Posted by Tina
Robert R. Amsterdam, representative from an international law firm poses an intriguing question in an article at The Hill today: “Why should Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen operate charter schools on U.S. Military bases?”
A secretive Islamic movement is trying to infiltrate the U.S. military by establishing and operating publicly-funded charter schools targeted toward children of American service personnel.
That charge may sound like a conspiracy theory from the lunatic fringe, but it is real and it is happening right now. The most immediate threat is in Nevada, where Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas (CASLV) is currently negotiating with the United States Air Force to locate a charter school at Nellis Air Force Base, with classes starting this fall. What is not widely known is that CASLV is part of a nationwide organization of charter schools and other businesses headed by Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen, a reclusive but influential Imam living under self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania to avoid criminal prosecution in his native Turkey.
Our law firm has been engaged by the Republic of Turkey – a key NATO ally in a hotbed region – to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into the operations and geopolitical influence of the Gülen organization, which is behind the Coral Academy of Science and over 140 other public charter schools scattered across 26 American states. Our investigation, still in its early stages, reveals that the Gülen organization uses charter schools and affiliated businesses in the U.S. to misappropriate and launder state and federal education dollars, which the organization then uses for its own benefit to develop political power in this country and globally.
More importantly, the Turkish teachers in Gülen organization charter schools are evaluated not on the basis of their teaching skills, but rather on whether they achieve monthly goals in a secret point system designed to instil Turkish culture and Gülenist ideology in our American students. The goal, we are told, is to develop a Gülenist following of high achievers, incubated in our local community schools across the country
Indoctrination in American schools cannot be tolerated if we are to hang on to our sovereign identity and the freedoms our Constitution guarantees us as individuals. Moreover, the insidious Islamist threat to peacefully take control of the nations of the earth to implement a world wide caliphate cannot be ignored.
We have a choice to make and it better not be the PC choice.
Even a smidgen of common sense is completely absent in the Obumble admin.
But you thought Christian charter schools were a spiffy idea?
We tried to tell you that this kind of fractionalization was a bad idea, but would you listen?
No. So intent on promoting your own special agenda, you could not be made to see that others would have others.
Public education is how you indoctrinate a stable society. You want to do Christian, Islam, Buddhist school after public school, peachy. But all that charter school legislation should be repealed. All the little children get six hours of American indoctrination every day.
And that’s not even getting into the “for profit” profiteering spawn by the charter school legislation. I kinda like this money laundering Imam. Bet he votes Republican.
I think Muslim charter schools are a spiffy idea. I don’t think Muslim charter schools whose long term goal is to undermine freedom OF religion, undermine our Constitutional rights, and impose sharia is spiffy at all.
In fact, it makes the proposal to scrutinize and monitor those in our midst who operate in secret and are suspected of dangerous ulterior motives a high security priority…
Unless of course you don’t care about freedom, speech and assembly rights, or the obligation of every American to respect and honor religious freedom and to protect our nation from those who would impose a national religion through covert means. Where DO you stand?
Re : “Where DO you stand?”
The silence is deafening.
“Fractionalization” wouldn’t be happening if the public school systems were performing; it is not!
The US has fallen to 30th place in education, a disgraceful record for a nation that spends as much as we do. Unfortunately some of this can be attributed to the open borders policy you lefties think is so spiffy. More can be attributed to the left protecting the education unions who protect bad teachers in poor communities. You democrats have a lot to answer for and very little ground from which to criticize charter schools whose record overall is much better, accomplished with less in funding!
By the way old (bossy) girl, most charter schools are NOT religious schools.
Most religious schools operate privately and my opinion that is as it should be unless the local public school system can make it work under public school guidelines.
Given the current administrations warm fuzzy relations with Iran and Cuba, and the mindset of the democrat body of voters, it’s more likely he votes Democrat
Bet he votes Democrat.
Re : “Given the current administrations warm fuzzy relations with Iran and Cuba”
Well, not so much Cuba. That vile communist totalitarian dictatorship is already condemning Obama and his visit. Hah! Like no one saw that coming.
The Havana Tribune, a state-controlled Cuban newspaper, is none too happy with President Obama and his visit.
Cuban State Media: ‘Negro’ Obama ‘Incited Rebellion and Disorder’
I bet he’s a Hufflepuff!
The wikipedia pages on this guy and the “Gulen movement” are interesting. It seems to me to be a fairly moderate branch of Islam; Gulen himself has condemned terrorism, but is wanted in Turkey for attempting to (non-violently) overthrow their government. (The lawyer who wrote this piece is working with the Turkish government against the Gulen movement.)
I’m not sure if his ideology is a threat, but obviously money laundering should be punished wherever it happens.
So, “A secretive Islamic movement” is not a threat? Not even a potential threat given the state of Islamic ideology?
From the article —
“Aside from defrauding American taxpayers, the Gülen organization has an even more ominous objective in the United States. The organization is one of the country’s largest recipients of H1-B “specialty occupation” visas, which it uses to import Turkish teachers into its charter schools, supposedly because local U.S. talent is not available to fill math and science teaching positions in its charter schools.”
Chris is “unsure,” there is a threat here, move along folks.
Stop parroting. I flatly refuse to believe you actually consider yourself threatened by any imposition of Sharia law (doubly ironic considering how you’re out to legislate other people’s sexuality).
So quit parroting the party line. Think for yourself. Either charter schools are valuable or they aren’t. You don’t get to say some are and some aren’t. That’s illegal discrimination.
Off Topic
Corporations and the People: Who Influences Whom?
Leave it to Libby to address problems selfishly. If she’s not personally threatened today, this minute, there is no reason to be concerned. Nope, no reason to think about about kids that may be taught to hate America, no need to be concerned about future generations who could find themselves facing even greater problems because Libby, and her ilk, couldn’t be bothered to have even a smidgen of interest in our government will approach this type of situation.
Got it.
Sorry old girl “sexuality” cannot be legislated. Sexuality is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses.
Given that it is the radical progressive left that has legislated regarding sexual preferences, and then only by changing the definitions of words or physical attributes, upending centuries of established definitions and understanding, I don’t think its accurate to put that mantle on my shoulders. I haven’t been the activist in this scenario. I have simply expressed my opinion and voted my conscience and attended simple common sense. Boys are boys, girls are girls, and they are built to compliment each other. If some want to live outside that reality it’s fine with me, the rest is political nonsense or addressing
problems inappropriately, i.e., wanting services and solving that by changing marriage laws.
Back to the subject at hand…security concerns need to be addressed. That’s my big bad observation. I have said nothing to indicate I favor discrimination in any form. It’s you who should stop parroting the rabid party line.
Tina: “Nope, no reason to think about kids that may be taught to hate America”
What evidence is there that this school is doing this? The money laundering accusations seem like they might have merit, and should be investigated, but so far I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Gulen is anti-American.
I mean, there’s the fact that he’s Muslim, and his school offers Islamic instruction. Is that enough, in your view, to arouse suspicion of anti-American activity? Is simply being Muslim and teaching Islam anti-American now?
“Given that it is the radical progressive left that has legislated regarding sexual preferences”
Oh for the love of God. What an absolutely ridiculous, meaningless thing to say.
You know as well as I do that both liberals AND conservatives have worked to pass various laws regarding sexual preference. Given the current wave of anti-gay laws certain states are trying to pass at the moment your statement is appalling.
