Discussion for article #235068
a fringe set of rightwing conservatives
These aren’t fringe conservatives.
18 Likes
Bull’s eye commentary.
10 Likes
it’s funny that the party of ‘personal’ responsibility draws the line when it comes to actually having to face the consequences of their actions…
they’re the first ones to yell that their freedom of speech is being violated when their speech gets them fired… that’s a first amendment right too… but if you say something objectionable and its get you a punch in the mouth… those are the consequences… you don’t have to say it and the government doesn’t necessarily protect you… there used to be a legal defense called ‘fighting words’…
driving a car isn’t a right… its a privilege and it comes with conditions attached… demonstrate the skill… pass the test… obey traffic laws…
4 Likes
Now if Fox News would just run the gist of this story as a message–
in a one-sentence format on its’ scrolling-chyron 24/7?
Then RWNJs might believe it.
jw1
1 Like
You know what else Conservatives nearly always choose to avoid? Logic, like the kind explained by this article.
7 Likes
As for the concept of “forcing:” Would it be any different if the word “compel” were substituted for “force?” I can’t force my son to do his homework, but I can make things pretty uncomfortable for him if he doesn’t.
And, as I’ve posted a few times today, there are so many ways to get into gray areas here that I just don’t find the cases made by these arguments “compelling” enough.
What about a printer printing a “wedding sign” that reads, “Bruce and Joe’s Wedding Today at 1 pm. A Match Made in Heaven!” Or a “communion announcement” reading “Brian O’Reilly Will Celebrate his First Communion with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Today a 1 pm.” Is there no sentiment to be agreed with or disagreed with here?
1 Like
To avoid confusion or possible embarrassment at the checkout stand, ALL businesses should be required to post emblems of their religion on their store windows in a highly visible position so that the potential customer can decide whether it is worth the risk of doing business there. Christian denominations should be required to place a large cross on their windows, specifying the sect that the owner belongs to. Jewish denominations should be required to paint a large Star of David on their windows, enabling God-fearing Christians to boycott those businesses so as not to violate their religious sensitivities. Muslims would post a crescent moon, indicating that only their kind were welcome there. Nonbelievers should be required to post a large Zero that would allow believers to avoid financial transactions. I believe that this symbolism should be required by law in all advertising as well. This could represent a New Day for Liberty!
3 Likes
To take it a step further, Christian businesses that can stand taking money from gay folks could have a rainbow colored cross and like-minded Jews could post a rainbow colored Star of David. Of course, there’s no point in even discussing such an option for Muslims.
The next to last paragraph, about government services, is the argument I find most compelling and have used with conservative friends and family members to explain the legal justification for anti-discrimination laws. The first response I get is that, “Businesses pay taxes. What about their rights?” But no business pays enough in taxes to cover all those taxpayer-provided services they rely upon to run their business. So other taxpayers chip in to help cover the cost of those services. Those other taxpayers include people with whom the business owner likely disagrees, just as my tax dollars help business owners with whom I disagree. It is part of belonging to a community and having pooled community resources (roads, police and fire protection, public education, etc). We cannot allow businesses to accept the help of tax dollars paid by the LGBT community and then turn around and discriminate against those very same people.
The next argument is usually something along the lines of “Nazis pay taxes. So should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi rally?” It’s an absurd argument but unfortunately one that must be responded to. My answer is that Nazis are not a protected class, nor should they be. Nobody is born a Nazi. People make the choice to join a hate group. When they make that choice, they give up certain privileges.
10 Likes
This is a weird ideological rant, isn’t it? The reality is that you can’t live very well if you choose not to obey the laws and regulations of the state. Sure, you could drive 90 miles an hour without a seat belt. But it wouldn’t take long before you lost your license to drive. Then, I suppose you could continue to drive. But it wouldn’t take long until the state took your liberty as well. This is the state using coercive force to compel correct behavior.
The same is true for businesses. You can choose not to start a business… but if you’re an entrepreneur that isn’t really an option.
