oh quit your fucking whining. oh boo hoo you can't post your bigotry without repercussions.I would post to this thread, but Bells would probably take offense and shut me down.
oh quit your fucking whining. oh boo hoo you can't post your bigotry without repercussions.I would post to this thread, but Bells would probably take offense and shut me down.
I can't post my opinions. The bigots are those who can't tolerate the opinions of others.oh quit your fucking whining. oh boo hoo you can't post your bigotry without repercussions.
I elaborated in my last post.Well, I suppose that depends on which actions you mean;
have you any in mind?
I'm more interested in what you think of violence in theTo wit, there is classic civil disobedience, in
which protesters are frequently accused of trespassing;
for the most part I'm fine with that,
Another minor illegal action, but here the illegality maysince the first person jailed for marriage
equality conscience was an Alabama minister who offered
to marry a gay couple after the probate judge refused.
As Matt Baume↱ noted in May:
To be clear: this is an actual example of a religious
official who has been sent to jail for exercising her
religious beliefs. It is the very thing that the marriage
equality opponents have been claiming will happen to
them. And yet none of them are coming to DePrizio's
defense.
I thought both cases you mention were about illegalSo here's what we have, by comparison:
• County clerk in contempt of court for claiming
religious conscience as an excuse to violate equal
protection udner the law, and the expected, loud
"religious freedom" protest.
• Minister sentenced to thirty days for offending a judge
by trespassing after undermining his delberate violation
of the law.
Pretty much any comparison of Christian
supremacism to genuine civil disobedience is going to be
offensive and make you look silly;
Your advice has been noted, though I still don't know whyI would advise caution on that count.
See my last post to Deacon. There I clarify the intent ofOr, at the very least if human rights and basic
decency are somehow insufficient for you, some sort of
definitive argument that doesn't leave me to decide what
your questions mean.
With that statement I can no longer let the presumptionWe see this titptoeing method of inquiry at
present in various issues generally placed on the
conservative side of the American spectrum, and as with,
say, human rights and women's health, the problem is
twofold. First, the lack of definition about such
questions makes it hard to answer them directly; second,
the vague terminology generally appears intended to
whitewash the attitudes and politics the questions are
intended to promote and protect, and that generally for
their difficulty in finding a real, functioning
application.
If you're saying that you're experienced at responding toPlease remember that in the gay rights question,
my team has gotten plenty of practice with these
questions over the last quarter-century since Christians
picked this fight.
untrue your allowed to post your opinion. the thread in which you uttered that bigoted filth you call your opinion is still able to be viewed. your mistaking the fact that you having to the suffer the consequences of your bigotry as not being allowed to present such ideas. your allowed to you just have to deal with the fact you will be criticized for them. thats the problems with bigots like you self. you think you have the right to be a bigot and not be called on it you don't. the view point you posted was morally repugnant and just vile in nature.I can't post my opinions.
ah yes the classic i'm not a bigot the people who admonish my bigotry are the bigots because they won't let spew my filth without admonishment and critique. sorry princess you don't have to the right to not be criticized. also I don't think anyone other than other bigots has ever fallen for that sanctimonious bullshit of defense. what you posted was clear bigotry and thats not tolerated her, well maybe if its against islam but even than only a little bit and by some mods. so quit your whining and own the consequences of your hate.The bigots are those who can't tolerate the opinions of others.
Stuart said:I elaborated in my last post.
I'm more interested in what you think of violence in the name of civil disobedience. But, look, you're fine with a minor legal infraction. An innocuous enough sentiment in itself, since the type of trespassing we're speaking of is generally non-violent and non-destructive. Since you now state that certain other minor illegal acts are fine with you how is it significant to you if Davis and the Tennessee Judiciary are entirely in the wrong legally?