To the extent that progressives have “legislated regarding sexual preferences,” it has been to expand freedom, while conservatives have campaigned on limiting freedom. We want people to have more choices on who they can marry, you want people to have less. We want people to be able to use the bathroom they feel safe in, and (many) conservatives want people like Laverne Cox to be forced to use the men’s room, where she faces a greater chance of being beaten or killed. We believe people shouldn’t have to worry about being fired for being gay, and (many) conservatives have fought against laws that would give them a right to work without such fear.
Hell, up until a little more than a decade ago gay sex was ILLEGAL in some states, entirely due to the efforts of conservative lawmakers and judges (including those who believed, as Scalia did, that such bans were perfectly constitutional, which is obviously wrong). Up until three years ago Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell still existed. And you’re going to say “Who, me? Conservatives have never tried to regulate sexuality!” while clutching your pearls and preaching gender complimentarianism? Embarrassing.
Tina, all you’ve done is lay out you beliefs. You have not, nor can you, deny that your ilk busily attempt to legislate against abortion, against gay and trans people … and on a theological basis.
I suppose we have to be grateful that you propose laws rather than blow yourselves up. But I do worry about after you all get trounced in the next election.
At the state level legislation has been proposed of late. What is your problem with that? If it’s the will of the people of a particular state so be it. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power in this area. Since the abortion lobby “passed current law” through the courts rather than the legislature the people have every right to challenge it at the state level.
Besides, are you saying it’s okay for democrats to participate in the process but all others must bend to your will? I mean really, do you hear yourself?
I’ve told you before…it is your side that takes to bombing and blowing things up, or planning to, to get their way, not ours: Uni-bomber, Bill Ayers and friends (M19CO), Black Liberation Army, Black Panthers, RAM, The United Freedom Front, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)…and I guess we need to include the New Black Panthers and associated groups that turn protests into conflagrations and mob assault.
Trounced? It could happen. But then we’d be stuck with a criminal and/or an economy killer so we’ll have blown ourselves up.
The nation would be better off if you get trounced.
That too could happen.
Chris there are reasons for suspicion, which is all that is being proposed. This article is about an investigation. The man in question is avoiding criminal prosecution in Turkey. His schools are suspected of radical Islamic indoctrination. Do you have a problem with investigating or monitoring suspected persons/groups suspected of engaging in spreading radical Islamic ideology?
I understand you think laws that the right have passed “limit freedom.” That’s because you think, for instance, that marriage is a right. Others don’t see it that way. To them, marriage is a contract like any other contract.
You cannot deny that contention around the issues of both marriage and abortion began with left wing activism. abortion through the courts and gay issues both in the legislature, and then when they could not win, through the courts.
Yes, you on the left are so thoughtful. You want people to be able to go to the bathroom wherever they feel comfortable…too bad if pedophiles and rapist see this as a terrific opportunity to trap some child, male or female, or some poor woman in that bathroom…too bad if some pervert finds a little girl alone and chooses to expose himself. Don’t worry about the kids; you never do. Just like easy divorce wouldn’t have a bad effect on kids, or our society decades down the road, when it was proposed.
The modern progressive left is the most self-interested, self-oriented, narrow-minded, intolerant bunch ever! You cannot think beyond what the emotionally struggling among us NEED (that you can help by imposing destructive policy) to what is best overall. Even worse you are absolutely unwilling to compromise, civil unions just won’t do. Acceptance and tolerance won’t do, we must now promote your beliefs and squelch our own!
SEX was not illegal you twit! Certain activities were. and they were a few decades ago simply because nobody bothered to change the laws. The law was ignored and arrests were not made.
Clutching my pearls? Never worn them in my life!
But that says a lot about you…bigoted, intolerant A$$ is a start!
I am an American citizen and as such I have the right, nay the obligation, to engage in the political process and express myself at will. yes I am a senior citizen but what that means is I have more experience and a lot less ego having been humbled a bit by life. So you can take your speech-oppressive, self-absorbed, arrogant, narcissistic adolescent tendencies and simply bugger off!
I have already said the Gulen movement should be investigated.
“I understand you think laws that the right have passed “limit freedom.” That’s because you think, for instance, that marriage is a right.”
No, it doesn’t matter whether marriage is a right. Equal protection is a right specifically mentioned in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, and laws banning same-sex marriage violated that right.
“To them, marriage is a contract like any other contract.”
Well, then your case is even weaker. What other contract is there that the government would refuse to honor simply because of the genders of the people involved in that contract? If marriage is “like any other contract,” then refusing to legally validate same-sex marriages was always pointless and wrongfully discriminatory.
“You cannot deny that contention around the issues of both marriage and abortion began with left wing activism.”
I absolutely will deny that. Left-wing activism did not stop gays from lawfully getting married. You did. Your statement assumes that the only “contention” that matters is that felt by people like you, and actual victims of discrimination should just shut up and not stir the pot by standing up for their rights. Screw that.
“abortion through the courts and gay issues both in the legislature, and then when they could not win, through the courts.”
Yes, which was totally legitimate, because it is the court’s job to solve constitutional issues, and abortion and gay marriage are constitutional issues. Your continued hostility to the judicial branch will never cease to puzzle me.
“Yes, you on the left are so thoughtful. You want people to be able to go to the bathroom wherever they feel comfortable…too bad if pedophiles and rapist see this as a terrific opportunity to trap some child, male or female, or some poor woman in that bathroom…”
There is no evidence that this has ever happened, or will ever happen, as a result of trans-inclusive bathroom laws.
“Don’t worry about the kids; you never do.”
You’ve got a lot of nerve. My position on rights for LGBT people is almost entirely based on my worrying about kids, some of whom I know on a personal level through my job as a teacher.
“Even worse you are absolutely unwilling to compromise, civil unions just won’t do.”
Of course they won’t do. Separate but equal is never really equal.
“Acceptance and tolerance won’t do, we must now promote your beliefs and squelch our own”
Your views have not been “squelched.”
“SEX was not illegal you twit! Certain activities were. and they were a few decades ago simply because nobody bothered to change the laws.”
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here; you’re just saying things and hoping they might be true. Everything you just said is wrong. The “certain activities” that were banned were private homosexual sex acts. These laws were not repealed until 2003, not because “nobody bothered to change the laws,” but because anti-gay bigots worked actively to ensure those laws remained on the books. They were very open about this, and their arguments (which they made in court) are a matter of public record. Simply Google “Lawrence v. Texas.” Your portrayal of these events is based on selective memory and a knee-jerk compulsion to be an apologist for anti-gay bigots.
“The law was ignored and arrests were not made.”
Then why did some work so hard to make sure these laws were not ruled unconstitutional?
“Clutching my pearls? Never worn them in my life!”
It’s a figure of speech, Tina.
“But that says a lot about you…bigoted, intolerant A$$ is a start!”
Yes, how could I forget: the only real bigotry is when people dont like a group you personally sympathize with.
“…laws banning same-sex marriage violated that right.”
The law did not “ban” same sex marriage. The notion of same sex marriage is relatively new and could only be codified in the last couple of decades by changing the definition and understanding of marriage. The law simply RECOGNIZED marriage as it was understood…between a man and a woman. (Please don;t reiterate the ignorant argument about intermarriage…they were marriages between a man and a woman; discrimination was race based)
“If marriage is “like any other contract,” then refusing to legally validate same-sex marriages was always pointless and wrongfully discriminatory.”
The definition of marriage had to be changed to make this even remotely true. Gay men and women had the same opportunity to marry as anyone else. Discrimination wasn’t the driving force, that came later. the driving force originally was the services and accommodations at hospitals and such.
