James Kirchick asks whether religious-based opposition to same-sex marriage, or specifically, to providing services to a same-sex wedding, is always bigotry, as some blithely assert. He writes:
One reason [New York’s Marriage Equality Act] passed is that the act included a provision that prohibits state courts from penalizing religious institutions for refusing to recognize or sanctify gay marriages or providing services to same-sex weddings.
Should this protection be extended to closely held for-profit family businesses when New Yorkers use them to exercise their religious views? “Yes,” the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to say in the Hobby Lobby case, although that dealt with birth control.
The justices may someday be asked to extend Hobby Lobby to small businesses being pressed on same-sex weddings. In rejecting the idea that a ban on same-sex marriage can be only about prejudice, New York’s high court offered a template.
It led to gay marriage here while protecting religion.
But if you dismiss faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage as “bigotry,” than there is no room for accommodating the small number of service providers who, citing religious convictions, wish not to be forcibly coerced into facilitating same-sex weddings. In this situation, if you look at who is acting like the Grand Inquisitors, it’s not the service providers.
More. Hatefully humorous, and a sign (among many) of the backlash that seems to be brewing and which certain activists seem intent on courting (and no doubt would profit from, in several senses).
As many are coming to realize, with military service and marriage equality won (or nearly so), the fundraising machine needs new enemies. So rev up the culture war against religious dissenters.
Related:
“Either you have three friends who are LGBTQ or you pay a penalty equal to the ObamaCare penalty, proportionate to your income. So, if you fail to have ObamaCare and fail to have enough LGBTQ friends, you could pay the ObamaCare.”
Republican legislators banned from Fargo coffee shop “Unless accompanied by a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual, queer, intersex or asexual person.”
88 Comments for “Liberty and Religious Accommodation”
posted by Jorge on
Much as I agree with New York’s decision, Kirchick’s reasoning is a little tortured. There is no need to read religion into the decision. It stands on pure social order reasoning; and because it does, it is very difficult to link the New York decision to the kind of religious objection that is about protecting oneself from sin. The decision is more easily linked to legislating morality.
I have gone that road, though (on an unrelated issue). But the gay marriage equivalent of following a NYS Court of Appeals-inspired conscientious objection is to either A) get married (in a state that doesn’t recognize it), or B) reject marriage (in a state that recognizes gay marriage) and enter another legal or personal relationship.
posted by JohnInCA on
Yeah, it’s funny that when the GOP is willing to go to the table to compromise on an issue, they get a compromise. Instead what we’re seeing in most of the US is fighting to the bitter end (and beyond, in Alabama’s case), leaving no room for compromise.
Just how is it *our* fault when the people that think Lawrence v. Texas was wrong decided refuse to come to the table?
All that said, *no one* is acting like the “grand inquisitors”. A couple of “journalists” have gone drumming around for stories but even they’re just giving people enough rope to hang themselves with (and as was demonstrated last week, this applies to both sides of the issue. Funny you never commented on the bakery in Florida) but for the most part people that have, in good faith, gone seeking services have been arbitrarily denied and sought action as their state allows. That’s not an inquisition by any stretch. To pretend it is? Is dishonest.
posted by Doug on
Back in the 60’s when I was in high school religion was used to fight interracial marriage(it’s unnatural and against god’s law). Those who fought against interracial marriage are now considered racist. Those who are fighting same sex marriage are similarly anti-gay and homophobic. The Bible says precious little about homosexuality and much more about more mortal sins which most of the religion right seems to have no problem with.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am consistently amazed at the lengths to which so-called “libertarians” aligned with the Republican Party go to try to pound a square peg into a round hole.
Listen. This is not rocket science.
We have the cultural expectation that businesses that offer goods and services to the general public will, in fact, offer the goods and services offered to the general public to all of the public who elect to become customers of the business. To that end, federal, state and local governments have enacted a variety of laws — public accommodations laws, disability access laws, and so on — to enforce that cultural expectation.
We also know that a relatively small number of of small businesses, almost always owner-operated, find it burdensome to comply with the laws, again for a variety of reasons — bigotry, religious conviction, financial inability, sheer orneriness, what not. To accommodate the owner/operators of such businesses, many of the laws enacted provide “de minimis” thresholds, exempting small businesses from complying with the law.
We could easily do that to exempt small, owner-operated businesses who find it burdensome to provide goods and services to weddings that the owners find objectionable — same-sex weddings, weddings for persons remarried after a divorce, interracial marriages, inter-religious and inter-cult marriages. All we would have to do is establish a “de minimis” threshold, figure out what kind of notice requirement, if any, the businesses should give, and enact the exemption into law.
Instead, the so-called “libertarians” aligned with the Republican Party flounder around “like a drunk trying to find a good reason” (Hank III), treating us to more and more improbable hooks upon which to hang that hat.
We’ve been treated to arguments that “religious freedom” requires us to exempt business owners who don’t want to “support” same-sex weddings (with no concern at all about business owners who don’t want to “support” other types of weddings), that baking cakes, making a flower arrangement or taking a photograph is a form of “expressive freedom” akin to writing a novel or painting a portrait, that “freedom of association” demands that we exempt business from “supporting” same-sex weddings (again with no concern about other types of objectionable weddings). We been told that the longstanding legal and cultural discrimination that is our history is nothing at all like the horrors of segregation. We’ve been told that opposition to marriage equality is not always bigotry, and therefore we should sanction bigotry. We’ve been told that we are “sore winners”, “statists”, “authoritarians”, bullies, neo-Nazis and worse. The volume and increasing irrationality of it all is stunning.
As Jorge observed about the latest (Kirchick) sleight-of-hand to the end of pounding the square peg, “[the] reasoning is a little tortured”. More than a little, actually. The reasoning is disconnected from reality.
If the solution — a “de minimis” exemption — is obvious, so is the reason why we are being put through the exercise.
The Republican Party “base” includes a significant number of conservative Christians and other social conservatives who abhor homosexuality, and find the current cultural acceptance of gays and lesbians abhorent.
Over the years, the “base” has lost battle after battle. Sodomy is no longer a crime. Police no longer raid gay bars, and we see fewer and fewer instances of entrapment as time goes by. We are permitted to teach in public schools. We can, for the most part, live where they want to live, and hold the jobs that they want to hold, if qualified. We can serve in the military. In many parts of the country, we can hold public office. Little by slowly, the legal and cultural scaffolding that kept gays and lesbians in the closet, despised, has been dismantled. And, cultural (if not legally, yet) marriage equality has been accepted throughout the nation, and the highest achievement of the “base” (the anti-marriage amendments) is about to fall, one way or the other.
Against that backdrop, the “base” is determined to use the law to “make a statement” about the immorality of homosexuality. It cannot do so directly. But it can do so indirectly, using “religious freedom” as the vehicle, making implicit what cannot be made explicit. And that is what it is doing.
The fact that the so-called “religious freedom” bills aren’t intended to promote religious freedom is irrelevant to them, because promoting religious freedom is irrelevant to them. What is relevant to them is to use the law to make a statement about the immorality of homosexuality.
The Republican Party and its affiliates (including, in particular, the so-called “libertarians” aligned with the Republican Party) have to allow themselves to be co-opted in the effort, or lose the “base” in the general election. Everyone in the party knows that, and that is the reason why Jeb Bush and other so-called “gay accepting” candidates and so-called “libertarians” have been so quick to hop on the “religious freedom” bandwagon, despite the fact that another part of the Republican base — the business Republicans — are in revolt, and why the obvious solution — a “de minimis” exemption, tried and true with a long history of success — is off the table.
I get it. I just won’t go along with it. It looks like a lot of other Americans aren’t buying, either.
posted by dalea on
On top of all the bs Tom points out, there is the matter of standard commercial practice and contracts. These contracts are totally voluntary, freely entered into for mutual benefit, under penalty of perjury. And they always insist that the signer will sell to any lawful buyer any product or service on offer, without hesitation or reserve. This is required by every retail lease I have ever seen or heard about. It is impossible to have a retail business in a fixed location without giving up the right to discriminate.
