I wrote to you: “I am well aware of the fear and loathing of homosexuality that exists in relgious circles. I do not like it; it saddens and angers me.”

You replied, “Yes. You seemed devastated.”

You have yet again presumed to be able to read my heart and mind. And you have implied I am a liar for the umpteenth time.

I will not further attempt to disabuse you of your low opinion of my honesty. But I see now reason to continue conversing with someone who thinks I’m allergic to the truth.

Uh, Dave? You said “residences”. You said that quite clearly. There are no residence’s addresses in the link provided. There are company names, and their donations are part of the public record. It is perfectly legal and right to publish that list. So yes, a deliberate deception and dodge.

Ryan,

The link provided was about donors to Prop 8 in California. As far as I can tell, the page about the Florida matter is no longer online. That list was created by going to local county clerks offices, if my memory serves me well.

My sentence read “Florida residences who donated.” The pronoun should’ve revealed what happened: I typed in the wrong word. I meant to say ‘Florida residents who donated.’ That list did contain the addresses of the donors which is probably why I made that mistake.

Anyway, thanks for taking my honest mistake for something nefarious. I always love it when I look evil.

That’s my explanation. That right there. They think something should be “reserved” and “protected” for one group which can only mean they have distaste for the other. Yes, even if they support the “same” spousal privileges for gay couples, which by definition can’t be “the same” because if Civil Unions and marriages were exactly the same then no one could possibly object to one and not the other. Get it?

That’s hardly an explanation for why such people don’t fall into the no legal protections of any kind category.

Wow, Dave. “getting flak”? Maybe you should read the post. Or are you attempting again to deliberately deceive? He didn’t “get flak”. He was FORCED TO RESIGN. EXACTLY the same as Margie. He was an employee of the church who was FORCED TO RESIGN because of his POLITICAL OPINION. Couldn’t be more similar. Oh, except for the fact he didn’t even donate to anything!

Richard Cizik wasn’t just an employee of some secular organization. He is a religious leader. His case is analogous to a Catholic Bishop resigning after questions were raised as to his faithfulness to Catholic teaching. If we follow that anology to a situation like Marjorie’s, then we would have a restaurant manager being coerced into resigning for disobeying his church’s catechism.

I think you can see why what is viewed as normal for religious leaders seems perverse for restaurant managers: Restaurants don’t exist to promulgate religious doctrine. Well, they don’t have anything to do with marriage laws either.

“You are aware of the fact that there were no votes in those states, aren’t you? Also, saying that Mormons would never “target” owners of popular Mormon establishments who donated to Yes on 8 (ludicrous) is indeed implying that they have the moral high ground.”

The absence of a vote in a state doesn’t mean there are no gay marriage proponents in the state who could be identified and targeted, now does it?

As for the Mormons,I never said they wouldn’t ever do anything; I said you shouldn’t be so certain they would do certain things when there is no evidence for them doing such things.

“Holy crap! So you think it would be okay for a person to be fired for being gay, black, or jewish, but shouldn’t be targeted for voicing a political opinion. I don’t even know what to say anymore but, “wow”! I really, really hope I’m wrong and you’re not gay.”

You have no idea how much amusement this paragraph gave me, Ryan. I have to thank you for the laugh. The bit about you now hoping I’m not gay is especially rich. I really am loving this! :)

Strangely, I don’t recall saying that freedom of association couldn’t include politics….

But then it is already known that freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from your employer, right? You did know that, didn’t you?

Not wanting the government to deny freedom of association to employers is not the same as being okay with whatever employment decisions an employer makes. Just as wanting the government to respect freedom of speech and of religion means you are okay with Fred Phelps and his clan.

If Christoffersen, Eckern, or Raddon, had been in a dispute with his employer, it would just have been employee versus employer. But the actual situation was employee versus California’s gay activists. You have again compared apples and pineapples.

Oh, and as for your fervent hope that I’m not gay, well…. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa!

“Well, maybe if we all offer a heartfelt teary apology that will make it all better.”

Hmmm. It just might at that. Perhaps she would return to El Coyote if such an apology was made. You should try it.

I’m pleased you follow my comments so closely you so easily recalled a conversation from a month ago.

Alas, you’ve misinterpreted. Those comments have nothing to do with expressing the topic at hand.

John was right: I haven’t expressed any anger at the firing of gay people here at BTB. Is the issue relevent to anything I’ve commented on?

You should’ve noticed, Werdna, I didn’t respond to John. I didn’t think his comment deserved a response. I still don’t.

“”I don’t care if this is an emotional issue. Most bad behavior, and for that matter good behavior, is emotionally driven.”

Emotions can certainly fuel our political activity, and that’s not wrong. But it is dangerous to allow emotion to take the lead. As Pascal said, “Where passion is high, reason is low.” Emotion can power the engine, but it’s best for the intellect to do the driving.

“the marriage equality side trumps the complementary nature side because they are not attempting to stop others from doing what they themselves do.”

Strictly speaking, the marriage traditionalists aren’t trying to stop anyone from doing anything when they get marriage constitutionally defined as monogamous and heterosexual. Gay couples still can be married in a church that recognizes such weddings, for instance.

“none are willing to acknowledge that they are working to keep a group of people from benefiting from what they already receive.”

Don’t paint with too broad a brush. Only those marriage traditionalists who are opposed to any state recognition or protection for homosexual couples are guilty of this.

