Via the Washington Times, New York farm owners give up legal fight after being fined $13,000 for refusing to host gay wedding:
The owners of a New York farm fined $13,000 for declining to host a same-sex wedding on their property have chosen not to appeal a court ruling against them, bringing an end to the high-profile legal battle after more than three years.
The [state Division of Human Rights] fined the Giffords $10,000 for violating the state Human Rights Law and ordered them to pay $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennifer McCarthy for “the emotional injuries they suffered as a result of the discrimination.”…
The Giffords argued that they would host wedding receptions, parties or other events for same-sex couples, but the court said that their “purported willingness to offer some services to the McCarthys does not cure their refusal to provide a service that was offered to the general public.”
LGBT progressives cheer and pat themselves on the back, while they sneer at those who cling to their guns and their religion—and then wonder how it could possibly be that Donald Trump seems poised to become the next president.
90 Comments for “This Should Not Happen in America”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
LGBT progressives cheer and pat themselves on the back, while they sneer at those who cling to their guns and their religion—and then wonder how it could possibly be that Donald Trump seems poised to become the next president.
Huh? Trump is the least homophobic of the three remaining serious candidates for the Republican nomination. You are advancing a marvelously imaginative version of “Blame Canada” if you are serious about proposing the idea that legal equality of gays and lesbians is a material factor in the Rise of Trump.
We can debate the wisdom of non-discrimination laws. But if the laws exist, then the laws should be obeyed by business owners, and if exemptions are granted, the exemptions should be religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral. We’ve been over that a million times, and there is little need to revisit it at this point.
I am always somewhat taken aback by the way in which Republican-aligned “libertarians” have done a mind-meld with conservative Christians, insisting that gays and lesbians should be treated as a special class, subject to special discrimination through exemption to non-discrimination laws, while insisting that other classes of citizens similarly situated should be protected against discrimination without the exemptions.
I used to think that it was just politics, a lame and absurd attempt to maintain “a seat at the table” for the party’s “libertarian” faction, which has had no influence and little respect in the party for years. But I think, as this meme goes on and on and on and on, that more is afoot.
I think that the Republican-aligned “libertarian” insistence that gays and lesbians should be singled out for special discrimination not applicable to other classes protected by non-discrimination laws has more than a whiff of moral approbation to it.
I think that for two reasons:
(1) Republican-aligned “libertarians” and social conservatives take the same positions, use the same tired arguments, and similar/identical rhetoric, describing gays and lesbians, in one way or another, as anti-Christian and anti-American. Scratch one, scratch the other.
(2) Republican-aligned “libertarians” make much of their early writings in favor of same-sex marriage, even if they sat on the sidelines since. But when you read the arguments that Republican-aligned “libertarians” put forward in the 1990’s when writing about same-sex marriage — not all but many — the primary argument put forward in favor of same-sex marriage is that it would act as a vehicle of social control to curb gay promiscuity. That is a social conservative argument, not a libertarian argument.
Whatever the case, the endless debate, increasingly out-of-touch with reality, is beyond tired, and lumping Trump into the debate doesn’t exactly purge the room of stale air. If you are going to put forward the thesis that non-discrimination laws in the minority of states that cover gays and lesbians are a material factor in the Rise of Trump, then support it. With facts, with reasoning. Otherwise, all you are doing is bleating.
posted by Wilberforce on
I disagree. I have always thought that Libertarian was just a mask for heartless types to support pro-business, anti-tax policies. I’ve seen libertarians twist themselves into all kinds of interesting shapes over the years, for whatever the need is at the moment.
Here, they are making absurd argument to single us out, probably hoping to score points with the religious right, and help to keep them in the coalition.
It’s all a pose for a very creepy agenda.
posted by Lori Heine on
What a bunch of mindless, teeny-bopper, team-sport, rah-rah crap. You’ve always thought. Yeah, for whatever that’s worth.
posted by Lori Heine on
You’re an effing genius. Way to go, proggies! Lie about and slander all libertarians. I won’t be voting for any of your candidates. Now or–if you keep spewing this garbage–ever.
posted by Houndentenor on
Donald Trump is winning GoP primaries because for DECADES now the Republican party has pandered to ignorance, racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia to win elections. They created this monster and are surprised that they found a candidate who says out loud what the party has been saying in “dog whistles” all along and that DOZENS of my relatives and neighbors proudly say aloud on a regular basis. It’s NOT surprising for those of us who live in the deep red areas that this has happened. The only thing shocking is that it took so long.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That may well be true, Houndentenor, but when StephenWorld history books are written about the Rise of Trump, the Republican party will be the blameless victim of progressive gay and lesbian thugs, who worked relentlessly to undermine America and all that is good, sparking a righteous revolution by RealMerikans. Nothing will be said about the party’s long history of stirring up and exploiting ignorance, racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. Count on it.
posted by Wilberforce on
It’s spelled Real Amurkins. Do not cast aspurszhuns on them with your careless ways.
posted by Doug on
Maybe it’s just a sever case of internalized homophobia. It must pain Stephen severely to see LGBT folks who accept their sexuality and lead proud out and happy lives while they deeply dislike being gay. By fostering overt legal discrimination against the LGBT community it proves to them that there is something wrong with being gay.
To promote religious exemptions that allow discrimination against the LGBT community you must also believe that God does not approve of homosexuality. If you are truly religious that is a pretty heavy cross to bare and can easily lead to internalized homophobia.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A question, Stephen: Why is it that less than a dozen cases of business owners being prosecuted for violating non-discrimination laws in the case of gays and lesbians has turned into a national uproar, while literally thousands of cases of business owners being prosecuted for violating non-discrimination laws in the case of African-Americans and Hispanics has not?
The answer isn’t hard to find. Republican politicians and their front-men have been throwing gasoline on a fire so small as to be otherwise unnoticeable in order to achieve short-term political gain at the expense of a small and still (for the most part) despised minority, just as they did a decade ago. The uproar is manufactured. And don’t tell me otherwise.
Without the active involvement of Republican politicians and their front-men, the uproar would be confined to the conservative Christian anti-gay industry, Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Brian Brown and the like. Because of the active involvement of Republican politicians and their front-men, states that have no laws against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are falling all over themselves to enact laws saving Christian businessmen from the horror of having to serve gays and lesbians, and Republican politicians and their front-men are fanning the flames to ignite the Republican base.
Go for it, but don’t think that we don’t see what you are going.
If people like you gave a shit about the “small business owners” you bleat on and on about, you could (and would) have proposed to do something for them, such as carve out a small business exemption to non-discrimination laws. But you weren’t, and you didn’t.
Houndentenor is right when he points out that “Donald Trump is winning GoP primaries because for DECADES now the Republican party has pandered to ignorance, racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia to win elections.”
We are seeing yet another case of the disease. Have fun fanning the flames. But acknowledge and live with the result, instead of pawning off the Rise of Trump on gays and lesbians. And grow up while you are at it. Adults take responsibility for their actions. Children and teenagers don’t.
posted by Houndentenor on
If conservatives want to repeal public accommodations law, they are welcome to make that case before the American people. They don’t for obvious reasons. Everyone knows they belong to some group or another than would be discriminated again. So if I can’t discriminate against Evangelicals, I don’t know why they should be able to discriminate against me.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Could it be because — at this point — people like the farm-owners in this case have chosen their battles carefully and asked for rather narrow exemptions (“We’ll host the wedding receptions, but not the weddings”) only to have even this limited accommodation of their beliefs denied?