Such terms are also required by commercial bank accounts and loans. And by merchants associations and other promotional organizations.
Third party payment systems, such as credit and debit cards, require under contract with penalty of perjury, that the vendor sell any item or service to offer to any card holder. This may be the better route for protest, ask the credit card companies to discipline the vendor, or revoke their status.
The notion that a business owner has carte blanche to choose customers is simply not in accord with market realities. So called libertarians should be expected to know something about how markets actually work. It is usually called ‘civil society’ and some libertarians both take it seriously and understand how it works.
The people being defended here are perjurers, have breached contracts unilaterally, lack due diligence, and are in need of specific performance.
posted by Jorge on
Instead what we’re seeing in most of the US is fighting to the bitter end (and beyond, in Alabama’s case), leaving no room for compromise.
Those lawsuits and state actions against bakers and florists, not to mention the madness that happened with a pizza shop in Indiana, give very little incentive to compromise. In any circumstance in which death is certain, the correct course of action is always, always to attack. This is true of video games, war, and politics. As the likelihood of total destruction decreases, so too does the utility of a less virulent response.
posted by Jorge on
…so too does the utility of a less virulent response.
Excuse me, that part increases.
posted by Mike in Houston on
This canard, again:
These are not — as in the case of NY — religious institutions (like churches or private church schools). They are ostensibly businesses that are open to the public.
And now the argument has gone from “participating in” to “facilitating”… neither of which is an appropriate description of the activity: being a vendor.
Maggie Gallagher even gave up the ghost on that whole nonsense in her reporting on Rand Paul’s campaign announcement:
(Bolding is mine.)
Setting aside the fact that Maggie has done nothing but make a living out of opposing marriage equality, it’s clear to her (even in her usual high-Catholic dudgeon) that a wedding vendor is not “participating” in the wedding any more than the housekeeper at the Marriott is “participating” in the wedding night.
But if we’re now on the “facilitating” track, let’s look at the definition:
I suppose you could argue that a pizza place is “facilitating” by delivering my pizza on time… and that a wedding vendor is doing the same by living up to their contractual obligations of delivering flowers, cakes and decorations… and someone with a religious objection may not want to “make it easy” for same-sex couples on their wedding day. I call that being an a$$hole, whatever the motivation.
But I fail to see — despite the desperate argument spinning coming from Kirchick, et al — how this magically transforms into a new “right” where public accommodations can turn away members of one certain minority group for no reason other than what they claim to be a religious objection.
posted by Jorge on
And now the argument has gone from “participating in” to “facilitating”… neither of which is an appropriate description of the activity: being a vendor.
I fundamentally disagree with you on both legislating morality and libertarian grounds.
Whether or not something is “an appropriate description of the activity: being a vendor” is entirely up to the people. It is not the place of a few liberal elites to decide this issue. Unless, of course, such elites reach a majority.
Secondarily, whether or not something is “an appropriate description of the activity: being a vendor” is entirely up to the vendor. It’s nobody else’s business. Suffice it to say I think there should be a good reason to interfere with a vendor’s right to be left alone, and I hardly think a dispute over diction is one of them. The only reason I can think of to justify that level of interference is pure self-interest, political hardball.
posted by Lori Heine on
Oh, that’s funny! We resent our own rights being subjected to public opinion.
So…let’s do it to someone else’s.
And the battery in the irony alarm is dead.
A better metaphor might be that the game is close to over. What are “activists” to do? Why, kick the ball back inbounds again. We NEED public accommodations! No cake baker spared! And now!
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s hilarious that the worst example the right can come up with for religious persecution of Christians is being forced to sell a cake to gay people. The horror!
But the right should be honest if this is how they want to do things and call for full repeal of all civil rights laws and we can have that debate. I welcome it, in fact.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Lori;
The following statement is total BS; “We NEED public accommodations! No cake baker spared! And now!” Why did you say it?
What people like me (and others) have said is that their is already a very good way to provide the sort of exemption that these small/self-employed business owners are seeking (at least on paper) without getting into the ridicules idea that any business owner should be able to do anything that he or she wants because, well, anarchy and Ayn Rand.
posted by Clayton on
Since Bakers have come to be a symbol of all that is perceived as right or wrong in the march toward equality, I’d like to put this on the table:
I pay federal taxes, part of which build and maintain interstate highways on which many of the baker’s supplies are trucked.
I pay state taxes, part of which pay for police to patrol those highways, keeping them safe.
I pay city and county taxes, part of which build and maintain the streets and sidewalks that make the bakery accessible, and part of which supply an educated workforce for that bakery.
So someone please explain to me why that baker should be free to refuse my business when my tax dollars are instrumental in making that bakery’s operations possible?
Because of a religious objection to my marriage? Please! I can understand a principled objection to same-sex marriage that is not bigotry.
But is this bakery also refusing wedding cakes to non-virgins? To couples currently living together “in sin”? To couples who use contraception? To couples in which one or both members are previously divorced? To couples in inter-faith marriages? To couples who are athiest? Is it refusing baby shower cakes to unwed mothers?
If the answer to these questions is “no” (as I suspect it is), and the baker is using sincerely held religious beliefs only to gay and lesbian couples, then the owner is, in fact, displaying anti-gay bigotry. And the baker is welcome to be bigoted against gays and lesbians (or against people of other religions, or other races, or other political persuasions), but the baker should not be allowed to deny services to any one of these groups, all of whom pay taxes that make the baker’s business possible.
posted by Jimmy on
“But is this bakery also refusing wedding cakes to non-virgins? To couples currently living together “in sin”? To couples who use contraception? To couples in which one or both members are previously divorced? To couples in inter-faith marriages? To couples who are athiest? Is it refusing baby shower cakes to unwed mothers?”
If the answer is ‘yes’ to these, along with gay weddings, then it needs to be posted somewhere public so potential customers, even those that don’t belong to those groups, have full disclosure. And, if it’s just about the gays, then they really need to post publicly it.
Either way, if a business is not (really) open to the public, it should say so.
posted by Jorge on
So someone please explain to me why that baker should be free to refuse my business when my tax dollars are instrumental in making that bakery’s operations possible?
Because you have an entitlement complex. The government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
posted by clayton on
Clever, Jorge. In the absence of a substantive response, an ad hominem attack is always good.
My point (since you seem to have missed it) is that the bakery does not exist in isolation. It exists in a social context and is part of an interdependent social contract. Selling cake is a commercial transaction (not a religious expression) which is facilitated by tax dollars. So why should one group of taxpayers be excluded from commercial transactions that other groups are allowed to participate in? Please answer that question if you can do so without resorting to name -calling.
posted by Jorge on
…So why should one group of taxpayers be excluded from commercial transactions that other groups are allowed to participate in? Please answer that question if you can do so without resorting to name -calling.
There’s substance behind my attacks on your character, and also a limit to the substance.
I fundamentally disagree with your belief that the harm is significant enough to require a remedy. I think the remedy you propose is completely out of order. I also disagree with your belief that there is disproportionate harm to one group of taxpayers and not another that requires a remedy, although that’s tertiary. A number of moderate harms occurring simultaneously will even themselves out if the most important things are preserved. A number of small harms occurring simultaneously, even if in a way that is discriminatory, needs to major intervention, if any. A small correction will do.
Your justification is extremely tortured. Because you pay highway taxes that protect roads from bakers’ tires (or is it bakers’ tires from roads?), bakers should sell you food. But it is not the purpose of government to look out for the well-being of every single person. It is not the purpose of government to make sure life is fair for every single person. The government should promote the best interests of the people as a whole, and the minimal interests of each person. Your sense of violation is misplaced.
For reasons that have been described on this website ad nauseum, your justification supports an extremely malevolent result.
I would have my views prevail in government, with deference to the fact that people in government are generally more expert at running things.
We are very far apart and I believe it is very likely you are already familiar with the argument I have made.
