Thursday, May 07, 2015

'Sorry guys. The anti-gay right isn't going ANYWHERE' & other Thursday midday news briefs

The Supreme Court might legalize gay marriage. But that won’t stop opponents from pushing anti-gay laws. - I am going to sound gloomy today but it needs to be said. IF the Supreme Court rules for marriage, it is not an ending, but the beginning of a new dimension in this so-called culture war. And my question is the lgbt community prepared to learn new skills or underestimate our opponent, play catch up, and fondly reminisce about antiquated tactics like we seem to always do?

Meet The Anti-LGBT Legal Scholars Defending "Religious Freedom" Laws - Here is an idea. KNOW your opponent. Study their tactics. Learn their weaknesses and exploit them. 

 Rubio Headlines Fundraiser For Policy Group That Supports Conversion Therapy - HERE is a given. Sen. Marco Rubio likes to claim that folks like him who oppose marriage equality are unfairly bullied. This proves how much of a hypocrite he is. Why is Rubio supporting a group which believes in the fraudulent "ex-gay" therapy. It's a good question TO ASK HIM or put out in public.  

10 Queer Things You Couldn't Have Seen On TV 10 Years Ago - I will admit that at first, I thought this list would be tripe. However, it is actually a good history on how far the lgbt community have come. 

 Judge Tosses Lawsuit By Nebraska Woman Suing 'All Homosexuals' On Behalf Of Jesus - DARN! No Alexis Carrington courtroom entrance for me.  

Louisiana Lawmaker Tries And Fails To Explain How ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill Doesn’t Discriminate - Nope. Nope. Sorry. Not going to work.


Anonymous said...

Few will deny that the fight, so far, has been bitter. If SCOTUS declares 'Yes' on question #1 the next fight could be just as bed. It will be a fight to insert strict Canonical law into our civil system. To be sure, these laws will be worded to not, obviously, betray their origins.

Many of us remember growing up with the so-called "Blue Laws." There were places we could not go, things we could not do, things we could not buy, on any Sunday. These laws were grounded on a Biblical commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day..." Although officially denied, these forced everyone to follow a dictate of Christian religion.

I am usually a quiet person, however, I, for one, will strongly resist being forced to bow to a belief that is not my own.

If SCOTUS denies us, going back, nearly, to 'square one' will be even worse.

Anonymous said...

I try to approach this with a sense of nuance.

On the far right, you have folks like Linda Harvey, Peter LaBarbera and Scott Lively. These guys would all revoke all LGBT rights if they could.

There are others, though, who have a personal moral objection to gay marriage but don't have a problem with it being legal at all. I know one guy who's like this. He basically says, "Why should I expect non-Christians to live like Christians and impose it with the force of law?"

These are the type of folks I don't want to run over in our search for equality.

This isn't just freedom of religion. It's freedom of conscience, and we need to make damned sure we're being consistent on this and not changing the rules when it suits us.

Here's an example: there was a woman who didn't want to put a "pro-traditional marriage only" message on her cake. We all agreed the law should not compel her to do so. In another instance, a print shop owner (who had turned down numerous heterosexual customers) rejected printing a Pride t-shirt. Many condemned him and implied there should be some form of civil punishment assessed for "discrimination".

Well, which is it?

Either small business owners should be free to reject publishing messages that offend their conscience or they should not. We cannot approach this from the perspective of only allowing exemptions for those we agree with.

James Bradshaw

BlackTsunami said...


You bring up a good point, but you don't help yourself by implying that "freedom of conscience" was a point that WE brought up. YOU brought it up in your comment and seem to be attempting to pass it off as something which came from lgbts. This is my opinion on the matter. There should be a way to work this thing out for small businesses, BUT to me it's all about where the line is drawn. Actions have consequences and once we start with small businesses, who is to say that churches who own apt buildings (there are quite a few in my area) won't want the same exemptions? Where is the line drawn. That has always been the thing that concerns me.

Anonymous said...

I have three thoughts on freedom of conscience for businesses:

First, if a business is run fully by and for a specific religious organization then they can limit as they please.

Second, when local non-nondiscrimination laws are in place then there is no room to pick and choose who to serve. Don't like it? Don't open the doors.

Third, if a service is refused, that business must be able to show that the same is refused to everyone. Like a kosher deli can refuse to serve bacon or shrimp, or hate messages on a cake-that service is available to no one from that business.