I am aware of the potential dangers of narrow exemptions setting a precedent for broad exemptions — let the camel stick his nose in an inch, and he’ll walk a mile into the tent, or whatever. So I understand why LGBT people don’t want to compromise on this.
But there’s a danger from the other direction, too. If an Orthodox Jewish catering business is legally compelled today to cater a secular same-sex wedding performed by a Justice of the Peace in a rented hotel ballroom, tomorrow they could be compelled to cater a Jewish same-sex wedding performed in a synagogue by a Reform rabbi, complete with “ketubah” and “chuppah” and other details that make the whole thing seem heretical to the Orthodox business owners (and possibly demoralizing for their employees).
So it makes sense to me that both sides have valid reasons to fear the precedents that arise if you decide to NOT make a stink and NOT demand some degree of accommodation/compromise from the other side.
posted by Houndentenor on
Has there been a compromise offered by the right? What I see are anti-gay laws being proposed and sometimes passed all over the country and simultaneous claims of victimization in a handful of public accommodations cases. If they are against public accommodations laws, then they need to make that case. But so far I haven’t seen any attempt at offering any compromise on gay rights and in fact am still hearing bellyaching from the right about the Lawrence decisions not to mention Obergefell.
posted by Jorge on
Has there been a compromise offered by the right?
Blocking Kaganmayor2 and appointing Scalito3 to overturn Obergefell sounds like one to me.
Then it’ll be the law of the land, exactly what you guys want.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am aware of the potential dangers of narrow exemptions setting a precedent for broad exemptions — let the camel stick his nose in an inch, and he’ll walk a mile into the tent, or whatever. So I understand why LGBT people don’t want to compromise on this.
The danger is not that “narrow exemptions setting a precedent for broad exemptions”. It is precisely the other way around, that “narrow exemptions” when narrow enough, permit discrimination against a (as you put it) “category of people” and only that “category of people”.
I have no objection to laws that permit a business an exemption to providing goods or services to weddings to which the business has religious/conscientious objections, so long as the exemption is broad enough to exempt religious/conscientious objections to any and all weddings — same-sex weddings, inter-racial weddings, inter-religion weddings, inter-denominational weddings, remarriages after divorce, and so on.
It is when the exemption is narrowed to religious objections to same-sex weddings, and confined to that narrow situation, that the problem switches from providing an exemption for freedom of conscience to government sanction of special discrimination against a particular “category of people”.
This is about “category of service,” not “category of people” …
When law allows for a “narrow exemption” to non-discrimination laws in the case of same-sex marriages, but does not allow for an exemption to non-discrimination laws int he case of inter-racial weddings, inter-religion weddings, inter-denominational weddings, remarriages after divorce, and so on, the we are no longer talking about a “category of service” but instead a “category of people”.
The “category of service” is providing services to weddings. When the exemption is allowed only in the case of same-sex marriages, and in the case of no other weddings, then, since only a single “category of people” enter into same-sex marriages, the exemption permits government-sanctioned discrimination against a single “category of people”, albeit under the rubric (smokescreen, I’d call it) of allowing an exemption for a “category of service”.
posted by JohnInCA on
A disfavored minority enjoys equal protection of generally applicable laws.
“This should not happen in America”
Yeah, that sounds about right. Fortunately, we’re making America great again.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Twaddle. You need merely believe that the government should not be taking sides between pro-gay theologies and anti-gay theologies (or, indeed, on any other theological question).
posted by Houndentenor on
No, you have to believe that public accommodations have to be open to all people. That is the law in many states (but not all when it comes to lbgt people). If you want to repeal those, you are welcome to try. A special carve-out that allows certain religions to discriminate against one specific group? Nonsense.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I guess a shorter way to make my point is: you can reject a general libertarian “right to private discrimination,” and believe in the general validity of non-discrimination laws, yet still conclude that a specific anti-discrimination law in a specific jurisdiction is horribly overbroad in reach/effects, and Constitutionally improper.
Or even more generally: You can believe in the Rule of Law and still recognize that many legislators are idiots who write dumb laws.
posted by Throbert McGee on
This is about “category of service,” not “category of people” — the farm owners aren’t offering to host same-sex weddings for atheists (on the grounds that they’re going to Hell anyway) while refusing to host same-sex weddings for Christians (on the grounds that this might encourage schism within the church).
They were arguing that there’s no contradiction in offering to host opposite-sex weddings for everybody, while not offering to host same-sex weddings for anybody.
posted by Doug on
No this is not about a ‘category of service’, that is just BS. All of the laws are directed specifically at gay and lesbian people.
posted by Lori Heine on
I have yet to hear any compelling reason why government must compel people to serve same-sex couples. Yes, perhaps the social right is looking for a special carve-out. Why not challenge them when they demonstrate that? Sounds like a bridge that needs to be crossed when we come to it.
The fact is that just when the social right was running out of public support, the alphabet-soup gay left rushed in to rescue them. Either they did so because they’re stupid, or–far more likely–because the power game needs to be kept going at all costs.
I strongly suspect that Tom S. is right when he says that there is a glaring lack of concern here for a neutral standard that treats everyone equally. Human nature being what it is, sometimes a back-door method must be used to achieve a desirable result. Regardless of whether the social right INTENDS to create a fair and neutral standard or is trying to get a special carve-out, they can certainly be challenged if and when they behave as if they’re entitled to special treatment.
The large portion of the public that is capable of being persuaded, because they don’t have a dog in the fight and really don’t give a damn, will then see what the social right is up to. And we’ll get the fairness and neutrality we seek–by grudging default–because the facade will have been ripped away from the social conservatives.
Surely we don’t have to behave like stupid, squabbling kindergarteners every single time a controversial issue like this comes up.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s the same legal argument against discrimination against anyone else. I realize the libertarian argument is that no one should be forced to serve any customer. You are free to make that argument. I will not support you in that because I grew up in the south and am living here again and I know that there would still be widespread discrimination if it weren’t illegal. Yes, the marrying couples can just get married somewhere else. But then the black family refused service in a restaurant can go somewhere else to eat. I don’t see a difference. And it’s not just religious either because the segregationists waived their Bibles as they denounced desegregation. Frankly I’m sick of all of this and would be happy to sit down and work out some sort of compromise. Is there ANY willingness from the religious right to do that?
posted by Lori Heine on
So in other words, democracy doesn’t work.
That’s an interesting argument. I’m not sure it does, either. But it’s shocking, some of the issues being explored in the 21st Century that, in the 20th, were forbidden to be discussed.
If coercion must be used to resolve every dispute, then democracy has failed. Those who advance coercion are basically saying that democracy has failed. Democracy requires peaceful persuasion. Even with jerks.