The marriage contract was understood as a contract not just of marriage but of the establishment of family due to the children that most often follow from the “union”. Not allowing elderly people or people who could not or would not have children but were one man and one woman not to marry would have been discriminatory.
Gays living another lifestyle may have children, and those children deserve the same services and protections as others, but a gay union will not produce children. Civil unions (Another contract as far as the state is concerned) were a sensible compromise that would have accommodated their choice to live differently without changing definitions or inciting the hateful backlash of religious discrimination against people whose faith and conscience prevent them from participating in gay weddings.
“I absolutely will deny that.”
Sure, because you are a child who did not live through the various layers of demands made by gays who initially just wanted to be out of the closet. Then celebrated being out by being in your face. Then demanded tolerance of their choice to live an alternative lifestyle. Then changed to promotion of the gay lifestyle. Then after DECADES suddenly came up with an arrest over ancient sodomy laws on the Texas books that would accommodate a push for same sameness and sex marriage. The constantly changing position in the gay community was supplemented by changes in psychology protocols quietly imposed by radicals who were determined to make even pedophilia a “normal” sexual predilection. Academics also quietly changed the dictionaries. Normalizing all sexual behaviors is part of the underlying goal so that this is no longer a private matter between adults but accepted doctrine society must accept, will be forced to accept. (Some of the psychology even goes to the level of normalizing pedophilia.) I think it’s significant to note that during these decades of change tolerance and acceptance by the American people was pretty much across the board, even in the more radical religious communities. That didn’t change until gay marriage was demanded…a step too far and based on the need to change, transform, the meaning of the word marriage.
“victims of discrimination”
They were not victims of marriage discrimination until they changed the definition of the word, several words actually. A groom is a man by the centuries old definition. They chose to be “victims of marriage discrimination” when they changed their own attitudes and position about their lifestyle.
“…abortion and gay marriage are constitutional issues”
Funny, it took more than 200 years to fabricate these rights. That’s because it was widely accepted that human life begins at conception…no woman ever thought she became pregnant with a rat or a dog or a carrot. Ending that life (killing it) was considered immoral (As well as illegal, for obvious reasons)! It took more than 200 years to find marriage could be defined as whatever we want on the basis of love. But then it’s pretty clear you lefties have no respect for the Constitution as written. You prefer the concept of a living Constitution that can be interpreted to mean whatever the current whims say it means.
“Your continued hostility to the judicial branch will never cease to puzzle me.”
See above comment. I am not hostile to the judicial branch. I am hostile to the liberal misuse and abuse of the judicial branch. Roe v Wade established law…that is the job of the legislative and executive branches. Likewise with marriage law. It is not the courts purview to alter the meanings of definitions to enable or invent discrimination cases. Words should be sacred to this body since their job is to judge the constitutionality of laws based on the meaning of words.
“There is no evidence that this has ever happened, or will ever happen, as a result of trans-inclusive bathroom laws. ”
That’s a somewhat naive and stupid assertion since we haven’t had them for any length of time and since there are plenty of cases of assault in community bathrooms. These laws will make it easier for anyone with a sinister motive. They will be an abrupt introduction for some little girls into areas their parents may not think they are ready to absorb. And how do you record instances of little girls in grammar school being embarrassed or traumatized by such a law in their schools and in malls? They won’t have anything to report.
Besides sexual assault does happen in public bathrooms already. Do we want to invite more just to accommodate the few? See also here, here, here, here, and here. My opinion is these laws will create greater opportunity for those with such aims and a lot of stress for little children.
“My position on rights for LGBT people is almost entirely based on my worrying about kids, some of whom I know on a personal level through my job as a teacher.”
I share your concern for these children. I do not share your enthusiasm that this “solution” will do much to ameliorate the emotional and peer based problems these kids have. It doesn’t address the root causes which have nothing to do with marriage laws.
“Of course they won’t do. Separate but equal is never really equal.”
The Civil Union contract isn’t a separate but equal contract. It is a contract that recognizes a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and the children these families already had or might adopt or arrange. It addresses the problems people living an alternative lifestyle have encountered.
“Your views have not been ‘squelched’.”
Oh? People who think as I think are called hateful and bigoted and are harassed or sued if they publicly express or demonstrate their opinions and positions. There is zero tolerance from radicals in the community even when it comes to speech.
“…because anti-gay bigots worked actively to ensure those laws remained on the books.”
Examples? As far as I’ve been aware the laws remained on the books mostly due to a lack of interest in enforcing them. Most people weren’t even aware of them. There was never an anti-gay movement that I’m aware of and if anyone can produce evidence of it that was mainstreamed I’d be very surprised.
Around 1970 gay activists began attempting to get marriage licenses in the US and for decades the courts did not find in their favor. The sodomy laws were not changed until 2003 in the Texas case, which should indicate to you just how main stream the issue was…it wasn’t. In the eighties when aids was a big fear and devastated the gay community these issues began to become main stream but even then awareness centered around healthcare and partner issues, not marriage.
Interesting that you think you know better how this has evolved since you weren’t even around, or a baby, when a lot of it went down. Much of the history you imagine was main stream because you have event dates. But those events were not in the main stream awareness.
“Then why did some work so hard to make sure these laws were not ruled unconstitutional?
Oh, because the courts had not moved the issue forward, had dismissed cases for lack of constitutional merit, etc. See here for a timeline of events that were not widely disseminated. (Remember we had no internet or talk radio…people were not as politically involved or informed about the gay lifestyle. they were in the closet…remember! Not until well after 1990 did gay issues become part of the national conversation. (And Bill Clinton and his antics took up most of the oxygen for that decade.)
“It’s a figure of speech, Tina.”
No s#%* Sherlock!
“…the only real bigotry is when people dont like a group you personally sympathize with. ”
Lame, Chris, really lame. You and your lefty buddies have a compassion/tolerance face that assumes a level of superiority whenever any of these social issues arise. It’s phony and we all know it because your own intolerance and bigotry immediately surfaces as you demand that the world bend to your opinion and will. I personally sympathize with any group singled out for discrimination, including gays. I have a different point of view and opinion on gay marriage and from my perspective being against gay marriage and for civil unions is not discriminatory. It’s okay with me that you disagree as I’ve said. it’s even okay with me that you seem to have won the argument in America. I reserve the right to speak about it as I see it.
“There was never an anti-gay movement that I’m aware of”
Then you’re aware of nothing of importance to this conversation, and it is pointless to continue until you educate yourself enough to be aware of the issues at stake here. “Never an anti-gay movement?!” Embarrassing.
I also don’t understand why you keep making the ridiculous “I was alive then and you weren’t” argument as if it has any validity. Do you think you are the only person alive at that time that I have ever spoken to or heard from? I’m basing my opinion on history collected by others who also lived through the same time period, and have spoken of the oppression and violence faced by LGBT people during the decades in question. Many of these people were part of that very community. I think their opinions are far more convincing than yours, since you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that an anti-gay movement ever existed, even when it clearly still exists today. I think you’re wrong about nearly everything going on in the world at this moment in time–why would I trust your perspective on history to be any better? Your age does not help your arguments in any way and playing it as some kind of desperate trump card to give your mistaken views on history more weight is ridiculous and entirely fallacious.
Chris is wagging his appendage again, as if it does not get enough air and daylight already.
So, now that you’ve admitted the nation’s less
evolved jurisdictions are attempting to legislate some mythicly “normal” sexuality, on religious grounds, we can pursue the IS comparison.