Another minor illegal action, but here the illegality may be less in question, because if the minister had not regularly been marrying gay couples, then he hadn't shown that to be a part of his religious belief in a substantial way. You understand that ministers and judges opposed to gay marriage have been or would have been refusing to marry gay couple for hundreds of years should the requests have been made. If there were ministers and judges in favor of gay marriage, who also shared the
common Christian sentiment that marriage is a preferred state to be in, then such an incidence as the Alabama minister would be just one in a series stretching back hundreds of years. After all, minister are known to seek unmarried couples and recommend it.
I thought both cases you mention were about illegal actions done in the name of Christianity, or "Christian supremacist" as you call it. In your Baume quote, he states the Minister was claiming religious conscience. But, that aside your statement confuses me. Firstly, I'm unconcerned with being offensive, but I'd like to avoid being silly, as in absurd. But, what I see is two sets of people acting on their conscience, and making claims (for which all I know may be sound among both respective peoples) that the constitution is in their favor.
Your advice has been noted, though I still don't know why you offered it being that I asked what you think of such a comparison, not offered what I think.
See my last post to Deacon. There I clarify the intent of my question. That aside, I'm also confused by the statement as well. It seems the presumption in your
statement is that the issue of legality aside, you're position in favor of human rights and basic decency are without question. But, I only put your position in favor of gay rights without question. I challenged you on the issue of gender rights and you asked for details, which I gave and which you ignored, then claimed the aspect of our argument was becoming circular.
With that statement I can no longer let the presumption that you didn't read my above quote be of any value. I'd expect that before such a detailed criticism and comparison of my question to others, you would have taken the time to wait for me to respond to your early questions from the same post. Basically, I asked a simple question, having already established myself as one willing to elaborate, and rather than giving me the opportunity to elaborate you make presumptions about the reasoning for it's brevity.
If you're saying that you're experienced at responding to questions in general then fine, though I don't know why you would need to tell me that while I still await a response from you for an earlier issue.
Firstly, I have not brought up the gay rights question in itself, only aspects of it, secondly, I'm unconcerned with your record in discussing these issue with people for whom I've given you no reason to believe I associate with.
Why should anyone tolerate homophobia? Should we tolerate racism, or is wanting equal rights somehow "bigoted"?I can't post my opinions. The bigots are those who can't tolerate the opinions of others.
Daecon said:Why should anyone tolerate homophobia? Should we tolerate racism, or is wanting equal rights somehow "bigoted"?
Wow, that was weird. Again, today I spent 35.00 dollars on video slots and walked away with 400.00 dollars. I'm not certain why my original post was so mangled, but I thought it was worth repeating.All is well. This afternoon, in my frustration, I spent $35.00 on video slots and walked away with $400.00. So the day wasn't a total disappointment. It was an exciting diversion to an otherwise dismal morning. Even the black guy sitting next to me got a bit of a thrill from my good fortune.
http://www.oregonlottery.org/GameInfo/Video/
That paragraph was addressed to Deacon. My elaboration for the benefit of both you and him was in the next paragraph.Part the First
Not very well:
"Being there was much illegal actions done during the heart of the civil rights movements regarding race, I assume you're implying that it's supposed to be obvious that such illegal actions were morally right, and I assume you're implying that illegal actions of the same kind (violence against law abiding citizens, and many lesser crimes) are justified for the sake of gay rights as well."
Obviously you knew that. It's clear now that you're deliberately using obfuscation.Stuart said:Anyway, I asked the question originally, because I'm trying to understand how to correlate the mixture of detailed arguments for why certain acts done by those opposed to homosexuality were illegal and the less detailed descriptions of why those acts are immoral. If the illegality of an act supports the argument of the immorality of an act then I'd assume that the illegality of an act would hurt the argument for the morality of an act. I'm not claiming it's all or nothing regarding one's belief in the law as a moral rule, I'm just looking for consistency in both directions. The more importance people stress on the illegality of an action they find immoral, the more I assume that they stress a greater degree of belief in the morality of the law in general.
I asked you a question, that's not grasping at straws.Tiassa said:This is why details matter, Stuart. This is why function is important. As it is, we might wonder if perhaps you're just grasping after straws.
