|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 21:15:02 GMT -5
Legalizing gay marriage caused an uproar. Who cares? Why let anti-gay bigots save face at the expense of the equality of gays?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 29, 2015 21:26:07 GMT -5
Legalizing gay marriage caused an uproar. Who cares? Why let anti-gay bigots save face at the expense of the equality of gays? The equality is already assured, so it's at the expense of nothing. What it's about though is the path to normalcy, that's what is important now and allowing even that illusion of give and take for the oposition is going to make that much easier. Firing them right out of hand would just play into their hands, like they are actually the victims of the "gay agenda" which is not prudent in the least. It's this kind of quick "gotcha!" mentality that makes politics suck as much as they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 21:37:15 GMT -5
The equality is already assured, I'm not quite sure about that. Can a county clerk refuse to marry a Christian couple because he doesn't agree with Christianity? Can a county clerk refuse to marry a colored couple because according to his faith marriage is for white people only? Can a county clerk refuse to marry someone who had previously been divorced? An interracial couple? Or is it only gays that county clerks can deny services to? That doesn't sound like equality to me. Would you support the government allowing county clerks to deny marriages to interracial couples as long as someone in town was willing to step in and fulfill the couple's needs? Or would you demand that clerk lose their job? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 29, 2015 21:51:16 GMT -5
The equality is already assured, I'm not quite sure about that. Can a county clerk refuse to marry a Christian couple because he doesn't agree with Christianity? Can a county clerk refuse to marry a colored couple because according to his faith marriage is for white people only? Can a county clerk refuse to marry someone who had previously been divorced? An interracial couple? Or is it only gays that county clerks can deny services to? That doesn't sound like equality to me. Would you support the government allowing county clerks to deny marriages to interracial couples as long as someone in town was willing to step in and fulfill the couple's needs? Or would you demand that clerk lose their job? It's assured by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and over time people who disagree with that will come to terms with that and you can't force that. At the time when interracial marriage was a new thing? Sure, I'd be for accommodating others in the name of a smooth transition, and it would be the same for when divorce first became normalized or when the right of African Americans to marry was first recognized as well. A peaceful transition is the absolute best way to go even if it feels better to strike out at the opposition. It's already a fractious issue for some people and firing people would only make it worse by making those people feel "oppressed". Firing them is expedient, but in the long run it creates tension, tension which makes normalcy much harder. When available a softer path should be sought, easing people into the change until they forget about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 22:16:18 GMT -5
Normalcy ONLY comes by no longer tolerating discrimination. That is the only way black people got civil rights, and will be the only way gay people do. Doyou think the bigots would have compromised if the decision would have been different?
And I'm not talking about when the Civil Rights Act just passed. I'm talking today. There are still people today who practice a religion of white supremacy, and who would have religious objections to interracial marriage. Should they be allowed to deny services to minorities and interracial couples as a public servant today? Because if the answer is no, then gay equality is absolutely not ensured, since public servants can deny them their rights despite the court ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 29, 2015 22:22:42 GMT -5
Normalcy ONLY comes by no longer tolerating discrimination. That is the only way black people got civil rights, and will be the only way gay people do. Doyou think the bigots would have compromised if the decision would have been different? And I'm not talking about when the Civil Rights Act just passed. I'm talking today. There are still people today who practice a religion of white supremacy, and who would have religious objections to interracial marriage. Should they be allowed to deny services to minorities and interracial couples as a public servant today? Because if the answer is no, then gay equality is absolutely not ensured, since public servants can deny them their rights despite the court ruling. So we should base our actions on what the bigots would do? Again, that eye for and eye game is why capital hill is in the state its in. As long as there is someone who will file the paper work, who cares if someone passed on doing it before it got put through? There is no denial because ultimately the marriage still goes through. That's not what the bigots are hoping of course, they're hoping it gives them a loop hole to circumvent the decision, but with the compromise they wouldn't get that and they wouldn't get the rallying cry about being "discriminated" against for being fired. So in the end they lose. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 29, 2015 22:28:26 GMT -5
So, both sides are the same, eh? Would the U.S. have today's Supreme Court decision legitimatizing same-sex marriage in the entire country if Kagan and Sotomayor were replaced by McCain's or Romney's appointees? Discuss. Probably not. Though it's not ever that clear. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan and Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion upholding The Affordable Care Act, was appointed by Bush II. The court makes strange bedfellows...though you definitely have hardcore ideologues like Uncle Thomas. That said, replace either or both of those justices with Republican appointees and there is likely a different result. I quit calling him "Clarence Uncle Thomas" a long time ago when I realized that calling him "Clarence Thomas" was worse than any attempt to make a joke out of his name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 22:40:50 GMT -5
