass, answer it this time:
If Christians and gays should be allowed to freely discriminate, on what basis do you oppose whites runnning “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs or blacks running “black only” busnesses or “blacks only” signs?
posted by akn on
North Dallas –
I don’t know if you saw this in the earlier comment threads or not, but the fertility clinic Benitez sued had an exclusive contract with her insurance plan, so that when she eventually chose to be treated at another practice, she had to pay out of her own pocket the significant portion of the cost that her insurance plan was supposed to cover. Within that context, do you still think it was acceptable for the clinic to refuse to perform that final procedure?
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass, its irrelevant that Helms is dead. He was a Republican favourite and a racist and by your logic all republican supporters like you are racists.
I happily condemn Democrat racists but its clear you don’t feel the same about Helms, you had no criticisim about him whatsoever.
I oppose discrimination, you support it. Its clear you’re the racist.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t know if you saw this in the earlier comment threads or not, but the fertility clinic Benitez sued had an exclusive contract with her insurance plan, so that when she eventually chose to be treated at another practice, she had to pay out of her own pocket the significant portion of the cost that her insurance plan was supposed to cover.
I cite the actual chain of events as stated in the court case.
The parties agree that when Benitez told Dr. Brody she wanted to use her friend?s donated fresh sperm for the IUI, Brody replied that this would pose a problem for North Coast. Its physicians had performed IUI either with fresh sperm provided by a patient?s husband or sperm from a sperm bank, but never with fresh sperm donated by a patient?s friend. To do the latter, Dr. Brody said, might delay the procedure as North Coast would first have to confirm that its protocols pertaining to donated fresh sperm would satisfy the requirements of North Coast?s state tissue bank license and the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (42 U.S.C.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, its irrelevant that Helms is dead.
Did you know what party to which George Wallace belonged, Randi, and under whose auspices he bellowed, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”?
I’m not bothering with the innumerable examples of dead Democrat racists. I’m merely pointing out the living ones, the ones you can do something about — or, more precisely, the ones who you resolutely refuse to condemn.
It’s understandable, though. Gays who criticize Democrats end up like Donald Hitchcock.
posted by Richard II on
Yawn! An attempt to have a civil and intelligent debate about an important issue, has once again been hijacked by gay partisans who would prefer to enter into a pissing contest over who can be the biggest jack as this side of lavender county.
Neither The Democratic Party or the Republican platform endorse the type of racism seem prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964′ i.e. racial segregation and ‘white only’ signs.
A few individual Democrats or Republicans may say or do stupid or racist things, but that does not mean it is a part of their party’s philosophy or platform. It does not mean that it is endorsed by most of the party members.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass, I did condemn those democrat racists, just as I condemn Republican, Christian, and LGBT racists. It is you who refused to condemn helms and the racists in the Republican party. Yet again you lie.
Not surprisingly you’re avoiding the issues at the heart of your evil and dishonesty.
You said “you have proudly proclaimed how you endorse and support Democrat Party members like Harold Ford, Howard Dean, and Jesse Jackson, just to name a few.”
Provide a quote or acknowledge you are lying.
If Christians and gays should be allowed to freely discriminate, on what basis do you oppose whites runnning “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed signs or blacks running “black only” busnesses or “blacks only” signs?
Answer, you have no basis for objection, you’d like to see a return to the day when blacks were oppressed and people refused to serve them, just as you’re thrilled when people refuse to serve gays. You think blacks should be grateful for slavery that they were brought over here to eventually be free but second class citizens, you’d like a return to those times.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard you’ve also avoided the heart of the situation, it seems you are also afraid to answer this question:
If Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gays, why shouldn’t they be allowed to discriminate against blacks as they’ve done in the past?
posted by Priya Lynn on
To further highlight Northdallass’s dishonesty, he quotes this bit from the court papers as though they were the whole story:
In August 1999, Benitez and Clark first met with defendant Christine Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist employed by defendant North Coast. Benitez mentioned that she was a lesbian. Dr. Brody explained that at some point intrauterine insemination (IUI) might have to be considered. In that medical procedure, a physician threads a catheter through the patient?s cervix and inserts semen through the catheter into the patient?s uterus. Dr. Brody said that if IUI became necessary, her religious beliefs would preclude her from performing the procedure for Benitez(1).
but omits that which immediately followed:
According to Dr. Brody, she told Benitez and Clark at that initial meeting that her North Coast colleague, Dr. Douglas Fenton, shared her religious objection to performing IUI for an unmarried woman, but that either of
two other North Coast physicians, Dr. Charles Stoopack and Dr. Ross Langley,
could do the procedure for Benitez. According to Benitez, however, Dr. Brody
said that she was the only North Coast physician with a religious objection to
performing IUI for Benitez, and that ?all other members of her practice ? whom
she believed lacked her bias ? would be available? to do this medical procedure.