I think social conservatives are the worst people in this country. I absolutely cannot stand them. But I don’t want to go down the road of using coercion for everything. It frightens me to imagine where that might lead.
posted by Jerrel towery on
The failure of peaceful persuasion by itself without legal support, is not the failure of democracy. We do not have a pure democracy. Built into the constitution has always been the concept and protection of individual and minority protections from the majority. Without legal protections the majority would run roughshod over minority groups and views. The first amendment is not a peaceful persuasion but a legal right protecting minority and disfavored views from the tyranny of the majority by the sharp teeth of forcefully law. The history of the civil rights movement would have been quite different if it’s proponents had limited themselves to friendly peaceful persuasion and had ignored legal protections through the constitutution, through legislation, and through the courts. In my opinion democracy did not fail because of laws against discrimination as opposed to peaceful persuasion. Without the teeth in our Constitution and in our laws there would be no freedom from the viewpoints and actions of the majority. Free speech itself would cease to exist if no law was present to enforce it. Peaceful persuasion is good but alone without legal support would protect no one. The fact that we have the bill of rights, the fourteenth amendment, and civil rights laws shows this.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well we had over 100 years of doing it the other way and we had segregation and signs that said “Help Wanted: Irish Need Not Apply” and the like. It wasn’t going to get better just because people are good and decent because a lot of people are not. I realize the dangers of this and as I have said multiple times I am open to a compromise but if you think that businesses wouldn’t turn away black or Hispanic or other customers you are wrong. It’s a nice thought but we didn’t get to where we are without coercion and people yelled and screamed about how they were being abused because they had to eat in the same restaurant as “colored” people every step of the way. I’m just barely old enough to remember those days. Coercion was necessary. Democracy? The problem with democracy is that it could result in the majority terrorizing the minority. That’s why the Bill of Rights was added.
posted by Wilberforce on
In spite of the equal protection law being endlessly explained on this site, Lori hasn’t heard an argument that people should be compelled to serve us. She artfully leaves out that we are talking about business people. Despite the omission, it’s another version of the libertarian obsession with ‘economic freedom.’ That trumps all other freedoms, and libertarians twist themselves into knots to make sure it does so always.
In the real world, economic freedom translates into a narrow concern for someone’s bank account. All is subject to that, and they’ll re-write every law on the books if necessary, to make sure that the bank account rules in every situation.
posted by Houndentenor on
We did things that way. Check out what things were like for most people in the 19th century. Not the fantasies of life in the wild west or the tales of that era’s 1%, but how real people lived. it sucked. That’s why we have things like social security and banking regulations. If things would just work out best because people are almost all good and decent we would have kept the “fend for yourself” system of 150 years ago.
posted by Lori Heine on
I leave out that we are talking about business people? Why, how artful of me!
We are talking about people who have invested their own money, labor and time into a business to build it up. We are then talking about other people–who have never lifted a finger to help them–stepping in, with the guns of government, to force them to do their bidding.
To compare two lesbians getting butthurt over not being able to have the owners of a farm host their wedding to African-Americans’ experience in the Jim Crow South is insulting to African-Americans. It is also an insult to everyone else’s intelligence.
Gay people are heavily represented in the wedding industry. We own B&B’s all over the place. We can now get married in a growing number of churches. To suggest that we’re about to get the fire hoses and police dogs turned onto us is beyond absurd.
We are no longer where we were under the “fend for yourself” system of 150 years ago. Nor did we get to where we are now strictly by government force. When we are oppressed by government at one level, government at a higher level may, indeed, need to step in–the lesser evil in an evil situation. That is hardly the case here. I can understand why many African-Americans find it repugnant that so many in the LGBT “community” think otherwise.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree that Jim Crow is a bad comparison because under Jim Crow laws businesses were legally prohibited from serving black and white people in the same space. They weren’t allowed to do it even if they wanted to. But yes it took coercion to get companies to hire black people. I should let my mom explain it to you because she was a manager at a company with high turnover and her superiors would not allow her to hire anyone who wasn’t white until forced to by a court order (and this was after the end of Jim Crow).
I do agree that we should just take our business elsewhere. That’s what I would do. But again if you believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any or even no reason, you can make that case to the public and get the laws changed. At the moment I find it appalling that the religious right are moaning about having to serve gay customers while it would be illegal for anyone to refuse service to them. Of course in most of the country discriminating against gay people is still legal. Since conservatives (including my former governor) keep telling me that if I don’t like it I should move somewhere else, perhaps business owners who don’t want to serve gay customers should move their businesses to one of the many areas of our country where such a refusal would not cause them any problems? If one is absurd so is the other. This is just a demand for special rights for certain religions.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We are talking about people who have invested their own money, labor and time into a business to build it up.
We are talking about people who have elected to invest[ed] their own money, labor and time into a business to build it up, opening a business serving the general public in a legal environment in which public accommodation laws prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, age or other ennumerated grounds.
The wisdom of creating and sustaining public accommodations laws as part of the legal environment in which public businesses operate is something we can discuss and debate, as we can discuss and debate the wisdom of building codes, public health, fire safety, zoning, employment non-discrimination, minimum wage, garnishment, tax and a host of other laws and regulations affecting businessesm of various sorts. We can discuss and debate, and ultimately make decisions through our elected representatives about, the specifics of the legal environment. We can even discuss and debate whether businesses should be subject to any legal constraints at all. But we cannot pretend that people who open businesses of various sorts do so in a vacuum, entirely outside of the legal environment, ignorant of the laws that apply to business.
And that, I think, is what you are doing, or coming close to doing.
To compare two lesbians getting butthurt over not being able to have the owners of a farm host their wedding to African-Americans’ experience in the Jim Crow South is insulting to African-Americans. It is also an insult to everyone else’s intelligence.
We can discuss that, but I want to point out to you that if the experience of African-Americans under the segregation laws of the Jim Crow South is the standard by which public accommodations laws are to be measured, then public accommodations laws should protect no other group or classification, including African-Americans who were born after the segregation laws of the Jim Crow South were abolished.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, I wonder if Stephen still thinks “Kasich: For the Future”?
Kasich was asked about the hapless baker cases yesterday, and had this to say: ““People talk about religious liberty, and I think frankly our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them, but if you’re a cupcake maker and someone wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake,” he said. “Let’s not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff. Move on.”
posted by Jorge on
LGBT progressives cheer and pat themselves on the back, while they sneer at those who cling to their guns and their religion—and then wonder how it could possibly be that Donald Trump seems poised to become the next president.
Really? Mr. Miller believes this explicitly?
I thought I was the only such voter there was.
I feel so helpless. This country’s gone mad. The Democrats are evil and the Republicans are traumatized. That’s it, now…
We can debate the wisdom of non-discrimination laws. But if the laws exist, then the laws should be obeyed by business owners, and if exemptions are granted, the exemptions should be religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral.
I used a co-worker’s words to this effect against him today by telling him Tim Cook should be jailed like Kim Davis and when his appeals run out and he gets jailed for contempt, I’ll be stomping and dancing. It was a bit of a delayed reaction, you see; I bit my tongue when I got to asking his opinion on that one.
But there is a difference.
One law is both legal and ethical. The other is neither.
As a side note, I wonder if Stephen still thinks “Kasich: For the Future”?
Kasich had an interesting argument on that one today. It isn’t surprising that someone who would betray his political principles in the name of religion* would think that commerce demands the betrayal of religious principles.
[*Saying “religion” instead of naming a specific one is full of bias, and I will keep it.]
but when StephenWorld history books are written about the Rise of Trump, the Republican party will be the blameless victim of progressive gay and lesbian thugs, who worked relentlessly to undermine America and all that is good, sparking a righteous revolution by RealMerikans.