That doesn't come close to qualify as an answer to my question. The illegality of the Davis issue is not in question, I told you I was through with that for now -- it's difficult to believe that you missed that post. The issue of "supremacism" versus civil rights is also not in question, I have neither stated an opinion on that nor asked you to. The moral value you place on the law is what is in question. I'm uncertain whether this is more obfuscation or simply poor comprehension.Functionally speaking, Ms. Davis' lawbreaking and her attorney's desire to extend that dereliction to force others to break the law, would be construed, in terms of civil disobedience, as a protest on behalf of supremacism, and in order to deny others their civil rights.
You're being ridiculous.Would you please at least do us the courtesy of making sense?
You're not hurting my argument, after all, I conceded that the examples you gave of actions done by officials may be illegal, and as you just quoted me saying, I stated that in the example of the pro gay marriage minister the illegality of his actions were less disputable.Judges, magistrates, and chancellors, as such, are sworn to uphold the law. They have taken an oath to do so. They cannot refuse to enforce the law merely for personal aesthetics.
That is not my concern at the moment.Furthermore, if we frame this as Kim Davis has, her own case is undermined if she has, even negligently, failed to check that she isn't issuing a marriage license to a divorceé whose former spouse still lives. And given her own four marriages?
No, I don't think I'm being original, nor is it my intention to concern myself with the originality or lack of originality in my line of questioning.Were one to assert that Christian conscience licenses child sexual abuse because Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me", might we expect that someone, somewhere, would stand up and remind, "Ah ... that's not quite what He meant"? To the other, that argument would at least have what Ms. Davis' assertion of Christianity lacks, an attempt to derive the argument from the words of Jesus.
We do not wonder at the lack of functional details about your post; Ms. Davis' alleged Christian conscience is a mockery of the Bible, Christianity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Again, details matter. Furthermore, I don't know if you think you're some sort of original, or something,
If that's true then the fact that your struggling with it contradicts your earlier declaration of overt competence.but this is really stale, crusty pabulum at this point.
I have nothing to say to all that. You already know that I'm not interested in arguing the Davis issue until further reading, so it's only relevant in the context I presented it. Basically, you only addressed one side of the issue. You quoted Baume stating that the pro gay marriage was breaking the law due to religious conscience, then later blatantly ignored that and stated that it was simply a matter of civil rights, while the other public officials in question, were the one's acting on behalf of religion.The probate judge chose to refuse to uphold his sworn oath in order to deny constitutional rights.
At this point, we might also consider that Ms. Davis' attorney, Mat Staver↱, has argued that it is not at all unreasonable to send applicants to another county and have someone else do it.
What we have in the arrest and sentencing of Rev. Anne DePrizio is a judge who refused to do his job, someone else stepping up to do it, and the judge having her arrested. In politics, we call this bad optics. As a judicial matter, there is a question of trespassing. As a logical or moral argument, however, Probate Judge Al Booth hasn't a grain to stand on.
If one actually attends the details of what is actually happening, we see this circle running 'round over and over again. To wit, Liberty Counsel argued in a brief on 28 August that taking Ms. Davis' name off the licenses would remove the personal nature of the authorization; Mr. Staver repeated that point publicly on 31 August; on 4 September he asserted Ms. Davis' personal nature of denying authorization to extend to other county clerks who were following the law. You tried to argue around this, and it's becoming clear why, but if Ms. Davis wants both, to remove her personal aspect from the license, and to assert her personal aspect to deny issuance of the license.
And this is the circle. This isn't really about Ms. Davis' conscience speaking against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; this is about denying constitutional rights for the sake of petty, personal aesthetics.
With Ms. Davis' case, as with Judge Booth's, allegedly acceptable alternatives were at hand, and in both cases the bigots would hope to prevent those alternatives from taking place.
As I've suggested, details matter.
Forgive me if it was a repeat. I had such a good day, I just want to share it with everyone. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$There's a word for that. It's called "spam".