So thank you for letting me attack you one time and asking me to explain myself.
posted by Jorge on
A number of small harms occurring simultaneously, even if in a way that is discriminatory, needs to major intervention, if any.
That should read “needs *no* major intervention, if any”
posted by Houndentenor on
More of the same bullshit? If you think some people deserve fewer rights than others you are a bigot. If you fought against and voted against lesser rights for certain people (including gay marriage) and are now complaining about your religious freedom to discriminate, you are a hypocrite. I’m tired of people who don’t respect my rights acting like I’m being mean by expecting them to respect mine. But if that’s how they want to play this then the religious exemption needs to extend so that people can be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. Oh, that’s not fair? Neither is discriminating against gay people because of their beliefs. They don’t want me to have rights? fine. Strip them of theirs while they’re at it. Otherwise I don’t want to hear about it.
posted by Mike in Houston on
This is from the amicus brief signed by (among others) the Mormon Church:
Basically standing pluralism on its head. When confronted with this sort of animus toward LGBT rights — however nicely couched — what can you do?
posted by Doug on
Lets keep in mind that all Christians to not discriminate against the LGBT community. In fact I would wager that those who want to discriminate are actually a minority of Christians.
This needs to be yelled from the rooftops and Christians who support LGBT rights.
posted by Mark on
Doug, I have argued for years that there are a number of religious denominations / organizations that include same-sex marriage in their particular marriage sacrament, and to deny them this ability to have marriage equality is to deny them THEIR freedom of religion.
posted by Clayton on
As an addendum, I’ll note that I worked for a catering company for several years. My presence at a wedding was not an endorsement of the suitability of the couple for marriage, nor was it an indication that I believed the marriage would be long, happy, or healthy. Similarly, I have taught in public schools for the last 26 years. Many of my students have social, political, or religious views with which I disagree. In some cases, I find their views repugnant. I still teach all of them, without complaint. When I grade their papers, I am not endorsing or judging their views. I am merely making an informed judgment as to whether they have expressed those views logically, thoughtfully, and grammatically. It’s not that hard to preserve one’s integrity when providing services to people with other views.
posted by JohnInCA on
I think you missed the part where it’s apparently against Christianity to behave in a professional manner.
posted by Lori Heine on
Again with the confusion over whether all not-very-nice people must be forced into compliance with niceness.
Nobody gets a wedding cake by wandering into a shop they know nothing about. We go to Gay Yellow Pages, or the Pride Guide, or the back pages of our local community magazine. Or we ask a friend for a suggestion.
So, if a few holdouts refuse to serve us…we must hit them. And when asked why, we reiterate that they’re not nice.
And Selma, 1955. Or something.
As this is not a matter of “Oh, the horror!” — and they’re making such cheap political hay playing victim over the fact that we’re infringing on their cake-baking and photo-taking and pizza-catering freedom, we must make a continued issue of it…why?
It’s a stupid hill to die on.
posted by Mark on
@Lori Heine
“Nobody gets a wedding cake by wandering into a shop they know nothing about. We go to Gay Yellow Pages, or the Pride Guide, or the back pages of our local community magazine.”
How myopic of you to assume that everyone who is gay or lesbian lives a life just like yours. That we all live in cities that have Gay Yellow Pages, or Pride Books or even community magazines.
For many of us, we go to the baker or florist that we have been buying from weekly for 15 years. Or perhaps the ones who provided cake or flowers that we just loved at our heterosexual friends wedding.
“So, if a few holdouts refuse to serve us…we must hit them. And when asked why, we reiterate that they’re not nice.”
No, not that they aren’t nice, we say they are breaking the law.
posted by Lori Heine on
Again, you are arguing with me about what other people think. That is entirely irrational.
We have developed a serious PR problem as a result of making an issue out of something that is unimportant. That is not going to change because of what one poll says. Nor will it go away anytime soon.
But of course that’s how the game works. And the sociopathic “activists and leaders” who run the left have made it abundantly clear that they care about nothing else.
Historic gains have been made by LGBT’s, but many of us have been duped into believing we can’t live without using a heavy-handed law to force absolutely everyone into compliance.
The game is utterly cynical, and driven by people who care about nothing except their own promotion and advancement. And the silly children who believe them continue arguing in circles.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Yep… Real big PR problem:
Most Americans side with gays in religious freedom disputes -Reuters/Ipsos poll
http://www.trust.org/item/20150409050110-5u8bu/
posted by Lori Heine on
Again, you are citing only one poll.
Destroying freedom of conscience protections for LGBT Americans, too (which is exactly what we’re doing with absurdly expanded “public accommodations” laws) helps us how?
posted by Mark on
@Lori
If you read my comment, you’ll see that I wasn’t “arguing about what other people think.”
I was commenting on what you, yourself, wrote. Nothing more or less.
Your comments about just looking in the Gay Yellow Pages were as insulting as they were inane.
Yes, 52% of the country is okay with marriage equality. Woo-hoo. But that 52% isn’t evenly distributed. There are large very red parts of this country where support is extremely low. And while it is fairly high among people who are young, people who are young don’t tend to be business owners.
Discrimination is still a very real problem in much of the country. Yeah for you for living in a place where you have options. Some of us don’t. And IF the SC gives us marriage equality nation-wide this year, there is going to be a very big backlash in many communities.
And the only thing we have to protect us is the law.
I am tired of conservative queers who have always told us to just be happy with whatever scraps are thrown our way and just shut up and be happy.
Tell me, Lori, just how exactly have conservative/libertarian gays and lesbians actually made a difference in the fight for LGBT civil rights?
I’m having a hard time remembering.
posted by Mark on
Lori:
When you say “sociopathic “activists and leaders” who run the left and you put those words activists and leaders in quote marks, you imply that they are anything but activists and leaders. Hence the quote marks. I can almost see you pausing from your furious typing to make air quote with your fingers. But there is no doubt that they are actually activists. So you should write instead “those sociopathic activists and “leaders.” So that just the leadership is in question.
And I doubt seriously that you have any understanding of what the word sociopathic means. A sociopath is someone who “whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”
I argue that someone who is a leader or activists is anything but antisocial and they are usually driven by a deep sense of moral responsibility and social conscience. As to the criminal element, well that is up for grabs depending on your point of view and the law. So just call them criminal if you feel that necessary.
When you start calling people names (as you are wont to do), please at least take the time to make sure you are using the correct derogatory words.
Regards,
Mark
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As this is not a matter of “Oh, the horror!” — and they’re making such cheap political hay playing victim over the fact that we’re infringing on their cake-baking and photo-taking and pizza-catering freedom, we must make a continued issue of it … why?
Why?
(1) Religious freedom, a subset of freedom of conscience, is too critical to a free society to allow it to be hijacked for the purpose of government-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone.
(2) Freedom of speech (or, “freedom of expression”, if you prefer) is too critical to a free society to allow it to be hijacked for the purpose of government-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone.
(3) Freedom of association (the right to join or leave groups of a person’s own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members) is too critical to be hijacked for the purpose of government-sanctioned discrmination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone.
Just as the concept of “patriotism” is diminished when hyper-conservatives are allowed to claim unchallenged that “patriotism” is defined by loud words and belligerent political attitudes, and just as Christianity is diminished when conservative Christians are allowed to claim unchallenged that “Christian” is synonymous with “anti-homosexual”, so are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association diminished when social conservatives and their so-called “libertarian” allies are allowed to link these basic freedoms to government-sanctioned discrmination, and no one challenges them because — why?
We have developed a serious PR problem as a result of making an issue out of something that is unimportant. That is not going to change because of what one poll says. Nor will it go away anytime soon.
I disagree on both scores, Lori. As noted above, I don’t think that the issues are “unimportant”. And I don’t think that we have the “serious PR problem”, if recent polls are to be believed. The more the pro-discrimination forces (including the so-called “libertarians” allied with social conservatives) talk, the faster they lose the American people. All we need to do is stay the course.
posted by clayton on
I live in a town of 18,000 people. There are no Gay Yellow pages. There is no pride guide. There is no community magazine. There is one local bakery. The next-nearest one is an hour away by car.
posted by Lori Heine on
Stay the course to do what? Destroy bigots’ ability to indulge in their bigotry?