It reminds me of what happens when someone talks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The truth is that everyone really is evil: the evil that exists when one is blinded by the light of moral truth, and will tolerate the forces of hate that one is able to ally with. What I said at the beginning of this post really is true.
The reverse of this idea is that everyone is really good. People who commit and justify horrible deeds possess a part of the force for good that is indispensable to an open society. You can choose to believe and act on that, and great things will happen. The world will be made a better place for it. I learned that from a controversy that struck my alma mater recently.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe it’s just a sever case of internalized homophobia.
What does it have to be internalized homophobia and not internalized libertarianism?
posted by Jorge on
I have yet to hear any compelling reason why government must compel people to serve same-sex couples.
The most compelling argument there is is one cited by the majority opinion in (I believe) Obergefell. The presence of a situation in which one “cannot get married” creates feelings of sadness, shame, and depression in the gay population. It is an institutionalized oppression that then becomes an internalized oppression on gay individuals and communities. A government, as an agent with a “higher” purpose, cannot permit such a thing to continue and must act to prevent it with a certain amount of zeal.
The reason this argument is not usually compelling is because it is usually phrased with the word “equality” sprinkled throughout as a standalone value, and it is used to argue a constitutional or legal rather than a civic or political mandate.
The reason this argument is wrong in all its forms is because what it is really asserting at its core is a right to material happiness, rather than a right to the pursuit of happiness. The reaction of individuals and communities to the denial of happiness, even though they still have every opportunity to pursue, it not a sign that their constitutional civil rights have been denied. It is instead a sign that they are suffering from a broader social or psychological disease, sometimes called narcissism, sometimes called entitlement complex, most often stereotyped as belonging to “Generation Y”.
posted by Wilberforce on
When will Houndentenor learn that for libertarians, businesses should be allowed to treat anyone like dirt. To prove it, they will trot out a bucket full of tear jerking, anecdotal evidence, stories about the black jewish cripple walking ten miles barefoot in the snow to start with his own money the only life saving parts shop for ambulances, and who was sued by a lesbian couple who demanded vanilla icing on their vending machine cookie, which the noble entrepreneur was not able to provide, which caused his whole business to tank, thus depriving the good people of Kansas the ambulance services they so desperately needed.
Remember, for this crowd, business should be able to do whatever it damn well pleases, and even equal protection law has to be brought into line.
posted by Lori Heine on
More slander and fraud about “libertarians”–meaning, of course, all of them.
The smear is on, on the left, for libertarians. The reason being that leftist support is very soft-core, and libertarians are peeling away their support.
This will continue, despite the slime.
The giggly little hyperbolic fantasy about the Jewish businessman limping through the snow or whatever aside, the vast majority of businessowners are a hell of a lot closer to everyday Americans than they are to Donald Trump. I know that, they know that and so do most people.
Slime away.
posted by Jorge on
There is news that Donald Trump is striking back with a major Christie endorsement. I have already exhausted my quota of fat Christie jokes for the year, so I can only use non-size adjectives like significant and powerful to describe it.
First a conservative winger backs a mainstream candidate, now a mainstreamer is backing the insurrectionist. Apparently Marco Rubio’s conservative-slutting is having an impact. It didn’t occurr to me that actual politicians might know more about politics than I do.
To prove it, they will trot out a bucket full of tear jerking, anecdotal evidence, stories about the black jewish cripple walking ten miles barefoot in the snow to start with his own money the only life saving parts shop for ambulances, and who was sued by a lesbian couple who demanded vanilla icing on their vending machine cookie, which the noble entrepreneur was not able to provide, which caused his whole business to tank, thus depriving the good people of Kansas the ambulance services they so desperately needed.
I almost found that convincing.
But then I think again about those poor innocent people deprived of ambulance services, and I think, **** it, I don’t care about them, either.
I will start a communal pot, dedicated to the provision of health services for my family and community, and I will join strangers who are interested in providing the same for theirs. I will banish those who refuse to pay though they are able from receiving health services, and create collective norms toward health and well being.
Libertarianism does not, and never will, have a monopoly on either heartlessness or compassion.
posted by Lori Heine on
Libertarianism is not concerned with either heartlessness or compassion. It’s not about “da feelz,” as if everybody is five years old. Libertarians think. That’s why I like them.
Compassion is not a legitimate function of a coercive entity. No entity based upon a legal fiction giving it a monopoly on force is capable of functioning as an agent of “compassion.”
I can’t sit there and talk with statists for any length of time–regardless of whether they’re right-wing or left–without needing a break. You can only be around pre-schoolers for so long before you need to find some grownups to talk to.
The argument, from those favoring government intervention in public accommodations, still amounts to “The anti’s are mean people, so we must hit them.” It has yet to advance beyond that.
The fact that there’s a different route to get to the same place, without using government force, will never appeal to toddlers. Or to those who are perfectly capable of intelligent thought, but for whatever reason afraid to do so.
I’m perfectly aware that — Waaaaah! Those homophobes are mean. But there is no indication whatsoever that what “progressives” want to do about that has any chance of working.
But it will make them FEEL better, and they’ll get their shallow gratification without having to wait very long. That’s enough for them. It’s not enough for me, because it will prove illusory.
posted by Jorge on
Compassion is not a legitimate function of a coercive entity.
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree.
posted by Lori Heine on
A coercive entity is non-human. Non-human entities are incapable of feeling anything. Including compassion.
posted by Jorge on
If a government is run by a single dictator, then that one person’s choice determines everything about its emotion.
It’s not much different when it’s more than one.
posted by Houndentenor on
I would like to meet the libertarians you know, because the ones I know are conspiracy theorists and advocate for ridiculous proposals. One wanted to restructure marriage (dividing civil marriage from religious marriage meaning that those with religious marriages could only get a divorce if their church would give them one among other nonsense). Lori, you need to realize that not all libertarians are the ones you know (and we need to understand the same) and that it’s very frustrating discussing a topic where no one agrees on a definition or to discuss politics when everything is vague and general when politics involves specific proposals and situations.
posted by Lori Heine on
Any attempt that is made, by a commenter on this site, to point out that the libertarian movement is widely diverse–ranging from far right all the way over to far left–will be dropped down the memory hole as soon as possible. Then out come the political geniuses to lecture us on what “libertarians” are like.
Or we get Stephen Miller, taking to the fainting couch to decry the leftism of anyone who points out that Noam Chomsky is a libertarian leftist. There truly is something about statism that makes people degenerate back into eventual infancy.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“Libertarianism is not concerned with either heartlessness or compassion. It’s not about ‘da feelz,’ ”
Neither are those who support accommodation laws concerned with heartlessness or compassion, although they coincidentally may be compassionate and caring people. They are concerned with establishing boundaries on behavior, not attitudes or religious beliefs. Think, feel, and hold fast to faith in whatever you want, but your actions should not be allowed to cross those established boundaries, as long as they are drawn through neutral societal territory.
posted by Lori Heine on
I simply disagree that the direction the LGBT left is taking on this issue is going to take us where they think it will. Instead of getting what they want, they are going to perpetuate a power-game that benefits no one but the powers that be. We are simply going to need to agree to disagree that expanding public accommodations laws to force people who own farms, restaurants, photography studios or bakeries must be forced by law to serve everyone in every capacity.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I simply disagree that the direction the LGBT left is taking on this issue is going to take us where they think it will. Instead of getting what they want, they are going to perpetuate a power-game that benefits no one but the powers that be.