1 The parties dispute the factual basis for Dr. Brody?s religious objection to
performing IUI for plaintiff. Dr. Brody claims that her religious beliefs preclude
her from active participation in medically causing the pregnancy of any unmarried
woman, and therefore her refusal to perform IUI for Benitez was based on
Benitez?s marital status, not her sexual orientation. But Benitez, whose complaint
does not allege marital status discrimination, asserts that Dr. Brody objected to
performing IUI for a lesbian, and consequently the alleged denial of the medical
treatment at issue constituted sexual orientation discrimination. The trial court
ruled that the factual basis for Dr. Brody?s objection presented a disputed issue of
material fact to be resolved at trial.
In so ruling, the trial court apparently concluded that, at the times relevant
here, California?s Unruh Civil Rights Act did not prohibit discrimination based on
marital status. The Court of Appeal in this case expressly so held. Because
Benitez?s claim for relief under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is not based on marital
status discrimination, we do not address that issue.
Brody afterwards embarked upon treating Benitez for infertility from August 1999 through june 2000, something she obviously wouldn’t or shouldn’t have done if she knew no one there would do the insemination for Benitez
posted by avee on
I don’t buy the argument that since medicine is heavily regulated by the government, and/or that medical professionals are increasingly linked in to state resources and support networks, that doctors lose the right to object to performing certain procedures on religious grounds. It’s a view that would make us all serfs of the state because we walk on government-funded sidewalks.
posted by Priya Lynn on
So Avee, you also support “whites only” businesses and “no coloureds” signs?
posted by EEKAMOUSE on
Wow, no new articles in four days. What’s the matter Mr. Miller, no new slime to throw at the Democrats?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, I did condemn those democrat racists, just as I condemn Republican, Christian, and LGBT racists.
No you did not. You need to state publicly that Kwame Kilpatrick and Emil Jones are both racists, and that anyone who is associated with them, has ever supported them, or even belongs to the same party as them is a racist as well, just as you claim for Jesse Helms.
Provide a quote or admit you are lying..
So now Priya Lynn is denying that she supports Democrats and Democrat Party members.
Not surprisingly, she’s dropped her whole attempt to argue that she never accused all Christians of supporting murder.
Answer, you have no basis for objection, you’d like to see a return to the day when blacks were oppressed and people refused to serve them, just as you’re thrilled when people refuse to serve gays. You think blacks should be grateful for slavery that they were brought over here to eventually be free but second class citizens, you’d like a return to those times.
The funny part about that is how much it sounds like Kwame Kilpatrick’s tantrums about how holding him accountable for his behavior is “racist” and how it’s all about how white people are using the law to “oppress” him and treat him like a ‘second-class citizen”.
Just like how Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that investigating her and holding her accountable for her several years of sexually harassing others, demanding sex from unwilling people, and discriminating against people to whom she wasn’t sexually attracted or had rebuffed her was “homophobia and sexism”.
As to the “grateful” remark, as outlined elsewhere, that was something that you and ColoradoPatriot created yourself and then decided to proclaim to the world. Interestingly enough, the original post where ColoradoPatriot mentions it was deleted for content — which speaks volumes about the degree of hate and prejudice that was involved on ColoradoPatriot’s and your parts in writing it.
Furthermore, given your sudden insistence that anyone who has any concerns about this case is a racist who wants “whites only” businesses and “no coloureds” signs, regardless of their political affiliation, I think it should be obvious to everyone that you’re pretty much off the rails at this point.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To further highlight Northdallass’s dishonesty, he quotes this bit from the court papers as though they were the whole story:
And, just in case you missed this part, Priya, there WERE two doctors who were perfectly capable of performing IUI with frozen sperm, as the patient had requested.
Two of his colleagues, Drs. Charles Stoopack and Ross Langley, had no such religious objection
Which is what Dr. Brody said in the first place.
Again, I see less a matter of discrimination than I do impatience, bad timing, and miscommunication.
