|
United States7483 Posts
On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended.
But only one of these two things actually prevents the other from practicing their beliefs. If you are pro-life, you certainly have every right not to have an abortion. Pro-choice people want people to have the power to decide for themselves, pro-life people want to tell people they have no right to a choice, they have to say no. Only one of these two stances actually tells people how to behave and attempts to force them to behave a certain way. Being pro choice does not attempt to force people to abort.
A more fair comparison would be someone who is pro-life to someone who is pro-abortion (believes abortion should be mandatory). You see how silly it gets when you actually think about it?
|
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that.
|
On July 27 2012 08:36 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended. But only one of these two things actually prevents the other from practicing their beliefs. If you are pro-life, you certainly have every right not to have an abortion. Pro-choice people want people to have the power to decide for themselves, pro-life people want to tell people they have no right to a choice, they have to say no. Only one of these two stances actually tells people how to behave and attempts to force them to behave a certain way. Being pro choice does not attempt to force people to abort. A more fair comparison would be someone who is pro-life to someone who is pro-abortion (believes abortion should be mandatory). You see how silly it gets when you actually think about it?
I think the person being aborted should have a say in the matter.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 08:36 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended. But only one of these two things actually prevents the other from practicing their beliefs. If you are pro-life, you certainly have every right not to have an abortion. Pro-choice people want people to have the power to decide for themselves, pro-life people want to tell people they have no right to a choice, they have to say no. Only one of these two stances actually tells people how to behave and attempts to force them to behave a certain way. Being pro choice does not attempt to force people to abort. A more fair comparison would be someone who is pro-life to someone who is pro-abortion (believes abortion should be mandatory). You see how silly it gets when you actually think about it?
Pro-life people would argue that the unborn child's right to life supersedes the women's right to choice, the same as you don't have the right to kill a born child. I disagree, but I don't think it's a wholly unreasonable position. And besides that, you have the right to feel as though oppression is moral as long as you don't actually break laws by oppressing people(ie discriminate).
And I don't see how that's a more fair comparison But either way, I'd respect their right to hold that opinion, no matter how preposterous I thought it seemed.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that.
That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups.
|
On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups.
I guess we'll see about that.
It saddens me to see how many people on this website support the suppression of Gay rights. Even if homosexuality was a choice (studies and research are much more in favor of it not being a choice) your religion is no reason to deny them rights. Leviticus (the part of the bible Christians like to quote to justify their bigotry) is old testament and also says people who wear clothes of two different fabrics should be killed.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that.
It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court.
Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment.
|
On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment.
And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment?
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment?
I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want.
|
On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want.
The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us.
|
On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment.
No, it won't be rule unconstitutional. The mayor won't ban them for their religious beliefs. He'll come up with another reason to ban them from his city. If he and the city council (who I presume are with him since it's Boston and all) don't want a business in their city it's not going to be in their fucking city lol.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us.
Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo.
On July 27 2012 09:02 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. No, it won't be rule unconstitutional. The mayor won't ban them for their religious beliefs. He'll come up with another reason to ban them from his city. If he and the city council (who I presume are with him since it's Boston and all) don't want a business in their city it's not going to be in their fucking city lol.
I think that's pretty close to what I said in my edit, minus the mayor acting however the fuck he wants.
|
On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It saddens me to see how many people on this website support the suppression of Gay rights. Even if homosexuality was a choice (studies and research are much more in favor of it not being a choice) your religion is no reason to deny them rights. Leviticus (the part of the bible Christians like to quote to justify their bigotry) is old testament and also says people who wear clothes of two different fabrics should be killed.
Most, if not all, are "suppressing gay rights" through allowing Chic-Fil-A to set up shop not because they specifically want to suppress gay rights. The ideals supported by Chic-Fil-A are not espoused by many on TL, but that's not stopping them from hounding this Mayor, thinking he can banhammer a business merely because he disagrees with it. They wouldn't want the local government to block them from building a business due to their beliefs, so they're treating Chic-Fil-A in kind.
|
On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo.
If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes.
On July 27 2012 09:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It saddens me to see how many people on this website support the suppression of Gay rights. Even if homosexuality was a choice (studies and research are much more in favor of it not being a choice) your religion is no reason to deny them rights. Leviticus (the part of the bible Christians like to quote to justify their bigotry) is old testament and also says people who wear clothes of two different fabrics should be killed. Most, if not all, are "suppressing gay rights" through allowing Chic-Fil-A to set up shop not because they specifically want to suppress gay rights. The ideals supported by Chic-Fil-A are not espoused by many on TL, but that's not stopping them from hounding this Mayor, thinking he can banhammer a business merely because he disagrees with it. They wouldn't want the local government to block them from building a business due to their beliefs, so they're treating Chic-Fil-A in kind.
I understand it's mostly a vocal minority that actually think in a similar manner to Chic-Fil-A, but there are still a good number of them. As for local government blocking businesses due to beliefs you have to look at it on a case by case basis. Anti LGBT people are this generations racists and we need to do our best to abolish organisations that propagate this type of thinking
|
The justification for the ban is because Chic-Fil-A supports charities that the Mayor disagrees with. These are legal charities with tax exempt status. The charities also happen to support the political opponents of the Mayor. It is a very dangerous and undesirable precedent to allow elected officials to use their office to suppress or intimidate the opposing parties. This kind of chicanery is not productive when it comes to building consensus on controversial issues.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes.
As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem.
|
On July 26 2012 06:01 Probe1 wrote:
It is a retaliatory statement after chick fil a made bigoted remarks Zaqwert. You're theorycrafting a hell of a lot in that post. Then again I imagine most of the posts in this thread will be nothing but each users own believes expounded and projected onto the situation at hand.
Which, in my opinion, is a non-news situation. Some Mayor says something; come campaign time when he's accused of cutting jobs from harboring a grudge by his opponent he might change his tune. Who knows. It's a political statement; I don't take it seriously.
Well what do you fucking know. He goes back on it after 24 hours.
|
On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem.
Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:
[quote]
That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion.
I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally.
There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on.
|
On July 27 2012 08:36 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:28 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 07:25 Lumi wrote: there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, but if for example you vote anti abortion (a less extreme and more common example) then you're shitting on pro choice peoples rights or beliefs. Can't you see how the whole everyone respect everyone notion is fundamentally flawed now? It's preference vs preference in the end, and only the foolish would claim to practice, let alone actually practice a complete passivity where they let others shape the world for them absolutely. And by being pro-choice you're shitting on pro-life beliefs. It's a two way street. And it's not a right go through life not being offended. But only one of these two things actually prevents the other from practicing their beliefs. If you are pro-life, you certainly have every right not to have an abortion. Pro-choice people want people to have the power to decide for themselves, pro-life people want to tell people they have no right to a choice, they have to say no. Only one of these two stances actually tells people how to behave and attempts to force them to behave a certain way. Being pro choice does not attempt to force people to abort. A more fair comparison would be someone who is pro-life to someone who is pro-abortion (believes abortion should be mandatory). You see how silly it gets when you actually think about it?
If you're pro choice you're obviously imposing your beliefs on the unborn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