You make no logical sense. If a majority of Americans support us, then why do we need to force the dwindling number who don’t to serve us in every capacity?
There’s some serious cognitive dissonance going on in the heads of supporters of expanded public accommodations laws.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stay the course to do what? Destroy bigots’ ability to indulge in their bigotry?
Stay the course by making reasoned arguments for “equal means equal” — that is, insist that gays and lesbians should be treated no differently under the law than other citizens, granted no special rights nor be subject to special discrimination. Americans value equal treatment of all citizens, and Americans value fairness, and we’ve made our case for equal treatment.
You make no logical sense. If a majority of Americans support us, then why do we need to force the dwindling number who don’t to serve us in every capacity?
We don’t. But we should object — loud and clear — when laws are written than sanction special discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone. We should object — loud and clear — when concepts of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are twisted out of shape in order to sanction special discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone.
Law is important. Equal treatment under the law is important. Religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of association are important. A reasonable accommodation between religious objection and laws of general application is important.
All of these are threatened by the current campaign by social conservatives (in concert with their “libertarian” allies) to use the law to sanction special discrimination.
posted by Lori Heine on
The law does need to be religion-neutral. It should not be based on religion, per se, at all. It should be based on freedom of conscience.
I don’t think we disagree there. As people of faith, we don’t want a faith other than our own enshrined in law as somehow more official or protection-worthy than ours.
If anti-gay Christians continue their tantrum much longer, they’re going to harm their own chances for employment. Big corporations, especially, will not hire people who might play pick-and-choose about when they will or will not serve customers.
posted by Mark on
@Lori
The law should be “based on freedom of conscience.” Explain to me exactly how that works?
To borrow words from you, what an illogical and stupid idea.
Conscience is that “inner voice” that tells us what is right or wrong. So you think that the law should be based on everyone’s singular inner voice? Ridiculous. What if my “inner voice” tells me that all women should be be quiet or killed? Should the law allow that? That is what my freedom of conscience tells me.
Foolish idea.
posted by Mark on
Lori, I’m still waiting for you to tell me anything that conservatives/libertarians have done to advance gay/lesbian civil rights. Thoughts on that?
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, way to reach for a colorful and extreme example.
How about laws against murder? I don’t believe anyone’s proposed that we repeal those. You must have heard something I haven’t.
LGBT Conservatives and libertarians have probably been responsible for a great part of the change of heart that many straights have had on our issues.
Leftist contentiousness and overreaction? Not so much. Conservatives think “progressives” are a pain in the a$$ regardless of orientation. Irritating the hell out of people doesn’t tend to win their hearts.
Oddly social conservatives are beginning to alienate decent people on the political right for the same reasons.
It’s interesting that the two teams think they’re so different from each other. They’re mirror images of one another.
posted by Mark on
Thanks for the compliment on my example! Much appreciated. You say “laws against murder? I don’t believe anyone’s proposed that we repeal those.” And yet honor killings are considered perfectly acceptable in many countries around the world. Even within some (small number) of communities here in the good old USofA. So your “freedom of conscience” idea is, again, just silly.
Are you 14 and just finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time?
You say “LGBT Conservatives and libertarians have probably been responsible for a great part of the change of heart that many straights have had on our issues.” but you fail to enumerate any instances of this.
Let’s think for a moment, shall we?
*Did the liberals propose, campaign on, and pass numerous state constitutional amendments banning marriage equality? No, that was your beloved libertarian/Republican coalition.
*Did the liberals vehemently fight Lawerence v. Texas? No, that was your beloved libertarian/Republican coalition.
*Did the liberals fight tooth and nail to keep DOMA? Or DADT? No, that was your beloved libertarian/Republican coalition.
*Are liberal politicians — especially presidential candidates — falling all over themselves to endorse, promote and enact “religious freedom” laws to allow discrimination against LGBT individuals? No, that IS your beloved libertarian/Republican coalition.
And the list goes on and on.
Can you give me any actual examples where the libertarian/conservative political group has advanced gay/lesbian civil rights?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
I’ll say again, I am tired of these libertarian/conservative/Republican queers telling me to be happy with the crumbs from the table. Screw that. Y’all aint done squat for any of us.
posted by Wilberforce on
You’re a moron. And it’s hard to believe that there are gay people making such stupid arguments.
My best friend summed it up quite nicely. ‘It’s the principle’
posted by Lori Heine on
Where are the nasty, crappy little juveniles coming from who post comments here? Is there some Dark Underlord, sending forth his legions of trolls?
I will not bother to respond, Mark with no last name, to most of your sewage. It is boilerplate “progressive” cant, and does not require any particular intelligence to parrot. Other than your evident nastiness as a human being, it said little about you.
The decent sorts who comment here manage to conduct themselves like grownups even when they disagree. Too bad they have to share space with cowards like Mark or Francis, who post only first names (who knows if they’re even their own), because they’re evidently such losers in the game of life that they must take out their frustrations in cyberspace.
I will no longer even reply to someone who asks me if I’m 14 and just finished reading Ayn Rand. That was such a stupid thing to say to me (itself worthy of a 14-year-old) that I will simply let it stand as a testament to its own idiocy.
Perhaps there should be a blog dedicated to cowardly Internet trolls who want to make their aching little Inner Children feel better by beating the hell out of each other with virtual stockings filled with horse manure. Then the grownups could converse without constant interruption.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“I will no longer even reply to someone who asks me if I’m 14 and just finished reading Ayn Rand. That was such a stupid thing to say to me (itself worthy of a 14-year-old)”
“Where are the nasty, crappy little juveniles coming from who post comments here? Is there some Dark Underlord, sending forth his legions of trolls?”
Hmmm. Ad hominem can become pretty ad nauseum, but not very persuasive. Well, I’m going to ask Lori if she’s 14 and just finished reading Ayn Rand, just to make sure she won’t respond to me and have another screaming mimi tirrivee.
posted by Lori Heine on
Oh, Dale, what a great big, brave man you are. I’m sure you speak exactly that way, face-to-face, to the people you know.
Sure you do.
But that’s what the people in the (corporate-funded) media tell you what to think…right? That absolutely every libertarian on the planet reads Ayn Rand and believes every word she says?
So of course it must be true.
When Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow tells you to start wearing a flower pot full of cow manure on your head, because “real progressives” do it, you’re going to be even more pleasant to be around than you undoubtedly are now.
posted by JohnInCA on
“LGBT Conservatives and libertarians have probably been responsible for a great part of the change of heart that many straights have had on our issues. ”
Um, right… it’s well established that the single biggest predictor for whether or not someone has changed their views on LGBT issues over the years is whether or not they *know* someone that’s gay. So who has “been responsible for a great part of the change of heart”? Everyone that took Harvey Milk’s advice.
That said, there *is* at least one noticable achievement of right-wing gays that I know of. Log Cabin Republicans, who let their suit against the government over DADT sit idle for years under Bush, finally pushed it hard when Obama became president. That suit (which they won) was one of many things that pressured congress to legislatively repeal DADT (allowing congress to control the process rather then just abruptly end it). This is one of many contributed factors and pressure points that combined to lead to the DADT repeal.
*That* is something you can claim. That right-wing gays (specifically, LCR) helped pressure DADT repeal. But claiming larger social change? Nope. That’s not right-wing, left-wing, that’s just people coming out.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Everyone that took Harvey Milk’s advice.”
Um, yes, John. Including gay conservatives. A lot of whom know actual straight conservatives.
Which disproves my claim that gay conservatives have been influential in swaying at least some on the political right exactly…how?
But of course it only happened on DADT reform. Okay, tell yourself that.
Yes, people in general coming out have changed public perception immensely. But since a large portion of the country is conservative, and few conservatives will listen to anyone not in their political camp, there is no escaping the conclusion that gay conservatives must have been influential on many more issues than DADT.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Which disproves my claim that gay conservatives have been influential in swaying at least some on the political right exactly…how?”