It seems to follow that the gays and lesbians should abandon attempts to add “sexual orientation” to existing public accommodation laws and ordinances, and should do what they can to dissuade the “straight left” from pursing that goal.
What would you suggest that gays and lesbians do about existing public accommodations laws and ordinances that include “sexual orientation”? Should the gays and lesbians seek to remove “sexual orientation” as a protected class?
And, finally, what should gays and lesbians do in the small number of cases when individuals seek to enforce existing public laws and ordinances?
posted by Lori Heine on
What I would suggest, for starters, would be not suing the hell out of somebody for not accommodating me when their religious beliefs supposedly forbade it.
That was what this post was about, and of course Stephen deliberately chose the most egregious example of leftist overreach he could think of. It was bait for the left-wing commenters, and he knew that.
But by all means, let’s perpetuate this fraudulent game for as long as we can. A better solution might be just to leave the people the frick alone. But we mustn’t do that. Game on, and all that.
posted by Lori Heine on
I will offer something of an example of how this might work. My publisher wants to use a particular illustrator for my upcoming children’s book. I went to her website to check out her work, and I do like it. But I also see a lot of Jesus this, Jesus that, Bible this and Bible that. Even though I am myself a Christian, like most LGBT folks, I have an inner alarm that goes off when I see that sort of stuff.
My publisher assures me that it “shouldn’t matter” whether this artist approves of gay people or not. And I quite agree. But there’s a very real chance that she won’t.
If I don’t meet her lofty standards of approval, the fact is that she also won’t meet mine. She would, in that case, believe that I was going to Hell for being gay. I would believe that she followed the Antichrist.
What an impasse! Whatever should I do?
I’ll tell you what I will do, should that turn out to be the case. I will simply find a different illustrator. I won’t sue her because she’s traumatized me, or throw a public tantrum. And why will I not do that? Because I am not an a-hole.
When it comes to some of the purposes for which so many people conscript the law, simple common sense would better suffice.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Which is why most public accommodation laws are written to have mediation be the first step in the process — not fines & lawsuits… and why we don’t see that many get to that point.
I feel sorry for those that have fallen for the Liberty Counsel & Alliance Defending Freedom lies – because those organizations’ motives are not about “religious freedom”, but enshrining their particular theocratic beliefs in law.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll tell you what I will do, should that turn out to be the case. I will simply find a different illustrator.
Wait, isn’t that discrimination? You discriminate against religion! Sue!
posted by Houndentenor on
Neither you nor the illustrator is a public accommodation. She is under no obligation to take any job. I don’t know why you can’t see the difference between an independent contractor and a storefront. The law differentiates between the two and it’s perfectly obvious to anyone who wants to see it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As is so often the case, demagogues are hijacking a very worthwhile and important concept and using the word for it to cloak an Orwellian reverse. What they actually want is theocracy, narrowly defined to accommodate only themselves.
I don’t believe anybody’s forcing that conversation to happen. Nor do I know how to make it happen.
I’m at a loss, too, Lori. I see no way to bring about a sane and reasonable discussion.
My suggestion (add “sexual orientation” to existing public accommodations laws, add a “small business” exemption applicable across the board to all protected classifications) makes sense in theory, and is a compromise that protects the concept of “equal means equal” while avoiding the constitutional problem of government sanction of particular religious belief to the exclusion of other religious belief. But it is also politically impossible, most likely.
Republicans will not abandon the so-called “religious freedom” exemption, however many problems it may cause constitutionally, because Republicans cannot do so without mortally offending the conservative Christians in the base, which is determined to use the exemption to demean gays and lesbians. A “small business” exemption, applicable to all protected classifications, doesn’t single out gays and lesbians for special discrimination, and the Republican base will not go along with it.
Democrats won’t touch a “small business” exemption, either, because to permit any discrimination against segments of the Democratic coalition (e.g. African-Americans, women, and so on) is a
“third rail” within Democratic politics.
So I guess we are stuck battling it out, state by state, county by county, and city by city.
I’ll do my part.
The so-called “religious freedom” exemptions being bandied about, which single out gays and lesbians for special, government-sanctioned discrimination while implicitly involving the government in picking and choosing between the validity and value of particular religious beliefs, is so offensive, on so many levels, that I’m determined to fight the fight, win or lose.
In the end, I’m convinced we’ll win the fight, for the same reason that we won over the American people to marriage equality. Americans instinctively understand and abhor discrimination.
posted by Houndentenor on
The religious exemption will open Pandora’s Box for all kinds of nonsense. The religious right can’t see that. They never do. I’m reminded of the woman in the Louisiana State legislature who pushed for public funding going to religious schools and then was shocked to learn a year later that some of that money went to Muslim schools. Well, duh. No, she really didn’t see that coming. They live in a bubble where religion means Fundamentalist Christians and no one else.
posted by JohnInCA on
No one will “touch the small business exemption” because of how compromise works.
First up, you have to have to have both parties willing to come to the table. Most states that have *not* passed a non-discrimination law including sexual orientation/gender identity won’t pass this first step.
Second up, you have to have things people are willing to compromise on. This is where the push/pull of exemptions and so-on comes into play.
Third up, you have to have a reason to compromise. So “I’ll support the bill if you add this exemption”.
Most states that don’t have these laws already? Aren’t going to get past Step 1.
As we saw in Utah, if you’re willing to compromise, you can get things done. Of course, as we also saw in Utah, people aren’t concerned with whether a business is big or small, they care whether it’s religious or not.
So why don’t you hear about small business exemptions? Because objections are framed around religion, and size of the business is seen as irrelevant (see: Hobby Lobby). In short, no one is buying what you’re selling.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What I would suggest, for starters, would be not suing the hell out of somebody for not accommodating me when their religious beliefs supposedly forbade it.
and
I’ll tell you what I will do, should that turn out to be the case. I will simply find a different illustrator. I won’t sue her because she’s traumatized me, or throw a public tantrum. And why will I not do that? Because I am not an a-hole.
When it comes to some of the purposes for which so many people conscript the law, simple common sense would better suffice.
That’s all well to the good, but public accommodations laws exist in every state, and in a little under half, the laws cover sexual orientation. So long as the laws exist and cover sexual orientation, a few people are going to seek to use the laws for redress when a business won’t provide services to them, and in some of those cases, the business owner will be found to have violated the law and be fined.
We can like that or not, but if we decide that the situation is something that should be changed for whatever reason, then we need to change something. We can repeal public accommodations laws, or we can remove “sexual orientation” from the protected classes enumerated by public accommodations laws, or we can create a “small business exemption” to public accommodations laws to protect ma-and-pa businesses, or we can do something to prevent/discourage people from seeking redress under such laws. I imshinr that there are any number of things we could change. But unless we accept things as they are, then we have to change something.
That was what was behind my question. It is salutary that you, personally, would not seek redress under public accommodations laws. Neither would Houndentenor. Neither would I. Neither would most gays and lesbians, as is evidenced by the fact that there are less than a dozen cases that have come to light over half as many years in a country that has a gay/lesbian population of roughly 11 million.
But that won’t change the current situation, in which a couple of cases are going to show up every year — a small number in comparison to the number of cases brought by African-Americans, Hispanics, women, disabled people, and so on, but at least a few.