Normalcy ONLY comes by no longer tolerating discrimination. That is the only way black people got civil rights, and will be the only way gay people do. Doyou think the bigots would have compromised if the decision would have been different? And I'm not talking about when the Civil Rights Act just passed. I'm talking today. There are still people today who practice a religion of white supremacy, and who would have religious objections to interracial marriage. Should they be allowed to deny services to minorities and interracial couples as a public servant today? Because if the answer is no, then gay equality is absolutely not ensured, since public servants can deny them their rights despite the court ruling. So we should base our actions on what the bigots would do? Again, that eye for and eye game is why capital hill is in the state its in. As long as there is someone who will file the paper work, who cares if someone passed on doing it before it got put through? There is no denial because ultimately the marriage still goes through. That's not what the bigots are hoping of course, they're hoping it gives them a loop hole to circumvent the decision, but with the compromise they wouldn't get that and they wouldn't get the rallying cry about being "discriminated" against for being fired. So in the end they lose. This is no "eye for an eye" This is "Gays are equals, you're a public servant. It's your job to service them. Do it or find a new job" "Eye for an eye" would be banning heterosexual marriage for a century and discriminating against Christians in fields like teaching or adopting children. That isn't happening. Nobody is banning bible study. Nobody is even saying you can't hate gays. What I'm saying is public servants must serve ALL of the public. No compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 30, 2015 1:31:39 GMT -5
So we should base our actions on what the bigots would do? Again, that eye for and eye game is why capital hill is in the state its in. As long as there is someone who will file the paper work, who cares if someone passed on doing it before it got put through? There is no denial because ultimately the marriage still goes through. That's not what the bigots are hoping of course, they're hoping it gives them a loop hole to circumvent the decision, but with the compromise they wouldn't get that and they wouldn't get the rallying cry about being "discriminated" against for being fired. So in the end they lose. This is no "eye for an eye" This is "Gays are equals, you're a public servant. It's your job to service them. Do it or find a new job" "Eye for an eye" would be banning heterosexual marriage for a century and discriminating against Christians in fields like teaching or adopting children. That isn't happening. Nobody is banning bible study. Nobody is even saying you can't hate gays. What I'm saying is public servants must serve ALL of the public. No compromise. Quite a debate going on here. So far dupont2005 gets my vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 30, 2015 7:10:05 GMT -5
Screw compromise. If a civil servant discriminates against any citizen in the name of their religion, they should be fired and maybe even criminally charged with violating that citizen's civil rights. I'm sick to death of this country kowtowing to right wing fundamentalism and its deliberate propagation of ignorance and hatred. If they don't like it here, let 'em go back to the Twelfth Century where they belong.
Cei-U!
I summon the line in the sand!
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 30, 2015 8:18:42 GMT -5
Screw compromise. If a civil servant discriminates against any citizen in the name of their religion, they should be fired and maybe even criminally charged with violating that citizen's civil rights. I'm sick to death of this country kowtowing to right wing fundamentalism and its deliberate propagation of ignorance and hatred. If they don't like it here, let 'em go back to the Twelfth Century where they belong. Cei-U! I summon the line in the sand! Life is compromise, whether anyone likes it or not.
If a civil servant discriminates against any citizen for any reason, they should be fired and if the law allows, criminally prosecuted.
If a civil servant has religious or other objections to a job function, they should be moved to another job if possible. If not possible, they would need to look for another job.
Personally I think that not wanting to issue a same-sex marriage license is really stretching it, but it's not my place to judge.
But I can also see other situations where a person's beliefs should be respected. What if a person works in the prison system and is told they're being moved to a job that's connected with executions? Many people have philosophical and religious objections to the death penalty. Should they be forced to participate, even indirectly, in executions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 30, 2015 9:20:52 GMT -5
I don't think the "compromise" would work. I just don't trust the "good faith" of anyone that would try to twist their "sincerely held religious beliefs" into a justification for bigotry. And as I said before, they want to pretend their reluctance to do their jobs is based on scripture, but that's just some pretty lame sophistry.
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Accommodating their bigotry will mean a huge victory for these people as they will use the "compromise" to do everything to throw obstacles in the way of homosexuals seeking licenses. Making sure they comply will entail a lot of micromanaging, and I quite frankly don't think they deserve the extra effort just to keep petty-minded, hateful bigots in government jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 9:22:21 GMT -5
There is no reason for the religious right to feel like they won anything and there is no reason for a compromise. Firing a county clerk for failing to perform his duties is constitutionally legal, and the right thing to do. The "best result" is bigotry is not tolerated in public service at any level. ^^ THIS. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 30, 2015 9:46:54 GMT -5
What happens if states refuse to comply with marriage ruling?These are the people that we are supposed to compromise with. There is no compromise with bigots who have dedicated their lives to making Jesus look intolerant, stupid and foolish. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 30, 2015 10:13:52 GMT -5
Cruz: Disagreeing with me is not ‘good behavior’Would somebody explain to me how Ted Cruz is presidential material? I wouldn't trust him to watch a cactus. |
|