Was that worth a court case that now establishes that gay and lesbian-owned or operated businesses can be sued and punished for refusing to print or perform services for groups they don’t like?H
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “You need to state publicly that Kwame Kilpatrick and Emil Jones are both racists, and that anyone who is associated with them, has ever supported them, or even belongs to the same party as them is a racist as well, just as you claim for Jesse Helms.”.
I never claimed that about Jesse helms, I don’t believe that. I stated that by YOUR logic, not mine, you and all republicans are racists because Jesse Helms was. It was YOU who insisted all Democrats are racists because a couple of isolated individuals were.
You can’t have it both ways, claiming on one hand that a Democrat racists makes all Democrats racists but that a Republican racist doesn’t mean the same thing. But of course like the troll you are you will lamely attempt to do so.
Once AGAIN, I condemn Kwame Kilpatrick Emil Jones, Jesse helms, all republican, democratic, christian, and LGBT racists, its you who refuses to condemn helms and Republican racists because you support discrimination including racism.
Northdallass said “So now Priya Lynn is denying that she supports Democrats and Democrat Party members.”.
Nonsense, I made no such denial. You claimed that I supported Democrat Party members like Harold Ford, Howard Dean, and Jesse Jackson, and that I “fully endorse, support, and will vote for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays, people who call Jewish people “hymies”, and so forth”.
I deny that. You couldn’t produce a quote demonstrating that I supported such people because you lied.
Northdallass said “Not surprisingly, she’s dropped her whole attempt to argue that she never accused all Christians of supporting murder.”
The quotes you provided made it clear I never said “all Christians support murder”. The quotes of me said some christians do and that is the truth. Many, perhaps most Christians, have never read their bible or distributed it and are unaware of the evil contained within. You have read it and fully support and endorse it, you clearly support murder.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, given your sudden insistence that anyone who has any concerns about this case is a racist who wants “whites only” businesses and “no coloureds” signs, regardless of their political affiliation, I think it should be obvious to everyone that you’re pretty much off the rails at this point.”.
LOL, not even close. YOU advocate allowing Christians and LGBTS to discriminate as they see fit. YOU refuse to condemn Helms and other republican racists. YOU have repeatedly refused to explain on what basis “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed” signs should be prohibited given your support of discrimination. YOU have repeatedly passed up the opportunity to condemn racism or discrimination and have expressed your support for them. YOU have said that blacks should be grateful for slavery. Its obvious YOU would be thrilled to have “whites only” businesses “no blacks or gays allowed” signs.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Was that worth a court case that now establishes that gay and lesbian-owned or operated businesses can be sued and punished for refusing to print or perform services for groups they don’t like?”.
Don’t be insane, of course. Just as Christians should not be allowed to discriminate against blacks or gays LGBT groups should not be allowed to discriminate against Christians or people they don’t like. You support allowing open discrimination because you know Christians and whites are powerful and blacks and LGBTS are not. You know the result of open discrimination will result in the powerful (Christians and whites) oppressing the weak (blacks and LGBTs) and that’s just the way you like it. Once again I clearly and unequivocally stand against evil and you clearly and unequivocally support it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I missed this earlier, at August 25, 2008, 4:51pm Northdallass said “You have the right to post your sign and run your business as you see fit”.
LOL, he advocates “whites only” businesses and “no blacks allowed” signs at one point and then at August 26, 2008, 3:48pm he whines about my pointing it out and that he doesn’t want to look like the racist he is.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
This is such an easy question, I wonder why PrincessPriyaLynn has to go through all these ridiculous contortions– it’s almost like she misses the irrelevant debates about how many angels can dance on a pin’s head.
The simple fact is that civil societies have long recognized that forcing professional medical personnel to conduct medical procedures, that they oppose on conscientious grounds, is foolhardy. Abortion ring a bell anyone?
Frankly, I think these are the kind of gay-centered matters which, when brought into the light of MSM’s exposure, make gays look like a bunch of self-centered, me-versus-society, it’s-my-agenda-and-I’m-the-victim whiners who have little regard for the standard that if medical professionals have conscientious objections to performing a procedure, don’t force them. Find a willing, supportive physician –yes, gayHysterics, even it means you have to go outside your PPO or HMO. Document and get a referral… and get on with your life. It’s not ALL about you –but isn’t that what gayLefties want? To have it all about them? 24×7?