I don’t know how you hold your head up; I really don’t.
“…the nation’s less evolved jurisdictions…”
Arrogant and bigoted…you’re really doing well tonight!
“…are attempting to legislate some mythicly “normal” sexuality, on religious grounds…”
Seem like the more “evolved” Libby can’t read enough to see that the law in Mississippi simply protects the right to personal beliefs. Discrimination and bigotry are ugly, even when the more “evolved” do it.
How about you take care of your own miserable head and I’ll take care of mine, K?
Feeling somewhat vindicated by content in an article on Missippi’s recent law regarding marriage and conscience:
This is a reasonable bill that the radical left will not tolerate. It’s subject matter, in many cases, will serve as sanctimonious justification for hate and insult from the intolerant left. Seriously…the agitating and bullying has to end! It will only when the majority sees these zealots for what they are.
The bill is way too broad. I don’t really care if bakers or florists or photographers have exemptions from anti-discrimination law–you can make the argument that they are providing a creative service and should not have to make an artistic product they disagree with (I think that argument is weak, but I’m willing to compromise.)
But the bill would also allow medical professionals to refuse to treat LGBT patients, jewelers to deny services to gays and lesbians, tax-payer-funded adoption agencies to deny adoptions to unmarried and same-sex couples, and county clerks like Kim Davis to refuse to sign marriage licenses. You can say “Well, they can just find another person to do these things,” but imagine you are a gay person in a small town in Mississipi in which there are no county clerks who agree with gay marriage–at that point you don’t have access to something that the Supreme Court has ruled a fundamental right. That’s wrong, and it assigns legal protection to bigotry. And it is no coincidences that laws like these are only gaining traction in states that have long, troubled history with bigotry.
Chris like it or not the Constitution recognizes and protects religious rights. Thanks to this change in the definition of a word, and the stubborn refusal by gays to compromise through civil unions, we are faced with a situation where the rights of one butt up against the rights of another.
“…imagine you are a gay person in a small town in Mississipi in which there are no county clerks who agree with gay marriage–at that point you don’t have access to something…”
First of all this is a pretty far fetched scenario. Not too many municipal offices have only one worker and it would be up to each town to find a solution. Even in the town where the woman went to jail they have worked it out. Few problems offer one option and one only.
People in CA go to Reno to get married. People fly to Hawaii or the Bahamas to get married. People can take a trip to another town in the same county to get a license. People can decide the town they live in doesn’t fit their needs and relocate. Adults find ways to solve personal problems.
Good God, you have a sick need to micromanage in people’s lives! Do you realize how often you expect others to alter their behavior or beliefs to fit your preferences and ideals just so you can feel good?
“And it is no coincidences that laws like these are only gaining traction in states that have long, troubled history with bigotry.”
Nice Chris. They’re not basing their positions on past racial problems or on being southerners…or the confederate flag…eeeeks! How easily you dismiss the importance of moral conscience for other people. How quick you are to strip them of their protected religious rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…
Find me the words in the Constitution that are that specific regarding marriage…of any kind!
Never mind, we both know it isn’t there!
How is it okay to trample on one person’s rights to satisfy another’s?
Amazing! You’ve won the gay marriage argument but even that doesn’t satisfy you. Liberals are never satisfied and always meddling.
Think about it, Tina. We legislate social positives, opportunities. You legislate social negatives, restrictions to people’s lives.
And Chris, a wedding cake is a wedding cake. It is not required that the baker be morally invested one way or the other. Three tiers or four? Real flowers or sugar … or sugared real … ?
Do not cave!
“We legislate social positives, opportunities.”
What a bit of fairy dust that is.
I fail to see the positive in stomping on protected religious freedoms. I fail to see the positive in forcing wages up when the negatives far outweigh the positives: business owners no longer decide wages based on what their business can handle, the work involved, and the experience of the new hire; employers hours are cut; jobs are lost or simply not created; prices go up; governments take more money from paychecks; employers pay more in insurances and matching contributions.
Obamacare regulations consist of 11,588, 500 words and counting. Data gathered the by National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) found complying with the federal income tax cost the economy about $234 billion in productivity last year. Doctors have been hit hard with additional paperwork. These are not positives.
“…you legislate social negatives, restrictions to people’s lives. ”
More fairy dust. Conservatives want limited government. We defend the first and second amendments while you come up with restrictions and special rules for special classes. We think laws should be simple. The ten commandments and the Constitution are perfect examples. We think people should mind their own business and let others mind their own while government remains neutral.
The intolerance on the left is incredible. You’re like leeches sucking the life and vibrancy from our social fabric with all of the class and race warfare and constant victim-ology. The agitating, the intimidation, the aggressive abuse, the changing of terminology to mask and redefine, the use of gangland tactics. The constant meddling!!!
I see not one ounce of live and let live…not an ounce of respect for the rights of others.
Positive? No! Just a constantly more oppressive, expensive, racket!
You do not have a “religious freedom” to discriminate against people who do not share your beliefs.
Well, in Mississippi you do … now … but not for long. The federal courts and government have dealt with rogue state bigotries before, and will do so again.
You do not have the right to change the definition of a word to claim discrimination…YOU JUST TOOK IT!
Marriage IS NOT a right; it is an obligation.
A handful of people refusing to take an order hardly amounts to widespread discrimination or even hardship unless you’re a big fat bully. Demanding they do and taking it to the courts is simply taking the opportunity to harass them to make a political point. It’s also bigotry taken to a ridiculous level showing disrespect for the religious rights of the individuals and the First Amendment.
“…and will do so again.”
Yeah, yeah…threats, coercion, harassment, bullying! You intolerant radicals are all very good at that.
Tina:
“The marriage contract was understood as a contract not just of marriage but of the establishment of family due to the children that most often follow from the “union”.”
Contracts cannot be legally “understood” to mean anything other than what they say in black and white.
Can you point to any part of a modern American marriage contract prior to Obergefell which specified an expectation of the couple producing biological children? Not simply rights and responsibilities that the partners have *if* children occur, but an actual clause that says procreative potential is a requirement of marriage?
Because if you can’t do that, then you can’t realistically argue that marriage requires procreative potential. And if you can’t prove that, then you’ve lost “Only men and women should be able to marry because only men and women can produce a child,” and have ended up back at “Only men and women should be able to marry because they are men and women,” which is a circular argument.
“Not allowing elderly people or people who could not or would not have children but were one man and one woman not to marry would have been discriminatory.”
Why? Either procreative potential is a requirement of marriage or it isn’t. You can’t say it’s a requirement for gay couples but not for straight couples, but that’s exactly what the anti-gay lobby has been doing for decades.
“Gays living another lifestyle may have children, and those children deserve the same services and protections as others, but a gay union will not produce children.”
Who cares? Producing children has never been a requirement of marriage, or its main purpose, as indicated by the many, many straight marriages that do not produce children. Your argument defeats itself, and it’s so obvious that I can’t understand how anyone not blinded by bias could fail to see that.
” Civil unions (Another contract as far as the state is concerned)”
Why should we design a separate contract, and a separate beuracracy, to give gays the exact same rights and duties of marriage without the name? That’s absurd. What would be the difference? I believe you’ve said before that you believe civil unions should have the same rights as marriage. Is there any other aspect of U.S. law where we have two separate institutions serving the exact same purpose, but with different names? How exactly does that square with conservatives’ belief that government should be smaller and more efficient? How is it not textbook political correctness–refusing to use a word that applies perfectly just because that word offends a certain special interest group?