I would, as you know, add “sexual orientation” to existing public accommodations laws, and also add a “small business exemption” of general application (covering all instances of discrimination across all protected classes). That seems to me to be the best, and simplest solution, consistent with “equal means equal”, given the realities. The realities are that (1) we are not going to be able to repeal public accommodations laws, (2) we are not going to be able to remove “sexual orientation” from existing laws, and (3) we have no way (under the law, anyway) to prevent individuals from seeking redress.
That is what I would have us do to change things. My question to you was, what would you have use do?
I don’t mean to badger you, but I’m a lawyer, and I think that complaining about laws that are causing more harm than good (if that is the case), and doing nothing more, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
posted by Lori Heine on
First, I would probably do an end-run around the homocons, because they are absolutely worthless.
A real, rigorously frank conversation needs to happen on the issue of religious freedom. As is so often the case, demagogues are hijacking a very worthwhile and important concept and using the word for it to cloak an Orwellian reverse. What they actually want is theocracy, narrowly defined to accommodate only themselves.
I don’t believe anybody’s forcing that conversation to happen. Nor do I know how to make it happen. As a writer, I can only keep doing what I’ve been doing, and writing about the need for it.
If public accommodations laws were expanded (and of course the monster of government meddling always must expand), it would have to be made absolutely clear that it was happening for the sake of greater and more-inclusive religious freedom. The religious right’s lies need to be countered, and the only way to do that would be to flush them out from behind the facade that they give a royal rip about religious freedom.
posted by Jorge on
That’s a little shallow. Why have boundaries in the first place?
For some objectified “best interest?” What is it that drives one to seek a best interest in the first place?
posted by clayton on
Last time I looked, Trump had talked about building a wall along the southern border to keep out murderous, rapist Mexicans. He had talked about barring Muslims from entering the country. He had talked about blacks killing whites in disproportionate numbers. He had called various women ugly or fat and had hinted that one was mean to him because she was having her period. But he had said nothing about mean gays forcing people to host their weddings.
posted by Lori Heine on
That is not at all why Trump is likely to get the nomination. Stephen is running with a social conservative line–again.
This is like nothing I remember ever seeing before. It’s some sort of populist uproar thing. Gays are getting blamed only by the usual suspects–the people who would blame us for sunspots and the resurgence of the mumps.
I’m tired of our segment of the population being kicked around like a political football. I personally happen to be tired of both of the two “sides” that keep doing that. But at some point, at least some of us need to simply refuse to keep the game going. That’s not happening when public accommodations laws are stretched to the point of harassing small business people.
I refuse to work, anymore, for a large corporation. I don’t want all the small-business job opportunities to completely go away because of stupid political crap that I want no part of.
posted by Jorge on
But he had said nothing about mean gays forcing people to host their weddings.
He will as soon as it becomes a voting issue.
That’s a very narrow construction you just did. I think you know that Donald Trump has already started down the road on the issue of Supreme Court justices.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is like nothing I remember ever seeing before. It’s some sort of populist uproar thing. Gays are getting blamed only by the usual suspects–the people who would blame us for sunspots and the resurgence of the mumps.
Yup. And Stephen probably does (in his heart of hearts) believe that “progressive LGBT’s” cause sunspots and the resurgence of mumps, but just doesn’t say anything about it..
I am fascinated by the the right’s reaction to the Rise of Trump. The right-wing yap-o-sphere is chock full of conservatives tearing each other apart in their frustration, all the while excusing themselves from responsibility. It is a textbook example of “Blame Canada” writ large.
I have a feeling that I’m going to equally fascinated in coming months watching the right-wing yap-o-sphere morph over from Trump haters to Trump lovers. It sucks. Trump is a demogogue wrapping himself in populist trappings, and he’s dangerous.
posted by Jim Michaud on
I have also been fascinated by the right wing meltdown over Trump. I’ve visited Red State more times than I care to admit, but find the freak out a good read. There’s been one glaring exception to the panic: Gay Patriot. They’ve been strangely silent on the whole Trump phenomenon. GP only mentions the Trumpster in passing and go on with their “gay/leftists/homofascists spiel. Can anyone explain to me why that is?
posted by Houndentenor on
I stopped reading GayPatriot in 2008 when the overt racism and anti-gay bigotry in the comments section made it clear that they were only stooges for the right and not advancing gay rights in any way, not even within their own party. I’m not surprised they are ignoring Trump. Big City and blue-state Republicans did not see the Trump phenomenon coming. Of course they didn’t. They don’t talk to the red-state types who have talked like this for decades. Those of us in those areas hear this crap every day. Trump says out loud what at least a third of GOP primary voters have been saying in private my whole life. Add Ted Cruz supporters to that and you have way over half. The GOP created this mess starting back with Nixon’s southern strategy and going forward to Reagan’s pandering to the religious right which led to the Evangelical takeover of the party. The country club set has been sipping G&Ts while their party burned and only now are smelling the smoke. The rest of us have been alarmed by this for years but money buys a lot of things and one of them is isolation from most of reality. So no, I’m not surprised that homocons are still in denial. Given their state of denial I don’t know that anything can shake them out of it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think you know that Donald Trump has already started down the road on the issue of Supreme Court justices.
He’s gone all the way down the road, as far as I am concerned, based on his statements during his appearance with Pat Robertson. Trump is now in the boat with Cruz and Rubio on Obergefell.
At this point, unless something completely unexpected happens, the Republican Party will nominate a Presidential candidate who explicitly calls for overturning Obergefell and promises to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will do so. I won’t be surprised if the 2016 Platform supports those positions.
It will be interesting to see what the homocons do with that.
posted by Houndentenor on
What will they do with that? The same thing they do in every election: shift the blame, make excuses, and vote for anti-gay candidates. Sorry, but I’ve already seen this movie before and I didn’t like it the least dozen or so times.
posted by Jorge on
He’s gone all the way down the road, as far as I am concerned, based on his statements during his appearance with Pat Robertson. Trump is now in the boat with Cruz and Rubio on Obergefell.
Well, you called my bluff.
I have also been fascinated by the right wing meltdown over Trump. I’ve visited Red State more times than I care to admit, but find the freak out a good read. There’s been one glaring exception to the panic: Gay Patriot. They’ve been strangely silent on the whole Trump phenomenon. GP only mentions the Trumpster in passing and go on with their “gay/leftists/homofascists spiel. Can anyone explain to me why that is?
I’m not familiar with Red State. Hmm…
“Donald Trump Wining Evangelicals is Not a Great Mystery”
Wow! I’ve never seen good political analysis contrasted by panic so strongly in one article before.
From reading their “About Us” pages, I think it’s safe to say that the people who run Gay Patriot and Red State come from different factions of the right.
GayPatriot is currently leading with a Peggy Noonan column in which she says, “We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact (of the) Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening.” (It has an interesting interpretation of it, too.)
I believe Noonan nails it.
The other observation I have to share with you is that when Donald Trump started his campaign associating illegal immigrants with rapists, and continued on advocating the deportation of all 11 million illegal aliens, attacking John McCain’s service, and insulting Megyn Kelly, he made permanent enemies with a minority of the so-called Republican mainstream–the neoconservatives. People like Lindsey Graham, Linda Chavez, Karl Rove, John Kasich, maybe Jeb Bush, they’re the real committed anti-Trump people. People like Laura Ingram and Marco Rubio are something else. People like Chris Christie are yet another thing entirely. They’re not so bothered by Trump even though they could fit comfortably with the current state of the mainstream party.