Just like the gayLeft’s embrace of securing marriage equality via judicial fiat… this case strikes most Americans as overly self-indulgent and needlessly antagonistic.
But, then, when those are the leading values shared by the gayLeft leadership in our community, it should be no wonder the message they send to the public is one of in-ur-face and you WILL validate our lifestyle or be placed in a re-education camp for the politically incorrect.
Why PrincessPriyaLynn wants to make an inappropriate parallel to racial segregation in this case defeats all logic, reason or sanity.
Oh, wait, we have the answer right there… the goal is to irritate as many “religionists” as possible, stand reason and logic on their head, and try to practice watersports on the public’s perception of gays while she’s at it… that’s the answer.
No wonder we keep losing on gay civil rights in state after bloody state; we have the wrong “voices” speaking on behalf of gays and setting the agenda.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never claimed that about Jesse helms, I don’t believe that. I stated that by YOUR logic, not mine, you and all republicans are racists because Jesse Helms was.
An example would work best here for explaining the problem with Priya using that attempted defense.
What is the truth is that you passionately defended pedophelia and deviant sex at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm in this thread:
In that thread I stated the following:
It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions, which you allegedly oppose.
Furthermore, your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional — given that you argue marriage is a matter of “equal protection” and therefore cannot be denied anyone under our Constitution.
Finally, it is the Christian church that has, over centuries, pushed the idea of a two-person, male and female, monogamous, lifetime commitment as being marriage — which means your insistence on any of the above is religious-based discrimination and should not be considered part of public policy.
Now, note the difference: while Priya Lynn is allowed to use “other peoples’ logic” without supporting or believing it, she insists that other people doing so means that they support and believe the thing in question.
Again, as noted by others of the liberal persuasion, this is typical of Priya Lynn; she demands of others that which she will not provide herself, and she imposes arbitrary standards that she has no intention of following.
Finally, I think the grip that Priya Lynn has — or more precisely, doesn’t have — on reality is best illustrated in this statement:
Many, perhaps most Christians, have never read their bible or distributed it and are unaware of the evil contained within.
Of course, this is little more than an attempt on Priya’s part to spin away from her very clear statements above that Christianity and all Christians support murder. But unfortunately for Priya’s argument, that would mean that anyone who has read or quotes the Bible as a reference supports evil and thus supports murder, torture, and whatnot — which means she supports and endorses such a person.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX observes: “Of course, this is little more than an attempt on Priya’s part to spin away from her very clear statements above that Christianity and all Christians support murder.”
Wow, what is it with all these gayLefites on IGF who spin feverishly in circles to avoid simple, clear, immutable and rational truths? It’s like watching a dog chase his tail at a MikeVick fight to avoid entering the ring.
But it does seem the Princess is getting a little more heated, more wild in her statements these days… I call it the Obama Effect. As Obama continues his inexorable slide into 2nd place in the prez sweepstakes, the gayLefties and gayDemocrats shilling for him get more partisan, more heated, more anxious in their speech.
It’ll be just moments or days before we start getting the “gays who support McCain-the-Maverick are sell outs” line again… just like in the early fall of 2004 and 2000. The ObamaEffect on gayLefites is a force to be reckoned.
Be careful NDXXX, be verrry careful.
posted by Pat on
Wow, what is it with all these gayLefites on IGF who spin feverishly in circles to avoid simple, clear, immutable and rational truths? It’s like watching a dog chase his tail at a MikeVick fight to avoid entering the ring.
I’ve seen this exchange go on for awhile, Matt, and it goes back a ways. All I can tell you is that the feverish spinning and the avoidance of simple, clear, immutable, and rational truths isn’t only coming from the left on this site. Anyway, that’s my last word on this exchange.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat writes “I’ve seen this exchange go on for awhile, Matt, and it goes back a ways. All I can tell you is that the feverish spinning and the avoidance of simple, clear, immutable, and rational truths isn’t only coming from the left on this site. Anyway, that’s my last word on this exchange.”
Yes, I know. I’ve watched supposedly gayIndependents get deep into it as well… and even writers at IGF who contend with a srt8 face they are not liberal, elitist gayDemocrats but only fairminded intellectuals who see it all from both sides.
It’s amazing, Pat.
But I do like the visual of a poor ol’ dog awaiting a MikeVick fight and chasing around his tail to prove he isn’t fit for the ring… and saving his hide in the process… to describe some of the spinning by the gayLeft here.