“were a sensible compromise that would have accommodated their choice to live differently without changing definitions or inciting the hateful backlash of religious discrimination against people whose faith and conscience prevent them from participating in gay weddings.”
No one is being asked to participate in a gay wedding.
Photographers are being asked to photograph, bakers are being asked to bake. If you ask most married people if they think their caterers, florists or photographers “participated” in their wedding, they’d probably say no. Again, I’d be ok with some exceptions for bakers and photographers in anti-discrimination law, but let’s not elevate their role. They are being asked to perform the same service they would for any couple, some of whom have certainly been adulterers, thieves, alcoholics, and swingers. They got through those weddings by minding their own business. I don’t see why they can’t do the same for two men or two women, but if they insist on throwing a pity party for themselves, I’m not going to pretend it’s deserved.
“Sure, because you are a child who did not live through the various layers of demands made by gays who initially just wanted to be out of the closet. Then celebrated being out by being in your face. Then demanded tolerance of their choice to live an alternative lifestyle. Then changed to promotion of the gay lifestyle. Then after DECADES suddenly came up with an arrest over ancient sodomy laws on the Texas books that would accommodate a push for same sameness and sex marriage.”
I am so sorry that minority groups demanding to be treated just like you is so exhausting for you, Tina. No, really, that must be hard. Do you need to talk to someone about it? I don’t want you to do anything crazy, like hurt yourself, or consider suicide, which millions of gays and lesbians have been driven to because of people telling them they are by nature inferior.
Give me a very large break. Civil rights aren’t a game of “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” Gays demanded more than just being “out” without being murdered in the street because they *deserved* more than just being out without being murdered in the street. They deserve the same rights and protections you do. No less. No more.
Your suggestion that they should just be happy being treated as second class citizens is appalling.
Equally appalling is your disgusting reference to, like, the six people on the whole planet who are trying to “normalize pedophilia” as if it has anything to do with this conversation, or with the mainstream gay community. Really, Tina, linking acceptance of gays to acceptance of pedophilia is really the lowest of the low, and is inherently bigoted.
“I think it’s significant to note that during these decades of change tolerance and acceptance by the American people was pretty much across the board, even in the more radical religious communities.”
That would be significant, if it had any connection with reality. But I don’t believe a single person could have read what you wrote here and thought to themselves, “Yep, the religious right was totally accepting of gays until they demanded marriage,” because that’s not only false, it’s one of the most wildly false things you’ve ever said, or that I’ve ever heard said by anyone. There’s no sense in even bothering to bring up the many, many, many words and deeds by members of the religious right that would disprove this bit of fiction you’ve just created; I have never heard anyone say this but you, and I don’t think anyone believes it but you.
“It took more than 200 years to find marriage could be defined as whatever we want on the basis of love.”
That is not the finding of the Supreme Court. When you lie about what your opponents believe, it makes you look like you can’t rebut their actual positions.
“Roe v Wade established law…that is the job of the legislative and executive branches. Likewise with marriage law.”
Woefully incorrect. In neither case did the court make law. In both cases the court struck down laws. That is absolutely within their purview. You know this, which is why you have to pretend that the court made law in these cases.
“It is not the courts purview to alter the meanings of definitions to enable or invent discrimination cases.”
This is at least the third time you’ve brought up the “definition of a word” argument in this one comment, and it’s sad that you think such a clearly terrible argument is so good that bringing it up over and over again is helpful to you. To briefly list some problems with this argument, off the top of my head:
1) The Court was not ruling on the meaning of a word, they were ruling on who can enter into a legal contract. When states decided not to recognize certain legal marriage contracts because of the genders of the partners entering that contract, the matter became the business of the Court, since gender discrimination is unconstitutional (equal protection again).
If there were a legal contract called “blorj” that only Unitarians could enter, and Presbytarians wanted their blorj contracts honored by the government as well, the court would likely rule in their favor. And no one would complain that the government had changed the meaning of the word “blorj.” (Well, some Unitarians might, but their objection would be equally irrelevant.)
2) Words change meaning all the time, through natural processes. This is normal. Marriage has changed many times, mostly in ways that have benefitted you as a woman; this is good. Same-sex marriage is a natural extension of our world slowly realizing that men and women should be treated equally, and that you should have the right to vote and own property and run a business and do all sorts of thing without your husband’s approval. And because there are no longer any differences between how the marriage contract treats men and how it treats women, requiring spouses to be of different genders no longer makes sense.
Yes, marriage has changed. We all recognize that. Your job in arguing against gay marriage is to make the case that this change has been for the worse; otherwise, your argument simply amounts to “Change frightens me,” which is neither convincing not logical, and not all that sympathetic either while we’re at it. You have failed at this task; no one has demonstrated how allowing same-sex marriage is a negative change to the definition of marriage, because it isn’t a negative change.
“Words should be sacred to this body since their job is to judge the constitutionality of laws based on the meaning of words.”
Yes, and the words “equal protection” are just as important as the word “marriage;” more so, actually, since those words are in the Constitution and marriage is not.
Once again you’ve shown that you’re unable to make a coherent, non-contradictory case against same-sex marriage that doesn’t rely on circular logic; your understanding of the historical actions of every party involved is laughably factually wrong on its face; and you continue to rely on the tired old arguments about definitions of words, tradition, judicial overreach, and even the non-existent link to pedophilia.
It’s time to consider that perhaps the reason you can’t make any logical arguments against gay marriage is because there are no logical arguments against gay marriage.
‘
Tina: “Chris like it or not the Constitution recognizes and protects religious rights.”
I know. Denying service to someone because they disagree with your religion is NOT a religious right. A Muslim baker cannot refuse to sell a cake for a Jewish wedding, nor can they refuse to sell a cake for a gay wedding. This is fair, and falls in line with basic civil rights law regarding public accommodations.
“First of all this is a pretty far fetched scenario.”
In California? Maybe. In Georgia, where there were segregated proms in some towns as recently as a few years ago? It’s not far-fetched at all.
“People in CA go to Reno to get married.”
Yes, but they shouldn’t have to! If you applied the same logic to the Civil Rights Movement, you would have told blacks trying to stay in a hotel or eat at a restaurant “Hey, what are you getting so worked up about? You can always go somewhere else!”
Who knows. Maybe you did.
“Adults find ways to solve personal problems.”
Denial of public services is not a personal problem. It is a societal and political problem, as well as a constitutional problem, as has been recognized since the Civil Rights Era.
“Good God, you have a sick need to micromanage in people’s lives!”
Says the lady who voted to annul the (at the time legally valid) marriages of thousands of her fellow Californians because she disagreed with their definition of marriage.
Your hypocrisy is stunning.
Refusing to sell a cake for a gay wedding *is* “micromanaging in people’s lives!” It is of no consequence to a baker or florist what the legitimacy of a person’s wedding is. These people cater to the marriages of adulterers, thieves, swingers, and drug users on a weekly basis, and somehow they find a way to sleep at night. But a gay marriage is somehow over the line? Ridiculous. Tell me another. They are using their religion as cover for bigotry and prejudice.
“Find me the words in the Constitution that are that specific regarding marriage…of any kind!
Never mind, we both know it isn’t there!”
Why do you make me repeat myself? I already explained that it doesn’t matter if the word “marriage” is there, because the words “equal protection” are. Do I need to type the words slower for you to understand them?