See, the so-called “mainstream” faction of the Republican party is one that has its own factions. The neoconservatives used to lead it (and the party), and no longer does. They had a brief resurgence when they brought immigration reform back to the table, and then lost. Much was been made of the RNC’s post-2012 debrief study which argued that immigration and gay marriage as political issues will offend large segments of the American public and drive them away from the party–when it came out. But more than that, many neocons are people who through their own experience see a complexity or objectivity in a rare issue where the easy thing is to swing partisan-right, yet they choose a more nuanced or objective position.
They are also people who sincerely believe in conservative values.
And although they are no longer in control of the party, they (and those who are slightly like them only more flexible) have an outstanding amount of power and (especially) knowledge within it.
Not only does Trump portray an offensive and purposely ignorant air on their pet issues, he does not speak the language of conservative values. For a certain type of Republican, he’s the worst of all worlds: a politically incorrect moderate.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Stephen
Progressive people here and elsewhere are the only people seriously talking about how to protect religious freedom, civil rights and equal means equal.
The solution from the political right – when they even bother to put one forth – is less a religious freedom or civil rights solution and more of a “I should be able to do whatever I want,and have no consequences. If you disagree with me, I will scream.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not surprised they are ignoring Trump. Big City and blue-state Republicans did not see the Trump phenomenon coming. Of course they didn’t. They don’t talk to the red-state types who have talked like this for decades.
I watched the Tea Party types take over two county Republican Party organizations over the last decade (the County Chair in one is a “prepper”, in the other just garden-variety nutcase). I understand from friends in the party that almost all of the county party organizations are now controlled by Tea Party types or hard-core conservative Christians. I know a lot of rural Republicans, and most of them do sound more or less exactly like Trump.
Like, you, I think that the writing has been on the wall for years and years.
Trump says out loud what at least a third of GOP primary voters have been saying in private my whole life.
The Rise of Trump seems to have nothing to do with policy. Trump, Cruz and Rubio take substantially identical positions, with some variation, on most issues. I think that’s why yesterday’s Republican campaigning turned into a food fight over spray tan, hair and ears instead of a fight over issues. Cruz and Rubio don’t have a substantive comeback to Trump because their positions are so close as to make no difference.
The distinguishing characteristic between them on the issues seems to be that Rubio, and to a large extent Cruz, use dog whistles, while Trump just lets it fly.
The GOP created this mess starting back with Nixon’s southern strategy and going forward to Reagan’s pandering to the religious right which led to the Evangelical takeover of the party.
Don’t forget the Tea Party types, welcomed with open arms in 2008-2010.
I would add only one thing: In each case, the Republican “establishment” thought that dog whistles and promises would be sufficient to string these people along. It wasn’t. Trump may be conning these folks yet again (and he almost certainly is) but from what I hear and see with my own eyes, they don’t seems to think so. They think that Trump is for real, and will actually do what Republicans have been promising, in English and in dog-whistle-speak, for years and years.
I’m going to continue to watch and wait through the March 15 primaries, but unless something unexpected happens, it looks to me like Trump will be the Republican candidate this election cycle. That will make things interesting.
posted by JohnInCA on
“If coercion must be used to resolve every dispute, then democracy has failed. Those who advance coercion are basically saying that democracy has failed. Democracy requires peaceful persuasion. Even with jerks.”
Democracy† requires majority consensus, not unanimous consensus. There’s a reason democracy is called “two wolves and a sheep deciding what/who to eat for dinner”.
And if you look throughout history, every society that has been democratic (to a greater or lesser extent) has had this. Whether we’re looking at Ancient Greece and Rome, The Iroquis nation prior to European colonization, any of the vaguely Democratic European countries during the Renaissance, modern Europe and America… we see that people who disagree with the majority being “coerced”‡ to go along with the will of the majority. Because that’s how democracy works.
It is, of course, your prerogative to not like democracy. But trying to pass off a democratically voted-on and passed law being enforced as proof that “democracy doesn’t work” is absurd.
________
†Ignoring pedantic squabbles about republics vs. democracies
‡Using the overly broad libertarian usage of the word
posted by Lori Heine on
What you’re calling “democracy” is no such thing. It is backed by the very same big corporations and rich and powerful people it claims to counter.
The “majority” is going to be whatever the big-corporate media determines it is. And “progressives” will follow blindly along with whatever they’re told.
posted by JohnInCA on
To be clear, by your standards are there *any* democracies in the world, present or past?
’cause begging, bartering, pandering, and persuading for votes in a democracy is kind of an ancient tradition. If that sort of behavior disqualifies something from being a “democracy”, then I’m not sure Earth has ever seen one.
I mean hell, even when you and your co-workers are deciding what to eat for lunch, that sort of thing is going to go on as people try to get their preferences chosen.
posted by Lori Heine on
What has the potential existence of past democracies to do with what’s going on in this country now? Sounds like a dodge to me.
You sound like a typical toady to corporate-state power. A lofty-sounding word gets hijacked to use as a cover for something really far less than lofty, and you gobble it up like fish food.
Since it seems to have slipped your notice, we live in an increasingly-Orwellian age. Concepts are being counterfeited and dishonestly applied.
In the spirit of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using the word democracy. I do not think you understand what that means.”
The cute little reindeer games continually played here about what “libertarian” does or does not mean are dangerous to play. The same thing that’s being done to “libertarianism” is also being done to “progressivism,” “democracy,” “religious freedom,” et cetera, ad nauseum.
I define a word, and because they don’t like the concept I’m talking about, some commenters here blindly blunder into the implication that I’m a purist, if not a fanatic.
Wake the hell up.
posted by JohnInCA on
Yeah, I know you redefined the term. Hence why I was asking for examples. So I could figure out what you *do* mean.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I can see the arguement in not suing someone who dosent want to bake you a wedding cake. They dont deserve your time, money or emotions.
However, why does the religious exemption only apply to people that dont like “them gays”?
Also why arent these exemptions a part of a bill to protect LGBT from discrimination in other areas?
posted by Lori Heine on
Who says that it would “only” apply to that–and if so, why?
Legislation supposedly safeguarding religious freedom would, in fact, be wet clay. What was made out of it would be a matter to be determined by absolutely everybody in our society who cares about freedom of conscience.
The fact of the matter is that the social right has no way to control what would become of their “religious freedom” legislation once it was enacted. The sheer power of the diversity and plurality in our society would take it in directions they never intended, or even imagined.
No one has much difficulty figuring out what they want to make of it. But the superpowers all the scaremongers are asking us to believe they have are the stuff of bad science fiction.
posted by Jorge on
†Ignoring pedantic squabbles about republics vs. democracies
Someday, we’re gonna convince stupid Democrats to call the GOP the “Republic” party.
*Sigh.*
posted by Lori Heine on
I did not redefine democracy. I said, in effect, that using coercion is a vote of no confidence in democracy, as democracy requires citizens to trust in peaceful persuasion. That is not a “redefinition” of the term.
Sorry, but your intellectual dishonesty is showing.