Maybe you should stick to what I actually *was* arguing?
“LGBT Conservatives and libertarians have probably been responsible for a great part of the change of heart that many straights have had on our issues. ”
Those two quotes aren’t equivalent. Don’t pretend they are.
But hey, if you want to pretend people are partisan in all their family/friend/coworker associations (which is necessary to insist that it’s *conservative* gays that sway *conservatives*, despite the evidence that *conservative* gays are less likely to come out in the first place), then the simple fact that democrats/left/liberal/whatever have turned to a much greater degree then Republicans/right/conservative/whatever shows that unless you’re creatively defining “a great part” you are, in fact, wrong.
Either way, you’re missing my point, which was that the biggest change of heart isn’t from any organized *group* or *ideology*, it’s just *people*.
“But of course it only happened on DADT reform. Okay, tell yourself that.”
I provide another example you can use to bolster your case and you yell at me? That’s gratitude for you. Also: when I specifically couch “that I know of” that’s pretty obviously not the same as “only”.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
We all understand that libertarians are as varied as Christians, or Republicans, or Democrats, but in each category there tend to be some ideas held in common, or they wouldn’t be categories. The broad problem I’ve had with libertarianism is a similarity to pornography. I sometimes find the idea and the anticipation appealing and intriguing,, but the experience has never lived up to expections. So a bit earlier, Mark asked a very reasonable question, to which he received a diversionary barrage of disparaging vitriol. So far no one has provided a straight forward, considered answer to his question, which was: “Can you give me any actual examples where the libertarian/conservative political group(s). ha(ve) advanced gay/lesbian civil rights?” (My edits.)
posted by Lori Heine on
As I’m assuming by actual examples you mean laws passed forcing people to do things, of course your question is loaded to bring a “no” response.
Your experience with libertarians doesn’t appear to have taught you that we just think very differently from statists about politics and legislation in general. We think there are better ways to influence human behavior.
The entire pizzeria crap-storm is a vivid illustration of the way the American public is letting itself get jerked around by team-sports politics. Each side is sure it must pass laws to settle an issue that would sort itself out if we just cooled our jets and stopped shoving each other around.
Nobody is going to get a wedding reception catered at a pizza parlor in Podunk country. We’re going to go to businesses we know are likely to serve us. And we’re going to ask for the type of catering appropriate for a reception. We’re not Jethro Bodine or Elly Mae Clampett.
But of course, Memories Pizza must be punished because its proprietors said mean things! Public accommodations legislation to the rescue!
The most notable result of this nonsense is that the yokels who own Memories Pizza are now nearly a million dollars richer. And they get to be martyrs to the cause.
The American people are being treated like the studio audience of an old-time kiddie program. Team Red holds up a sign that says “Cheer,” and that section dutifully cheers. Team Blue flashes a “Hiss and Boo” sign, and on the other side of the aisle, they promptly obey.
Libertarians by no means all love Ayn Rand. As I’ve said before in comments on the blog, she was anti-gay and anti-Christian, so as a gay Christian, I have little use for her. But one thing libertarians do love is the entertaining spectacle of American statist politics. It really is a grand farce.
I’d like to see less hysterical legislation on both sides. But of course, that would be no fun.
posted by Jimmy on
“As I’m assuming by actual examples you mean laws passed forcing people to do things, of course your question is loaded to bring a “no” response.”
Stop signs must really piss you off.
Every founder that became president also became a statist, too. That’s the way it is when you move from theory to reality, as Washington demonstrated in the Whiskey Rebellion. But, this state is not imposed from some outside agency. We rule ourselves by laws enacted through democratic means. Those laws must not violate our mutually agreed upon Constitution. That’s the deal, and it always has been.
posted by Francis on
I don’t see her taking kindly to “Yield” signs either. But then I’m probably biased from my previous encounters with this harpy.
posted by JohnInCA on
“As I’m assuming by actual examples you mean laws passed forcing people to do things, of course your question is loaded to bring a “no” response.”
As you say yourself, passing laws aren’t the only way to “do things”.
Nah, there are other ways. There’s lawsuits (like Lawrence v. Texas, the DOMA case, the avalanche of state ban cases), getting laws repealed (even if it’s just message legislation, there’s repealing sodomy laws, adoption bans, etc.), pressure for executive orders (like Executive Order 12968, which banned discrimination in security clearances based on sexual orientation, or former-NM Governor Richardson’s executive order to let state employees get health insurance for their long-term same-sex partner, etc.), there’s stopping bad laws (like the various “license to discriminate” laws we’ve seen).
There’s lots of ways to be a player in the game. Surely if conservatives/libertarians/whoever-you’re-trying-to-defend (you seem to be shifting which banner you’re defending post-by-post) are actually as important as you say, there is *something* tangible that they’ve done?
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“As I’m assuming by actual examples you mean laws passed forcing people to do things, of course your question is loaded to bring a “no” response.”
Well, Mark asked te question, not me. I just pointed out that no one has answered his question. For myself, no, I didn’t have new laws in mind, although I would accept such examples if they answered the question. The question asked for any examples in which libertarian/conservative groups have advanced gay/lesbian civil rights. I think most of us can agree that civil rights for gays/lesbians have advanced since Stonewall in 1969, advanced a lot. Can libertarian/conservative groups legitimately claim direct credit for any of those advances? What specific examples are there and how did they bring them about?
posted by Lori Heine on
By advances, again, you seem to mean legislation. I can’t answer positively for conservatives in that regard. Libertarians have done their part to influence general public opinion on gay rights for far longer than have progressives or Democrats, because the Libertarian Party pioneered the concept of standing in favor of them two decades before the Dems did much of anything.
As you’re lumping libertarians and conservatives together, I must assume you think they’re one and the same. I’m not a conservative. If they became more reasonable and humane, I suppose I could convert.
Other than liking to read Noam Chomsky, I suppose I no longer qualify as a progressive anymore either. Even Chomsky is starting to irritate me, because he seems to think that the U.S. is the only country in the world capable of evil.
Libertarians are neither fish nor fowl. We want less legislation in general, rather than more. As we rarely get our way about that, it’s hard to point to sweeping campaigns against our foes that have resulted in great victories. We attempt to change minds, one individual at a time.
I know. That probably sounds boring.
Mark appeared to be asking a question based on a different measurement of success. Again, libertarians don’t measure success by how many laws we pass. We’d probably be more likely to measure it by how many stupid and unnecessary ones we got repealed.
That is my answer to the question. I know you will probably find it unsatisfactory, but that doesn’t bother me in the least.
I don’t believe that public opinion changes because people are pushed around and threatened by government action. I believe it happens because they learn the errors of their bad ways and develop better ones. And I believe this happens because most of them are more reasonable than they’re given credit for being.
posted by Mark on
So tell me, Lori, how many “stupid and unnecessary” laws have you libertarians gotten repealed?
posted by Lori Heine on
As an added note, I’d like to clear up what appears to be a common misconception for leftist commenters here.
I don’t oppose expanded public accommodations laws because I “side with” social conservatives against gays. I believe that social conservatives, left to their own devices, will destroy no one but themselves. I think we should just get out of the way and let them do it.
The instinct of the gay left is to meddle: to push, push, push. I believe the best thing to do would be to just stand back and let the anti-gay crowd have all the rope it needs to hang itself. Let those people throw their tantrums, scream their absurdities, and implode. Let them drive away every last vestige of mainstream public support they have.
They’ll certainly do it. They were well on their way there, until we decided we had to pass more laws to punish them for being such meanies. Let them undo themselves.
How, exactly, that view can be understood as being pro-social conservative, or anti-gay, is beyond me. To imagine that it has a thing in the world to do with Ayn Rand is even more bizarre.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The instinct of the gay left is to meddle: to push, push, push. I believe the best thing to do would be to just stand back and let the anti-gay crowd have all the rope it needs to hang itself. Let those people throw their tantrums, scream their absurdities, and implode. Let them drive away every last vestige of mainstream public support they have.