” If you applied the same logic to the Civil Rights Movement ”
There is no reason to continue. You see this as a civil rights issue. I see it as a successful special rights movement. Marriage to you is a right. It is an obligation to me.
Why must I repeat myself? All people had the same marriage protections before, any one man could marry any one woman. You had to change the definition of the word marriage to create that “inequality.” It’s a phony construct. That doesn’t mean that the lives of LGBT people are lesser. It simply means their choice in living arrangements differ.
So everybody is now happy that people who love each other can be married without regard to any standard but “love.” Hearts and flowers all ’round. A precedent has been set, however, and the envelope will be pushed.
Just look at this happy couple:
Tina: “There is no reason to continue. You see this as a civil rights issue. I see it as a successful special rights movement. Marriage to you is a right. It is an obligation to me.”
You don’t listen, and you don’t understand how analogies work. We’re not talking about whether marriage is a right, we’re talking about whether public accomodation law applies to everyone or whether it doesn’t. I was comparing your argument that gays can go to another town to get married if someone refuses to give them a license, to the argument that blacks could go to another town if they wanted to sit at a lunch counter or get a hotel. Would you tell an interracial couple that they can go to another town if they are refused service in their own? If not, why would you tell that to a gay couple?
It literally does not matter whether marriage is a “right.” Gay marriage is legal now, and equal protection is a right, meaning refusing to give a couple a marriage license on the grounds that they are gay is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You have not responded to this argument because you cannot respond to this argument; you keep trying to change the subject to whether or not marriage is a right, which is completely irrelevant. Driving is also not a right outlined in the Constitution, but a law prohibiting women from driving would be unconstitutional because it would violate equal protection.
“All people had the same marriage protections before, any one man could marry any one woman.”
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Prior to Obergefell, you, as woman, had the right to marry a man; no man in America had that right. And vice versa. Men were prohibited from entering a specific contract with another man, and women were prohibited from entering that same contract with another woman, for no discernible reason other than their gender. Your side attempted to present reasons other than mere gender, and were laughed out of court, because every single reason given was an obvious smokescreen for bigotry and prejudice.
“You had to change the definition of the word marriage to create that “inequality.””
The definition changed naturally, over time. Just as it has changed many, many times throughout history, mostly in ways that have benefitted you. There was certainly a time when husbands having complete control over their wives was seen by many as part of the “definition” of marriage, and things like women voting, owning their own property, etc. were seen as fundamental changes in the definition of marriage. What makes you right about the definition and them wrong? Nothing, except now that the changes in marriage are not personally benefitting you, you don’t like them. You’re unable to see that this institution has changed on many fundamental levels, to respond to changing societal needs. That’s what social institutions are for.
SSM is a natural outcome of the idea that women are full citizens. Now that marriage no longer treats one spouse as a legal inferior by virtue of gender, there is no reason for marriage to specify anything related to gender at all. If husbands and wives have exactly equal legal rights and duties to one another, then what is the point of specifying that one partner must be male and the other female? There is none.
SSM is also a natural outcome of the idea that gay people are full citizens, and that homosexual relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships. What, you think it’s a *coincidence* that those two social events happened hand in hand? That we only seriously began contemplating same sex marriage around the time we realized homosexuality wasn’t actually a mental illness or a grave violation of nature? You think we could have ever accepted gay relationships as normal and healthy without bestowing upon them the term “marriage,” which is seen in our culture as the ultimate commitment between two people in love? None of those are realistic ideas, Tina.
“So everybody is now happy that people who love each other can be married without regard to any standard but “love.””
Are you talking about the law, or culture? Love is not the legal standard. The legal standards are exactly the same, except now there’s no gender discrimination, because that’s illegal. Love is the cultural standard in America, but that has been the case since before you were born, so don’t blame gays for that.
I don’t know what you were trying to prove with your weird story about incest, unless it’s that you think incest and homosexuality are similar, in which case, better luck next time convincing people you’re not bigoted against gays.
Tina, do you support a male county clerk’s religious right to deny a woman a business license, on the grounds that the clerk’s church teaches that women belong in the home? By your logic, the clerk would be “participating” in something that violates his religious rights.
No county clerk would ever be allowed to do this; it would be an open and shut case of discrimination. His religious beliefs would not be an excuse, because he is not acting as an individual, he is using the power of the state to discriminate.
We understand that rights have limits. One’s actions as an agent of the state, or even one’s actions as a business, cannot discriminate based on an individual’s religious belief. Again, this is basic civil rights law. Everyone has the right to equal treatment in the public sphere. The principle that says Christian bakers can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding is the same principle that says gay bakers can’t refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between two Christians. Now, the Christian bakers don’t have to write “Gay Marriage Rocks” or put two grooms on the cake, nor would a gay baker have to write a verse from Leviticus saying gays are an abomination on a cake; that’s freedom of expression. But they do have to provide the same type of services for a group they dislike as they do for all other groups.
This is fair, and it is not hard; it simply requires that people follow the Golden Rule, “treat others the way you would want to be treated.” If you wouldn’t want someone to deny you services because they disagree with how you live your life, don’t deny services to others because you don’t like the way they live theirs. The Kim Davises and “No Cake for Yous” of the world have lost sight of this basic principle, which is ironic, given that it’s the deepest Biblical principle of all. It animates every religion at its core. The Good Samaritan didn’t say “I’ll help you, but only if you convert!” If these people really want to honor their religion–and have it honored in return–they’ll start abiding by the basic tenets of kindness, respect, and the Golden Rule. If they can’t do that, then they’re refusing to participate in society, and should maybe find another one.
“We’re not talking about whether marriage is a right, we’re talking about whether public accomodation law applies to everyone or whether it doesn’t.”
We are only talking about it because the court decided that it could find a right by changing the definition f a word. You don’t get to set that aside and pretend it isn;t relevant!
“Gay marriage is legal now, and equal protection is a right, meaning refusing to give a couple a marriage license on the grounds that they are gay is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
Well sure Chris IF YOU COMPLETELY DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!
As for equal protection, the clause prohibits: “state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.”
The courts had to invent reasons to make this issue as well as the abortion issue fall under the equal protection clause. In this issue they managed by accepting a definition change. In my estimation these were emotional responses more than responsible legal responses. (Remember no matter the decision I still have a right to my opinion)
As I wrote before, we now are in the position of having two “rights” bumping against each other. The woman’s First Amendment protection of religious “free exercise” is just as important. Forcing this woman, and for sure jailing her, was wrong!!! As people do, the county solved the problem and will have another employee serve gay couples. (Your intolerance is incredible!)
“The definition changed naturally, over time.”
No Chris. It changed over time due to activism by people who changed their own minds about what they wanted. Originally they wanted acceptance of an “alternative lifestyle.” So don’t give me that crap about a “natural” change…it was change that was wrangled…including in the minds of politicians, justices of the court, and those responsible for altering dictionaries.
“now that the changes in marriage are not personally benefitting you, you don’t like them.”
You keep trying to demean my thinking abilities to win the argument. What the he77 for? I acknowledged long ago that you’ve won. But lets look at this absurd comparison. There is a very big difference between social changes and legal changes. My ability to work outside the home, in my mind, was never a question and my husband has never had “control” over me, nor would he want that. Whatever other legal changes that may have taken place in my lifetime didn’t require that the definition of “woman” be changed, the ability to take out a loan on my own for instance. In some ways your examples make my point more than they do yours.