You used a pro gay marriage Christian "supremacist" to make a point, and I called you on it. The decent thing to do would be to admit it.As I said: Pretty much any comparison of Christian supremacism to genuine civil disobedience is going to be offensive and make you look silly.
Ok, I understand now how you differentiate the actions of the pro gay marriage minister and the other officials who're against gay marriage. They're both acting on their religious principals (which, once again, I know from reading your Baume quote, even if you won't admit as much in your own words), but one is also acting in the name of equality, the other in a form of elitism you call "supremacy".The fundamental function you're asking about is pretty clearly illustrated: Supremacy ≠ Equality.
I spoke to common denominator, which is religious beliefs, I have not made any comparison between equality and "supremacist", you brought up the two issues, for no apparent reason, being that have nothing to do with my question regarding your evaluation of the morality of law. Also, you have not established that one side is fighting for equality, I challenged you on that issue, and you failed to respond.That is, as you inquired:
"Do you put your morals regarding your support for gay rights over the law at any time, and if so what past illegal actions done by those in the name of promoting gay rights do you find acceptable and which do you find unacceptable?"
Ostensibly, one side is fighting for equality, the other is fighting for supremacism. The mere comparison is pretty stupid, as it suggests you can't tell the difference.
That is not my concern. But, I will say it's ridiculous that you continue to make declarations about your competence, when your actual degree of competence is clearly on display in your responses to my questions and comments.Also remember something else I said in that post: Please remember that in the gay rights question, my team has gotten plenty of practice with these questions over the last quarter-century since Christians picked this fight. We've been through this puerile needlepoint routine over and over and over again,
More presumptions. I have advocated nothing, nor given you any reason to believe I follow the belief system generally labeled "conservatism" in America, nor that I am Christian.and the striking thing throughout that time is that conservative advocates never seem to get any better at this.
I doubt my question concerning morality is original, but assuming that your failure to grasp it is not a pretense, but lack of comprehension, it's likely you have not come across it.Look, here's the problem: When one enters the discussion with such apparent ignorance as you show, it would behoove them to familiarize themselves with the details. Basically, you're pretty much recycling the same stuff we've been through countless times since Lawrence, and all the way back to around 1990 in the current arc of the Gay Fray.
You can't decide whether I'm ignorant and need to do more reading, or am pretending to be ignorant. Altogether the above shows a very poor ability to evaluate my motives. I suggest not concerning yourself with my motives, and responding to my questions and comments with integrity.And it's always the same, this pretense of naïveté; these questions have been addressed so many times in the public discourse that we no longer find it coincidental when this pretentious naïveté suddenly reappears in a range including your own entry.
You're rambling.The confused pretense, seemingly the difference between a supremacist asking "why" or "why not", really is threadbare after all these years. And, essentially, it comes down to that classic inability to tell the difference. A formerly supremacist presupposition―e.g., Christian superiority under the law―has broken. Advocates have fought to reiterate and reinforce their historical advantage to no avail. So the new thing is to ask, wide-eyed, "Why not?" as if history itself is irrelevant. And throughout, in the case of gay rights, American society has generally rejected that sleight; it's too obvious, this time.
You're being ridiculous. My only "point about elaboration" was that I did elaborate and I assure you I no longer have any expectations of a response. It's clear to me that you have no belief inequality.So yes, I admit I do find it rather curious that people keep trying. And despite your point about elaboration, we're still waiting.
You continue to say so, despite all appearances showing that you may have never approached the questions I've asked in good faith.No, what I'm saying is that we've been through your entire routine before. Many times.
Your presumptions are wrong, I went into this conversation with good faith.You aren't original by any measure; the tactic you're following has been eviscerated repeatedly over the last eleven years, at least; and you're so visibly concerned with posturing yourself without actually offering anything substantial that it reads exactly like textbook cheap politicking.
I don't think anyone is advocating violence against innocent people or businesses, though.