The problem with standing back — rather than pushing back — is that the anti-gay crowd has considerable political power, and knows how to use that power.
The anti-marriage amendments are a case in point. Yes, by coming out (primarily) and making reasoned arguments for equality (secondary) we pushed back the tide of public opinion. But it took a decade, and, absent the courts, we would currently have marriage equality in about 15 states, with another decade to go in the fight for marriage equality.
Stephen’s use of a “hatefully humorous” satirical right-wing website (which unfortunately echoes “mainstream” anti-gay themes in only somewhat exaggerated form) to make the point aside, we are facing a backlash. The marriage equality court decisions of the past eighteen months has reignited the “cultural wars” for the anti-gay crowd, and we have our hands full of “backlash” bills offering a wide variety of attacks on equality.
If we don’t fight back — raise hell, if you prefer — the “tantrums” and “absurdities” won’t be exposed as such, or are at least unlikely to be exposed in a way that will capture the attention of the public. It is when we fight back that the anti-gay crowd is provoked into showing their true colors.
posted by Jim Michaud on
When I clicked on that “hatefully humorous” website, it took a few minutes to realize it was satire. Yes, they’re THAT far gone.
posted by clayton on
AyUou say the instinct of the gay left is to “push, push, push,” but it is not the gay left proposing new discriminatory legislation; it is the Christian right. To the extent the gay left is pushing, it is only pushing back. Therebis a distinct difference. It is analsgous to the difference between assault and self -defense.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
So far no one on this site has been able to provide even one example of what and how libertarian or conservative groups have advanced civil rights for gays or lesbians, and Lori seems to have had difficulty with even the concept of the question, other than passing restrictive laws.
So let me offer a “for instance.” In 1969, the police in New York City were routinely raiding gay bars and bath houses and arresting their customers, until the customers of the Stonewall Inn (many of them drag queens) fought back in a series of riots, several summer nights running. As a result of that, and subsequent negotiations by gay leaders with the city, the raids and arrests stopped, and LGBT people were left in (relative) peace to assemble publically without harassment. Did libertarian or conservative groups play a decisive or significant role in that advance?
Let me offer another “for instance,” the 2003 case of Lawrence vs. Texas, which decisively decriminalized the right of gays and lesbians to make love to each other in the privacy of their home. That was a landmark benchmark which significantly advanced LGBT civil rights. Were libertarian or conservative groups responsible for that victory?
One of those examples had to do with public civil rights. The other dealt with private civil rights. Neither involved passing new laws, although the latter involved invalidating an existing law that had been passed by anti-gay conservatives. In the 34 years between those two cases there were numerous other examples that led incrementally to greater equality for LGBT people. Did conservative or libertarian groups play a significant role in any of those cases?
Can you see why I wrote that libertarians are appealing to me, but they always disappoint? Can you see why progressive gay activists might feel like the Little Red Hen? They planted the seeds, they grew the wheat, they ground the flour, they baked the bread, and then they offered the bread to everyone. And then we have some very conservative recipients of that bread, like Stephen, who have done nothing for progress but who has now started using the pronoun “we” when referring to advancements in our rights. And then we also have people like Lori, who are ever ready to disparage and vilify progressives, often in uncalled for nasty terms, but can’t point to any tangible beneficial achievements of libertarians.
So let us all sing Kumbaya and break bread together. But let us also offer up our gratitude to those who made and gave us the bread, even if they didn’t follow our preferred recipe.
posted by JohnInCA on
As I said, the LCR played a part in DADT repeal. But that’s the only one I know of. Admittedly, I’m not even 30 so surely some of the more… wise… people here have longer memories.
That said, I just checked LCR’s website. They claim sorta-credit for defeating the Brigg’s initiative in the 70s. And then they say that the GOP sweeping into congress in 2004 was evidence of a drive for equality. So I think whoever wrote that section may have been high.
Oh, and just remembered. There was the recent LGBT Civil Rights bill in Utah. That’s something that presumably was supported go right/Republican/conservative/whatever legislators. Sure, it’s got some creative carve outs, but it’s something.
posted by Mark (no last name) on
Lori,
My mention of Ayn Rand (which seemed to strike a nerve) was, as you well know, in regards to your ridiculous assertion that laws should be based on individual “freedom of conscience.” It is a very Randian idea, this ubermensch. I’m not sure why or how we would leave the law to every individual’s “freedom of conscience” and I find the idea as unworkable as it is naïve.
As to your notion that we should do nothing and just sit back and the conservative anti-gay group will destroy themselves, well, history tends to say otherwise. No need to pass laws protecting people’s rights because, well, because. According to your theory, all those uppity suffragettes should have just been quiet and eventually, the men in power would have realized the foolishness of their ways and given women the vote. And blacks, well, those pushy blacks shouldn’t have advocated for the Civil Rights legislation (because legislation is bad) in the ‘50s and ‘60s because even though it had been 100 years since the civil war, the white power machine would eventually get around to making them full citizens. Maybe in another century or two. Or three. But at least we wouldn’t have any intrusive laws infringing on individual freedom. For white people, with their freedom of conscience.
You say you are Christian, but I don’t know much about your background. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect and I can tell you that there are certain groups of Christians that believe with all their being that queers should be killed lest they bring god’s wrath down on the rest of us. The recent “kill the gays” amendment proposal in California, for example. Or all the American Christian leaders flocking to Africa to help promote and pass “kill the gays” laws there. These people aren’t going to come around. They have god on their side and are on a divine mission. Personally, I think they can believe what they want, but when they venture forth into the public sphere, they must adhere to the LAWS that we have, as must we all.
To your assertion that conservatives/libertarians have done so much for gay and lesbian civil rights, well, personally I still find it a bit thin. Yes, individuals coming out of the closet is important. And some conservatives do come out. Eventually. When they can’t avoid it. Hello Ken Mehlman. And just why is it comfortable for Kenny and his ilk to come out (or be forced out)? Because Lawrence v Texas and other legislation which made homosexuality legal and was pushed by Liberals and staunchly opposed by conservatives. Even today however, there are few openly conservative political queers. Why is that? Still, I wait for some concrete examples of how conservatives and libertarians have advanced gay civil rights besides just coming out (and the LCR DADT suit, which I failed to recognize). Mostly conservative queers have fought us every step of the way. And libertarians have mostly just sat on the sidelines.
For the record, I am the one that married libertarians to conservatives because the fact is that libertarians are just one small bloc of the Republican party. Libertarians like to talk a good game, but they absolutely loathe liberals (as you obviously do) and when push comes to shove they just vote their wallets and vote Republican.
Finally, as an aside, I just want to point out that there was no legal action taken against the now millionaire pizza parlor owners. You seem to suggest that some misguided homosexual had filed suit and, well, see how that turned out! Outrage! In fact, some reporter ginned up the story and they said that IF they were asked (they weren’t) they wouldn’t pizza cater a queer wedding. As if. No litigation against them and no threats of litigation. A made up story. Do your homework.
I know you won’t respond to me, for which I am probably thankful as your responses are rather vitriolic and absurd, but I just wanted to set the record straight. As it were.
Mark
posted by Lori Heine on
I will respond, because you are flat-out lying.
Find where I “suggested” that someone brought a lawsuit in the pizzeria story. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
I said no such thing. Nor did I suggest it. You are simply making things up.
You are free to find my responses as “vitriolic and absurd” as you choose. You are a bald-faced liar.
posted by Mark on
Lori:
You wrote: “But of course, Memories Pizza must be punished because its proprietors said mean things! Public accommodations legislation to the rescue!”
There you go. That is where you suggested that some legal action had happened. Else what do you mean by “punished?” No one was trying to punish them. There was no punishment in the works. No planned punishment coming. They were the ones that raised the non-existent issue in the first place. The proposed legislation was in fact meant to protect their bigotry and occured before their bizarre pronouncement, not after. So no ” [p]ublic accommodations legislation to the rescue!”