“You’re unable to see that this institution has changed on many fundamental levels, to respond to changing societal needs. That’s what social institutions are for.”
This isn’t a changing “societal” need. It is a response to the demands of an activist minority that doesn’t even reflect the position held by everyone in that minority or all of the people. It’s a cave. It takes the situation out of the spotlight and allows people to feel emotionally comfortable.
“SSM is a natural outcome of the idea that women are full citizens. ”
Oh brother.
“…there is no reason for marriage to specify anything related to gender at all.”
Right. And we will see the evolution of this little bit of law based on a trifling as time goes by. The word marriage has no meaning with respect to gender and so the words husband and wife do not either. Nor do Mother and father, aunt and uncle, or even parent because since the revolution began, parent can be anything that makes life work for an individual regardless what it does to the kids!
“SSM is also a natural outcome of the idea that gay people are full citizens, and that homosexual relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships.”
The more “natural” outcome was civil unions which preserved the words marriage, bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father, and at the same time recognized and codified the alternative lifestyle preferred by the LGBT community.
“You think we could have ever accepted gay relationships as normal and healthy without bestowing upon them the term “marriage”
For anyone who wasn’t born yesterday they were. The gay community got very little blow back and in fact received a lot of support for civil union legislation. The demand for more has a lot to do with the mid of the gay person more than public acceptance.
Interesting choice of words…”bestowing.” Almost like this was a gift rather than a “right.”
It may mean nothing to the LGBT community or you but the act of procreation and the solidity of the basic family unit are fundamental reasons for the state to be involved at all in the marriage contract. Except for procreation there is really no reason for “marriage” at all. Love was never the basis for state support of marriage.
“I don’t know what you were trying to prove with your weird story about incest”
It wasn’t a story about incest. It was a story about marriage. The Mom and her son want to get married and bear children and they think they can because marriage is just about people who love each other having the same rights.
“…do you support a male county clerk’s religious right to deny a woman a business license, on the grounds that the clerk’s church teaches that women belong in the home?”
The argument is the clerks right to decline to perform a duty that goes against his religious conscience. In this example, as well as the other, the simple solution is to have another office worker serve the customer. Another solution would be for the clerk to find another job but even then, he should not be forced from his job because of religious his beliefs.
Property rights also bump up against civil rights. When a business owners property and religious rights bump up against someones civil rights the simple solution is to move on down the road. Radicals can’t abide that solution and purposely seek out targets to be used politically. there is very little discrimination going o in America. I think it’s time for the LGBT community to back off.
“This is fair, and it is not hard; it simply requires that people follow the Golden Rule, “treat others the way you would want to be treated.”
But not if the way you would “want to be treated” is showing respect for the religious conscience of a baker and simply wishing the baker well and seeking out another baker …which is also fair and not hard.
My way or the highway isn’t the golden rule.
“…which is ironic, given that it’s the deepest Biblical principle of all.”
To be clear you will not find “the golden rule” in the Bible. But even if you think of it as reflective on biblical principle it is a principle that cuts both ways. “My way or the highway” isn’t reflective of the golden rule.
“…they’ll start abiding by the basic tenets of kindness, respect, and the Golden Rule.”
There is nothing to suggest that “these people” were ever unkind or disrespectful in their dealings or communications with the gay people they encountered. Just the opposite. Gay people have been rude and litigious and in some cases actively worked to harm the businesses.
“and have it honored in return”
Oh I see. A person honoring his own personal religious conscience is an excuse to demean the religion and refuse to honor it?
It’s ironic that you preach the golden rule…you apparently only expect it from Christians.
“If they can’t do that, then they’re refusing to participate in society, and should maybe find another one.”
Really, Chris? It’s ironic that you would preach the golden rule given all the tolerance and respect you have.
How about we send the snotty, petty activist LGBT’s to a country that will show them what not being honored and respected is really like…like Iran. Maybe then they would stop acting like put-upon victims over situations with people that are just doing as they honestly believe God commands them.
Tina, all you are doing is repeating the same bad arguments over and over again and acting as if I haven’t addressed them a thousand times. For instance, you continue to use the “definition of a word” argument as if words are more important than people, as if I haven’t explained why and how the definition changed, and as if the word in question didn’t refer to a binding legal contract. That legal contract previously discriminated based on gender and sexual orientation, and no rational basis was put forward to justify such discrimination.
You once again try to put forward procreation as the reason for the marriage contract to discriminate by gender, but that argument has been demolished by everyone who has put two seconds thought into it. You’re ignoring the fact that the marriage contract says nothing about procreation, and certainly does not demand it; you’re ignoring the fact that far more non-procreative straight couples get married every year than gay couples; and you’re ignoring the fact that I have shown you the many, many societal benefits that marriage provides regardless of whether a married couple procreates or not: married people are generally healthier, stay out of prison, less likely to go on welfare, contribute more to charity, and are overall net contributors to a society rather than net takers. No serious person could argue that the government has no interest in promoting such behaviors. Yet you continue to insist that the government has no interest in promoting marriage except to encourage responsible procreation, in absolute defiance of the many, many other benefits of marriage, and in complete disrespect of the millions of heterosexual marriages which never produce children.
Another bad argument you put forward is that civil unions are a fair compromise. You have never specified which rights apply to marriage that would not apply to civil unions. It is nonsensical to label two institutions that have all the same rights and benefits with totally different labels just because having them called the same thing makes you uncomfortable. What a waste of time and resources to have two separate beuracracies for the exact same purpose!
You also repeat the bad argument that gays and lesbians “changed their minds” about what they wanted, as if this matters. I am sure I could find black activists in the abolition era arguing that all they wanted was to be free from slavery, and were not demanding full equality. That’s how struggles for minority rights work, Tina. Asking for marriage right out of the gate, when many states still had anti-sodomy laws and homosexuality was still seen as a mental illness or a grave sin by many, would not have been prudent. Most minority groups have started with a smaller list of demands and then escalated to demanding full equality. That does not delegitimize calls for full equality.
You also repeat the bad argument that calls for marriage equality came from an “activist minority,” when polls show a majority of American support same-sex marriage.
You repeat the bad argument that public accomodation laws violate the first amendment, even though there is no right to refuse service to someone based on ine’s religious beliefs. And no, baking a cake is not “participating” in a gay wedding any more than baking a cake for an adulterous couple is participating in adultery.
You repeat the bad argument that words like “husbands and wives” are now meaningless, when these words are still commonly used; this argument amounts to nothing more than “change frightens me.”
You repeat the bad argument that gays got “very little pushback” on civil unions, which is blatantly false, as several states circulated bills as recently as two years ago that would have banned not only gay marriage, but also civil unions.
You claim that the Golden Rule isn’t in the Bible, but it absolutely is:
“This well known verse presents what has become known as the Golden Rule. In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” –Matthew 7:12
You suggest that angry gays should take a trip to Iran, when you are the one arguing that people should be able to use their religious beliefs to discriminate and deny service to gays, something he Iranian government would absolutely agree with you on.
You write this:
“The argument is the clerks right to decline to perform a duty that goes against his religious conscience. In this example, as well as the other, the simple solution is to have another office worker serve the customer. Another solution would be for the clerk to find another job but even then, he should not be forced from his job because of religious his beliefs.”
But such a person would not be forced from his job “because of his religious beliefs.” He would be forced from his job because he refuses to do his job.