If you think you need “examples” of human beings functioning together in a polity in which they rely upon persuasion instead of coercion, you are so ignorant it’s a mystery you ever emerged from gradeschool.
posted by JohnInCA on
If I’m so ignorant, educate me, don’t berate me.
posted by Lori Heine on
It is not my job to educate you. You are playing a stupid and dishonest game. I can just as easily say that “progressive” has no meaning–or that it has whatever meaning I decide it does. When the shoe’s on the other foot, in your opinion, “That’s different.” But no, it isn’t. I’m just as special as you are.
From now on, when I get crap on a commentary thread about how “libertarian” supposedly has no meaning because some people abuse it’s meaning, I’m simply going to remind the little snowflakes who pull that B.S. that turnabout works just as well.
Nor do I take lectures on how to deal with people. Put on your big boy pants and learn to deal with people who hold opinions different from your own, without lying about what they believe or attempting to play “gotcha” every chance you get. I have zero respect for that sort of childishness, and I doubt if anybody else cares much for it either.
posted by JohnInCA on
You said “What you’re calling “democracy” is no such thing” after I cited America as a democracy‡ that merrily uses violence, thus prompting me to ask what you actually mean, to which you reply with a growing list of insults, and I’m the dishonest one?
As for your supposed “gotcha” on “progressive” go for it. You (and other libertarians† and Republicans and conservatives) have been working on that for a while. It’s actually a picture-perfect example of how words change meaning with usage. The problem is that even as you’re participating in changing the meaning of “progressive”, you refuse to accept that the meaning of “libertarian” is being changed.
That said, as much as you may not *like* my terms, I haven’t been shy with what I mean. Here? You’re insisting that the common and historical usage is wrong while also insisting you’ve redefined nothing and refusing to share what you mean. So our behavior is not comparable.
________
†Meaning “people who self-identify as libertarians”.
‡Meaning the general use of the word, in which government is roughly ruled by “majority rules” with an elected head of state. Examples include the United States of America and Great Britain.
posted by Lori Heine on
Resorting to violence to force others to do your bidding is in no way compatible with anything that could possibly call itself democracy with a straight face–and hope to function as anything remotely approaching democracy.
Moreover, it is absolutely insane to be a part of a minority as tiny and perpetually embattled as gays and lesbians–even throwing in the other letters in the alphabet soup–and claim that the brute force of the majority should rule, with no protection for the rights of the minority.
What has or has not happened in the past in no way changes that. I stand by what I’ve said.
You are the picture of what “progressivism” has degenerated into. For you, it’s nothing but a childish, meaningless game. All one would need to do would be to listen to you for five minutes to understand why this country is going down the toilet. And your state, the Soviet of California, is leading the plunge.
posted by JohnInCA on
Gee, all that from me asking what you mean when you say “democracy” after you refute the common definition?
posted by Lori Heine on
John in California, you missed your calling. Had you been a breeder, with a mentality like yours, you could have (and almost certainly would have) been another Ted Cruz.
posted by JohnInCA on
Actually, I missed my calling as a starting artist. Sadly, when I was 16† and choosing a university I had unrealistic notions of how much money you needed to get by, and pursued an engineering degree instead of going to art school.
So while I’m not unhappy with the way my life turned out‡, I do at times feel I “missed my calling” as a bohemian artist, struggling to get by and basically being a modern over-educated hippy producing my own web-comic and hitting the geek convention circuit to try and drive up readership.
But a conservative politician? Nah, based on my family and sisters (and family is often a big indicator of political leanings) even if I were straight I’d still be liberal-ish (though we are admittedly closer to “blue dog democrats” then hard-core California liberals). And with my snark, even if I went into politics I’d probably be closer to Anthony Wiener or Barney Frank then Ted Cruz.
________
†Because of quirks of state law and ages and so-on, I graduated high school and started college when I was still 17, so I was making my choices when I was 16.
‡Stable solid job doing work that’s mostly interesting and occasionally intellectually challenges me, sense of satisfaction that I’m contributing to national defense, never arrested, no drug use, able to support my husband in his academic pursuits, having my awesome husband, so-on and etc. I’m pretty cool, if very boring. It’s no secret that I’m proud of my life and where I’ve gotten.
posted by Lori Heine on
You are missing my meaning.
The attitudes of the social justice warrior left and of the culture warrior right are basically interchangeable. They are the same type of person. The rest of the country is deathly sick of them, which accounts for a lot of the discontent out there.
Big corporations and billionaires have figured out how to astroturf every popular political movement in this country. They do it with the complicity of lazy, overgrown twelve-year-olds who care primarily about being welcomed at the table in the cafeteria where the kids they consider “cool” are sitting.
I suppose that explanation will sail right over your head, too. But it’s the misdefinition and misapplication of words — the words we all need to use in order to communicate, or even to think clearly–that is aiding and abetting the astroturfing that is happening.
You are helping the very big corporations and billionaires you claim to find so dangerous. This happens whenever you play stupid and claim that words like “libertarian” have no definition because they are misused.
Democracy can either involve the empowerment of the marginalized, or the tyranny of the mob. It all depends upon how the term is used (or misused).
On commentary threads here, it is often used in a way that seems to indicate that as long as the cool kids will continue to let the commenters sit with them, nothing else matters.
posted by JohnInCA on
“You are missing my meaning.”
Well duh. That’s why I’ve been asking what you mean when you use the word “democracy”.
You know what’s funny? I’ve been asking what you mean by “democracy” and you’ve been very shy with sharing that. What you haven’t been shy with is what you think of me.
Did you laugh? Well, I guess it’s more “funny weird” then “funny haha”, but it still made me smile.
posted by Lori Heine on
I didn’t define democracy. Are you really such an idiot that you think this is because I don’t know what it means?
Child, I’m not interested in playing your silly little game.
Of course democracy is majority rule. Everyone knows that. I am also well aware that it is a good thing only when certain safeguards are in place–most notably that the minority is not crushed and tyrannized. If you give something more than a steaming pile of turd about LGBT rights, you will care about it too.
Democracy is impossible when run by a bunch of kindergarteners bent on playing games and trying to “win” over those who have challenged them to think. I have challenged you to think, and it causes you almost physical pain. I am not sorry.
posted by JohnInCA on
You seem to confuse me asking about your non-standard use of the word (“no such thing” when referring to current and historical democracies) with me advocating anything.
It’s quite odd.
Note: I realize this response is many days late and will most likely not get a response. This is entirely my fault as I have been busy and did not respond in a timely manner.
posted by Lori Heine on
I have no fricking idea what you’re saying.
Compounding the problem is the fact that there’s obviously something wrong with the comment function on this website. Who knows how long it will take for a message from either of us to appear?
I take a very cautious stance on democracy because (A) the term is so often abused, and (B) most of what has historically been called “democracy” has been nothing of the sort. The closest thing to a pure democracy was achieved in antiquity, in the city-state of Athens.
I’m interested in the way language is being bastardized, both on the left and on the right. And of course, as I have noted before, it isn’t only the word “libertarian” that is suffering this treatment.
I suppose I should respond to “progressives” the same way they do to libertarians. The word is used in so many different ways, by different people, to mean different things–ho hum, does it mean anything at all?
I realize it’s “different” when it’s your ideology rather than mine. Except that in reality, it isn’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, finally evidence that “The Gays” are responsible for the Rise of Trump, just as Stephen has been asserting.