I said that “you seem to suggest” and I think from your comment that “they must be punished” you do in fact “seem to suggest” that some action had occurred. It hadn’t. There was in fact no punishment of any kind, except for the resulting public shaming from progressive quarters, which was well deserved. Not for the least reason of assuming that any queer would want Memories pizza at a wedding reception. If I misunderstood your notion of “punishment” I apologize. In my world, punishment means some sort of actual action, and in light of our discussion of legal action against people, I just assumed you meant actual punishment. Not just some vague concept.
Interesting, however, that of all the things I wrote, that is the only response you have. Calling me a liar over some small point (as you love to call people names — read back over your comments here and see how many derogatory terms — and exclamation marks — you use) but ignoring the more substantive points of my comment. Misdirection. Instead of calling me a liar, perhaps your time would have been better spent clarifying your argument.
Mark (no last name although I don’t know why that bothers you so much?)
posted by Lori Heine on
Interesting, indeed. I have been told, by a commenter on this blog, that explaining anything to me would be like explaining Beethoven to a goldfish. I have in fact been told many times, in many ways, that I am stupid.
As my argument was based on the idea that laws punishing the pizza parlor were not necessary, the notion that I might suddenly mention–out of the bright blue sky–that they should be sued makes less than zero sense.
I have stated many times, in comments on this thread and others, what I believe. You disagree. You think legislation is necessary, and I do not.
I see no point in continuing to discuss it. You’re not going to change your mind, and I’m not either. I’m finished being maligned, and I have better things to with my time.
My experience at Gay Patriot showed exactly what’s next. I don’t need this. This is exactly the way people get, evidently, when they think political violence is necessary to “win.” They will do absolutely anything. It doesn’t matter whether they are on the right or left side of the spectrum.
Blame FOX news. Blame Ayn Rand. I don’t give a damn who you blame.
Time for the pile-on. Save your pathetic face. Your politics disgust me, and I want nothing to do with them.
posted by Mark on
Lori,
First, I resent the subtle implication that I have called you stupid. I have not. I have castigated your ideas, because I find them silly, but not you personally.
You say:
“As my argument was based on the idea that laws punishing the pizza parlor were not necessary, the notion that I might suddenly mention–out of the bright blue sky–that they should be sued makes less than zero sense.”
Please go back and reread my comments. I never said or implied that you suddenly thought they should be sued. Your comments simply implied that there was some action against them. Which there was not. Again, you stated in a previous comment that some vague forces were conspiring to “punish” them. This is false. I didn’t say you wanted to punish them. That would in fact make zero sense given your comments on this issue.
I am only limiting my comments to things you have said on this thread. I vaguely recall seeing your name attached to comments on other posts on this blog, but really, I don’t recall what you said.
Interesting that you almost go immediately to calling a discussion with someone who disagrees with you “political violence.” Odd. That never would have occurred to me to say such a thing.
Your rhetoric is extreme and unpleasant. You say “I don’t need this” so one wonders why you keep hanging around. You seem incapable of separating a disagreement with your ideas from a personal attack on you. (I’m finished being maligned and I don’t need this, for example) Most people commenting here seem to be able to disagree without feeling that their personal integrity has been attacked.
How sad that you feel this way.
“Your politics disgust me, and I want nothing to do with them.”
Your politics don’t disgust me, Lori, they make me sad and they concern me. Because they are so dangerous. So very dangerous.
As to your ideas and politics, I don’t blame FOX news and I don’t blame Ayn Rand. Your ideas are yours and yours alone. In my best pubescent libertarian voice, let me say that you and you alone are responsible for your thoughts, ideas and words. Stop trying to pass the buck.
posted by Francis (no last name) on
I guess I should give you credit for handling her a lot more patiently than I’ve done.
posted by Lori Heine on
You castigated my ideas because you find political violence wrong, dangerous and silly. Got it.
I have already more than adequately explained my views. There is no purpose in continuing to do so. Every disingenuous method that could have been used here has been. It’s a sport to you and nothing else.
Someone like Ricport comes along, and you nasty all over him and drive him off. Every post the bloggers put up here is swarmed by piranhas. Half the comments made about them border on personal attacks.
They’re delusional, you say. They’re off their meds. You don’t know what they’ve been smoking. Over the years I’ve been reading this blog, I’ve heard it all.
A few of you are decent and honorable in your comments. The rest display little interest in anything but leaving flaming turds.
Your entire previous comment was nothing but a personal attack. Yet, you’re shocked–shocked–that I might think you’re attacking people here personally.
You wanted to turn this blog’s commentary threads into an echo chamber. Now you’ve got it. Enjoy.
posted by Mark on
Lori,
In looking back over your comments, I think that the most telling thing you have said is:
“You think legislation is necessary, and I do not.”
Yes, I think legislation is necessary. I believe we should be a nation of laws, not anarchy. I believe we should be a nation of laws, not fealty to some imaginary sky god. I believe we should be a nation of laws, not people in power.
I think judicious legislation is critical to creating a more perfect union of citizens.
I think laws are critical because I don’t trust people and the darkness I know can grow in their hearts.
I am a glass not just half empty but a glass half empty and leaking sort of guy. I believe that laws are what keeps us on a even keel.
You seem to have some sort of innate disgust with any legislation. How sad. America was founded on the notion that we were a nation of laws, not men, not god, but (white) men (and only men) bound together and all (white men) equal before the law. That was a radical idea at the time. It still is. Even as we have expanded the franchise.
It is time we expanded the franchise to include gay and lesbian men and women as well. And yea for laws that do this. We need those laws because people suck and are hateful and mean and yes, we need laws to limit the damage they can do to society.
We were the first nation of laws. That is what makes us so unique.
History. What a wonderful bitch.
posted by Mark on
Lori:
“You castigated my ideas because you find political violence wrong, dangerous and silly. Got it.”
Yes, Lor, I find violence wrong, dangerous and silly. Not to mention immoral, illegal and a complete corruption of the political process. If you can’t win legitimately political violence is the answer?
You frighten me, Lori.
You are now advocating violence? You crazy. And yes, that was a personal attack. You effing crazy if you think violence against political opponents is good.
Crazy.
posted by Lori Heine on
Obviously, that was a typo. I have advocated political nonviolence in my comments here for years.
But of course you know that. Any stick is good enough to beat me with. And thus do you, once again, show what a liar you are.
From that typo, you exploded into an entire tirade. Based on a typo.
There’s no way my other comments here–including as recently as last night–could be read in light of that having been anything but a typo. But you’ll take any edge you can get, even a dishonest one.
Of course you had no scruples to begin with.
I thought about correcting that typo when I saw it. But I thought no, if I’m dealing with an honorable and intellectually honest person, he will realize that’s what it was. Now you’ve exposed what you really are. Good to know.
posted by Mark on
Okay, so when you write that “[y]ou castigated my ideas because you find political violence wrong, dangerous and silly. Got it.” it is just a typo.
Really? That is the longest typo I have ever seen. Please explain me to me the typo. Because, really, I don’t see it. I am usually very forgiving of typos on threads like these. I make them myself all the time. But I don’t see the typo in that statement. So please give the the un-typoed version of that statement.
Not trying to use any stick with which to beat you (always with the violent rhetoric). And really three short paragraphs (one a sentence of four words) is hardly a tirade.
And for the record, you keep talking about all of your comments on this blog. I don’t know about that. I haven’t been lurking on this blog for years just waiting until now to jump out and somehow attack you. Another silly notion. Please.
So tell me the non typo sentence. I am eagerly awaiting your reply because I just don’t see the typo there.
posted by Lori Heine on
Please explain? I meant to write “nonviolent.” Okay, I’ve explained.
Oh my Lord, you are a funny little man. You dream a dream of a world brimming with love and nonviolence. In which everybody wields a legislative stick continually against everybody else
But I typed “violence!” Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha!
I could almost hear the orchestra swelling in the background of your teary little diatribe. I really hate to ruin it. Joe Mantegna would have been a perfect narrator. Perhaps the Mormon Tabernacle Choir could have filled in the dramatic gaps with a stirring refrain.