Let’s face it. Regulations do restrict freedoms. Regulations say you aren’t free to deny service to anyone based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation (where applicable). They restrict your freedom to be a bigot. This too is the state using coercive force to compel correct behavior.
Bigots worship freedom over equality. They wave “Don’t Tread on me” flags when the only way the state is treading on them is in denying their self-percieved right to be bigots.
2 Likes
Man, I hope this is satire… cuz this ended really well for the Jews in the 30s.
1 Like
There’s no force, the government doesn’t force you to follow laws?
Awesome, Eric Garner was killed due to “circumstances of not following laws” it was his fault, and the government didn’t force him to stop selling loosies on the street.
No force. Right? The government doesn’t use force; that’s a myth of the right wing or something.
Or is that different; while oddly being exactly the same as the dumb-as-a-rock argument made here?
Seriously, how freaking stupid do you have to be to buy this, and to realize the first logical step here is to claim the government never uses force to enforce laws.
The word enforce has force in it for a reason; that’s not a coincidence.
5 Likes
Please stop referring to these hateful idiots as “Christians.” They are just bigots hiding behind a fake mask of Christianity. There’s nothing Christian about them.
8 Likes
If you cater to a gay wedding, you may catch gay. If you catch the gay, you’ll leave your wife for a man, and your wife will move in with a well hung black man.
This is a very slippery slope.
5 Likes
<Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.>
Absolutely right. That says it all right there.
Amen. That is it in a nutshell.
And it strikes me that there are entirely too many people trying to find ways to be offended.
1 Like
Vinny is correct…these are not fringe Christians.
Look up the 2009 Manhattan Declaration and then look up who signed it…lots of mainstream Catholic bishops as well as Protestant organizations are well represented.
This declaration emphatically states that religious liberty as a matter of conscience is jeopardized. A direct quote:
“…the use of anti-discrimination statues to force religious institutions, businesses and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral…”
And what activities are they referring to? Well, the obvious number one is abortion, if any recall the fuss made to provide birth control, etc. Hello, Hobby Lobby ruling.
There is also their reference to a marriage being between one man and one woman. And here’s what the declaration said “…nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent…”
So here it is. Religious liberty is extended to any business (Hobby Lobby ruling only viewed this as narrow–when the business is wholly or majority owned…) and that liberty is compromised when anyone at that business is “forced” to treat a union of other than a man and a woman as a marriage.
Hence, bakeries and pizza shop owners stepping up to this very confused plate as a matter of conscience and as an exercise of their religious liberty.
So, this is not a fringe endeavor but a culmination of contrastive religious thought in this country. The signatories to the original 2009 declaration is an eyeopener and certainly reveals this thought is not “fringe”.
1 Like
I have spoken to a lot of fairly religious conservatives, and many of them are not aware that marriage is a contract with the state. They think the church is “in charge” of marriages, and that if gay marriage is allowed, that means churches will be forced to perform the ceremony. Yes, for real.
These people indeed do not need to be hated, that just galvanizes them. They need to be educated. The few I advised that the church is permitted by the state to do marriages were not even aware of it, and some even did not believe and looked it up…only to be shocked. At that point many of them said “oh, OK, as long as my church does not have to do the service”
We can’t wait for FOX to educate them, we need to do it by engaging them. Sure, many are pig headed and still will just plain hate “gay”, but many will change their minds. And as I have said before, it only takes a few percent of people to turn around an election.
2 Likes
It’s difficult to use analogy to support a ridiculous position. You end up using a ridiculous or non-parallel comparison. Santorum does this above. Had the gay folks asked the christian baker to make a cake with “Jesus sucks” on it…his analogy would be OK. But that baker declined service because of whom the customer was…not what he wanted.
The second take from this is Santorum thought that quip was clever. Or knew that it wasn’t but thought the rubes would think it was. I guess non of it matters though. He’s never going to be nominated for much less run for President in a general election.
2 Likes