I don’t usually share memes to substitute for more complex arguments, but this one did a great job of showing what a world full of people like Kim Davis would look like:
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206329759585092&id=1299962821&set=a.1188673759232.2028952.1299962821&source=48&ref=m_notif¬if_t=like
If everyone acted like those who refuse service because of religion, nothing would get done. The fact is most people are able to conduct business in this country without butting their nose into their customers’ or clients’ lives. Muslim and Jewish cashiers must still scan your pork, or they should get another job. Catholics can’t just go find another cashier to scan condoms. For the most part we realize that people are different from us, and we go about our lives. Those who throw a fit about baking a cake–as if doing so is some grave, unpardonable offense–are ridiculous, and they do not get to use their religions as an excuse for not doing their jobs. The first amendment does not give them the right to discriminate in their place of business.
Extreme bills like the ones in Mississippi give license to people to be jerks, and excuses to deny people services. This is wrong. Period.
I think at this point I am only going to respond if you present a new argument, one I haven’t heard before. But I doubt you can. All the arguments against same-sex marriage and in favor of discrimination are old ones; there is nothing new under the sun. All have been discredited dozens of times over. That’s why you lost. Not because of activists, not because of a cheating court. But because your arguments sucked.
“Well, I don’t agree with gay marriage, but I’m still going to bake a cake for this nice couple, since I wouldn’t want a gay baker to deny me and my wife a wedding cake. I’m not going to put two grooms on it or anything, I’ll just give them the same standard product I give everyone else. Baking a cake is not an act of support for their marriage, it’s just business, and I believe in treating all my customers with respect even if we disagree.” –Most Christian bakers, probably
Is the above really so hard? Those who can’t bring themselves to say or do the above are giving Christians a bad name.
I never said what you suggest is or anything else…what the heck is wrong with you!
It isn’t up to me, you, or anyone else to decide another persons personal religious beliefs. It is intolerant and rude to try to undermine another’s religious moral conscience. Since the number of Christian bakers who would actually take this stand is less than .99999% don’t you think the better more tolerant and loving thing to do is walk down the street?
You are giving the LGBT community a bad name by expressing such hard headed intolerance. Christians have gotten used to being bashed and demeaned simply for expressing themselves it in the last 20 to 30 years. So what else is new?
You need to look in the mirror my friend.
Tina: “I never said what you suggest is or anything else…”
I don’t know what this sentence means.
“It isn’t up to me, you, or anyone else to decide another persons personal religious beliefs.”
Of course not. I would never try and decide another person’s religious beliefs.
We aren’t talking about beliefs. We’re talking about actions, and following the law. It’s really easy to both a) believe that gay marriage is a sin and b) bake a cake for a gay wedding anyway, because there is literally no contradiction between that belief and that action. Baking a cake–which is, you know, a baker’s job–is not a sign of approval, any more than baking a cake for any other wedding is a sign of approval for that wedding.
No baker in the world asks to meet the bride and groom and evaluate their good Christian morality before deciding whether or not to bake them a cake. When it’s a straight couple, no one in the world assumes that a cake is a sign of approval for their individual marriage. So why is approval of gay marriage as a whole a necessity for someone to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? It’s nonsense. It’s an excuse for bigotry. How do I know it’s an excuse? Because no one behaves this way in any other situation.
“It is intolerant and rude to try to undermine another’s religious moral conscience.”
Not doing that. Your moral conscience is between you and God. Your right to be served by a public accomodation is between you and the state.
“You are giving the LGBT community a bad name by expressing such hard headed intolerance.”
I am not part of the LGBT community. And what you are saying makes no sense. The bakers denying service are by definition intolerant. They are so intolerant of gay marriage that they can’t even bring themselves to bake a cake–which is their job–an entirely neutral activity which has no bearing on the morality of the wedding in question.
You are asking me to tolerate intolerance. It’s pretzel logic. It’s “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”
“Christians have gotten used to being bashed and demeaned simply for expressing themselves it in the last 20 to 30 years.”
Try being literally, physically bashed for being who you are. After African-Americans, gays make up the larger group of hate crime victims in America according to FBI statistics.
All these people want is to be treated equally. If Christians are being mocked and ridiculed today, it is because anti-gay bigots have hijacked and become the public face of the religion in the political sphere. No one has done more damage to Christianity than those who believe it is their right to deprive others of theirs.
Chris insults don’t invite further discussion.
Words are used in law to make specific distinctions so everyone is clear. There is no doubt that before an equal protection argument could be made for gay marriage the definition of the word marriage had to be changed as it has been understood to be between a man and a woman for centuries. We live in the USA and our heritage is of western culture whose mores and laws come down to us through tenets in the Bible. That constitutes a number of centuries of understanding on the definition of a word.
I’ll let you have the last word otherwise.
Tina: “Words are used in law to make specific distinctions so everyone is clear. There is no doubt that before an equal protection argument could be made for gay marriage the definition of the word marriage had to be changed as it has been understood to be between a man and a woman for centuries.”
No, that’s simply not the case.
One more time: marriage is a *legal contract.* All that needed to be demonstrated to show the law violated equal protection was that this contract discriminated based on gender without a compelling government interest. That is what same-sex marriage proponents did; anti-gays were unable to point to any compelling reason why this contract should discriminate based on gender, thus they lost the case on equal protection grounds.
“Definitions of words” have almost nothing to do with the legal argument. Legally, it doesn’t matter whether we call the contract “marriage” or “civil union” or “magic love pair hurray commitment awesome time.” All that matters, legally, is that the contract does not discriminate against certain social groups for no compelling reason. It did, so the contract has been changed.
Legal terms don’t have magical powers. They change when they need to. The legal term “marriage” previously violated equal protection. It was changed because of that, not the other way around. Now it doesn’t discriminate based on gender. This is better.
Culturally, the definition of marriage changed prior to the Obergefell ruling, just as it has changed many times for thousands of years. You do not practice Biblical marriage. You know perfectly well that Biblical marriage is not just “one man, one woman,” but often “one man, many women,” so I’ll kindly ask you to stop lying about the Bible. You also know that Biblical marriage laws include tons of stuff we would never follow today, like commandments for rapists to marry their victims, men to marry their dead brothers’ widows, and of course the fundamental tenet that the husband was superior to the wife. You can say that these things weren’t fundamental to the definition of marriage, but just because you say it doesn’t make it true; people at the time certainly would have thought the superiority of the husband was definitional, and many would not even recognize the institution we call marriage today, it’s so different.
Marriage. Has. Changed. Appealing to tradition is always fallacious, but even more so when you’re talking about an institution as historically malleable as this one. There is no *one* definition of marriage across all cultures and all time periods. There isn’t even one definiton of marriage in America today. Ask ten people on the street their definition of marriage, and you will get ten different answers.
The great thing about the government recognizing SSM is that you still get to practice your own personal definition of marriage in your own home, and so do gay people. That is fair and right and just. What wasn’t fair or right or just was arbitrarily deciding that “What Marriage Means To Me, Tina Grazier” was somehow a universal, unchanging definition that no one could ever disagree with, and using that mistaken belief to forcibly annul the legal marriage of thousands of your fellow citizens. What wasn’t fair was insisting that only your definition mattered, and that what millions of people (not just gay people, but their friends, family members, and allies) referred to as marriage actually wasn’t, just because they couldn’t make babies, and that your beliefs should be enshrined into law.
Live and let live, Tina. Gay people can now practice marriage in the way they see fit, you can practice marriage in the way you see fit, and the government has to treat you both equally in the eyes of the law. Isn’t that great? Isn’t that what America is all about?