If I needed further proof that statists on the left were as delusional as those on the right, I’d need look no further.
Pardon me. I don’t have an editor here to send back a copyedit pointing out my typos. Sorry to disappoint you that your gotcha simply made you look foolish.
That really cheered me up. Thanks so much for that. I come here for fodder, and I just get so much of it. You and your fellow trolls are the gift that keeps on giving.
A couple of friends have come here to read some of the threads on this blog. They asked me why I bother. I told them I get wonderful ideas. I asked why they didn’t chime in with comments–just to balance out the ideology a little. They asked why the hell they’d want to do that, when they see how libertarian commenters are treated here.
I remind them that the bloggers get the brunt of it. Poor Stephen. I’d like to send him some flowers or candy.
posted by Mark on
Oh Lori.
I’m not believing your “typo” excuse. A typo is teh instead of the. Typing violence instead of nonviolence isn’t a typo. Perhaps your junior high English teacher buys that crap, but it won’t fly here.
And your first comment about violence was “My experience at Gay Patriot showed exactly what’s next. I don’t need this. This is exactly the way people get, evidently, when they think political violence is necessary to “win.”
Was that a typo too?
A typo isn’t three letters missing.
Really? You want to go with that?
And again, I will tell you that I have no effing idea what you have been advocating on this blog for years. I only can respond to your comments on this post, this thread.
You qare (oh, that is an actual typo — I meant to type are) so quick to say hateful things about others. Telling me I have no scruples. Wow. You are the only one on this thread that is calling others names in some sort of kindergarten game of are too / am not.
Again, I’ll ask, are you 14?
posted by Lori Heine on
And here, Mark, you’re really reaching desperately now. And you reveal how empty and dishonest you really are.
All you’d need to do would be to read a selection of other comments I have made on this blog, on a variety of threads, to see that I have spoken out consistently about the need for political nonviolence. That I would suddenly start advocating political violence would make no sense.
But keep digging. Maybe a bigger hole really will hide you.
And no, you degraded little person. I’m not 14.
Why don’t you call me a bitch again? Strap the cup on…there’s a brave little man.
posted by Mark on
Call you a bitch again? I never called you a bitch in the first place. Never. Persecution complexion much?
Again, are you delusional, or perhaps bipolar or just 14?
How hateful you are. So sad. I’m relatively new to this blog and apparently I took the bait. My bad.
But one last attempt at reason — do you even know what that is? — the difference between nonviolence and violence is not an effing typo.
posted by Lori Heine on
Son, you’re really getting desperate now. Breathe.
I wouldn’t waste the energy on hating you. You’re pathetic.
You did use the word “bitch” in an earlier post. If you weren’t calling me one, fine. I suppose you were merely slinging it around to show how that you were sophisticated and adult. So not 14.
Am I bipolar? So you’re nut-shaming now! I guess “progressives” haven’t made the destigmatization of mental health issues a holy cause yet. Haven’t figured out how to exploit it yet, I suppose.
That’s why it took the left so long to decide that gay rights were a thing. They wanted to fag-bash for as long as they possibly could get away with it.
But bigoted, ignorant remarks about mental health issues are so enlightened. Not to mention mature. Am I 14? Am I bipolar? No to either question. But sweet of you–progressive that you are–to care.
What you are, evidently, is utterly without scruple. Everything is a power game.
You thought I used the word “violent,” so you leaped on it. Then when you found out it was a typo (thanks for clearing up that it was not a legitimate typo, like “teh”–I’ll remember that next time), you were reduced to backing into a corner and babbling about what typos are or aren’t. Because of course you must win, if power is everything.
I’m so glad that violence completely offends you. Whew! Given your lack of principle, I’d be in trouble otherwise.
posted by Lori Heine on
Oh no! In the third paragraph, there’s a “how” that doesn’t belong!
Typo cop–is that a legitimate typo, like “teh?”
I do that frequently. I’m sort of sloppy about it. But of course, you’re right on the case. Good to know it.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
1. The libertarian (right) definition of violence or the initiation of force is government taxation, fees, rules or regulations….it can include private acts by people, but only in a fairly narrow ‘Bob hit me.’ In the sense, ALL civil rights laws (private sector ones) are defined as force.
This is VERY different from the reasonable concerns that myself and others have expressed about the value in protecting religious freedom and civil rights.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
I hope that we can agree that calling someone a ‘bitch’ in the context of a debate is cruel and inhumane. I not saying someone did or didn’t. I just hope people would be polite.
posted by mark on
I completely agree with you, TJ 3rd, that calling someone a bitch is out of line. You try to straddle the line and say you don’t know if I did or did not call Lori a bitch.
I did not.
A simple search of the word bitch on this thread will show that my comment was:
History. What a wonderful bitch.
Clearly, I am calling history a bitch. Particularly in light of my entire comment.
As to why Lori might assume that any time the word bitch is used it refers to her I have no opinion.
posted by JohnInCA on
Cruel? Sure.
Thinking it’s out of line and something that *shouldn’t* be said?
Inhumane? Not by a long shot. Human history shows that cruelty is often part and parcel. And it does no one a service to try and pathologize normal human behavior.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t necessarily agree with the right-wing version of libertarianism. There is now a vigorous debate in libertarian circles themselves between right and left. It will make a tremendous difference which side wins.
Until recently, the libertarian left was very weak, and had no chance of even making itself heard. I am glad that this is changing.
Myself, I think I’m probably a centrist libertarian. I agree with one side on some things and the opposite side on others.
My problem with the last person is that he was indeed very rude. I never have that problem with you, or with people like Tom S or Houndentenor or Jorge. You’re all stand-up guys.
Middle-aged women can be tough if we have to be. We’ve taken plenty of crap in our lives, and most of us have had enough of it. When some idiot asks us if we’re 14 years old, or if we’re bipolar, we don’t tend to take it. That was where yesterday’s very uncomfortable exchange came from.
All the regular commenters here know that “violent” instead of “nonviolent” was an omission of three letters. The battle that ensued over it was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen in any commentary thread, anywhere.
Oh, well…onward and upward. Interesting events are happening in the world. Let’s see where they take us.
posted by mark on
Lori, let us put an end to this “typo” violence / non-violence bullshit. (and when I write bullshit, I am not calling you bullshit as you seem to have a problem with that).
You wrote:
You castigated my ideas because you find political violence wrong, dangerous and silly. Got it.
So let’s fix your typo:
You castigated my ideas because you find political non-violence wrong, dangerous and silly. Got it.
Makes no sense does it? How could I find non-violence dangerous? And what is political non-violence anyway?
It wasn’t a typo. You wrote what you meant to write.
Own it.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Mark, let it go. Please.
posted by Francis (no last name) on
Yeah, take it from someone who’s tilted at this windmill (I’m guessing she’ll construe that as making fun of her arms, NoMFuP), you’re better off just engaging the other people here, like Jorge or craigwhatever-his-number-is. From what I’ve seen, you’ll have a better chance of a decent conversation with the former, if only in relative terms.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Two libertarian groups did right nice briefs in the Lawrence case.
The Libertarian party hasn’t really done much in terms of policy. It’s a third party after all.
Nationally, getting DADT replaced with the current policy involved lots of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Although I doubt that it would have passed had McCain/Palin won in 2008.
The Winsor DOMA case – like the effort on DADT – had lots of useful people (in both parties) coming together to make their case.
It certainly helps whenever you can get bipartisan support. It just not always an easy thing to do because of a lot of reasons, many of which don’t have much to do with party id.
The situation in North Dakota is over a failed effort to protect GLBT from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation.
Support for such civil rights protection is actually pretty strong in North Dakota and a lot of Democrats, Republicans and Independents felt that the legislature dropped the bill.
State legislature members could have only voted on the employment housing bill and left public accommodation for another day.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Scenario –
Employer: “Hello, Martha. No religious beliefs say that I have right to work you 24/7, pay you next to nothing and insist that you sleep with me. If you refuse then I will fire you and encourage my golf buddies not to hire.”