There are marriage traditionists who simply think that heterosexuality and homosexuality, being different, should be intergrated into society with different institutions. Scott Eckern, who was squeezed into resigning his position at the CMT, seems to be one such traditionalist.

I find your suggestion that passive-agressive behavior is at work amongst gay rights opponents very interesting. Definitely worth pursuing.

If you are not interested in victimism, you must forgive me for thinking you were. After all, you certainly did an excellent impersonation of someone caught up in victimism when you assumed opposition to same-sex marriage must originate in fear or hatred of homosexuals.

“the very fact that people think I should be treated differently than they are is an indication of bias.

Everything yes on 8 had to say was not pro-marriage, whatever that means, it was anti-gay. So there is no bias?
“

The traditional marriage crowd isn’t really asking for the law to treat gays differently than straights; they want to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a monogamous heterosexual union. That is a bias, of course, but it isn’t a bias against individuals. (Of course they may also be guilty of indifference or hostility to homosexual couples. I’m just saying that is separate from the desire to keep marriage as traditionally defined.)

As for the Yes on 8 campaign, the bad behavior of the campaign’s leaders cannot be blamed on all the voters who voted for the amendment. Similarly, the existence of homophobia within the Yes crowd doesn’t prove it to be a universal fact of the Yes crowd.

“i bet if they were given a chance to vote on it, they would vote against it, as in florida.”

The people of Arizona had a chance to vote on an amendment like Florida’s; they voted it down. The people of California could have a referendum to eliminate domestic partnerships for gay couples. Doing so is not even under discussion. The peoples of Connecticut, Vermont, and New Jersey haven’t risen up against spousal privileges for same-sex couples. So where is the evidence for your assertion?

As for the Sunshine State, the Florida amemdment passed in a year when courts in Calfornia and Connecticut intervened in the controversy — something the public doesn’t like. Had that not happened, the broadness of the amendment might have doomed it.

“I have to ask… Protect marriage? From me? Why would it need protecting from me?”

Ben, marriage traditionalists aren’t trying to defend marriage from you. It isn’t that most of them think gay people have marriage-destroying cooties or something. They want to preserve the symbolic and social aspects of marriage that pertain to it being a union of the opposite sexes.

If the political society of the United States functioned like the founders hoped, a compromise that accomodated the concerns of marriage traditionalists and the those of gay couples could be reached. But nowadays the unending war between radicals and reactionaries keeps the nation in a state of perpetual agitation.

Of course, one of the problems is that marriage started with in the cultural realm, which is just where it should have. The recognition of gay unions, however, has started in the political/legal realm and will need to move into the culture from there — the exact opposite of what happened with heterosexual marriage.

Maybe this does have something to do with “the complementary nature of the two sexes,” and really isn’t bigotry, however unconscious. But even if I acknowledge this, the marriage equality side trumps the complementary nature side because they are not attempting to stop others from doing what they themselves do. I don’t care if this is an emotional issue. Most bad behavior, and for that matter good behavior, is emotionally driven.

Whether people are pro-prop 8 due to their feelings about nature, their worries about the economic costs or from a deep seated hatred of homosexuality, none are willing to acknowledge that they are working to keep a group of people from benefiting from what they already receive. As is apparent from the comments posted here, it is very difficult to perceive this refusal as anything other than biased hatred.

I can be passive aggressive. It’s annoying and hurtful to my victims, and I don’t want to be that way, so I try to watch myself. I strongly suspect that most Prop 8 supporters do not want to be known as bigots. I think that is why they spend so much time explaining why they are not bigots. I want them to admit they are bigots and even to fight their own bigotry. When I successfully identify my PA behavior it makes it possible to rectify it. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. But it can never be rectified if I refuse to identify it.

Again, it’s all about that big dumb word silly skraights seem to think they own. I’m just going to call mine a smishMarriage when I get one and give silly skraights that don’t like it the finger.

Really just a little past this whole “But but but you can’t have the word “marriage” cuz it’s so sacred–SO sacred we made game shows out of it! but you can’t have it cuz of all the buttsecks! Wah! I don’t like your behavior and what I say goes and I got to vote against you and you have to take it and like it. Nyah!”

Whatever. Just start saying “Suck it.” Praise be Kathy Griffin.

Nobel prize-winner Peter Medawar on Teilhard de chardin:

“the author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself.”

And quoting one of my very favorite authors, Ben in Oakland:

“A host of good Christians are all happy to tell me how much they love me… right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways.”
Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. ‘Nuff said.

He allows that gays may be upset by Margie’s actions.
He allows that we may not wish to spend our money in a way that will be used to disadvantage our rights.
He allows that boycotts or other economic action against businesses is acceptable (or at least the anti-gay actions against businesses are).

The sticking point Dave seems to be making is:

An employee of a business – regardless of the extent to which the employee is indistinguishable from the business – should not be targeted by boycott or pickets.

I think that is nonsense, personally. And on that we’ll just have to disagree.

If Dave wishes to believe this statement, I’ll not seek to disuade him. He’s entitled to his beliefs whether they are logical or as bizarre as this one.

His moral indignation only serves as an argument if others agree with the objectionable nature of the action. “But she wore blue!!!” only works to raise concern if everyone agrees that wearing blue is bad.

Dave can go on objecting to how AWFUL it is to target the manager/family owner/mascot of a business. But if no one else thinks that this is a horrible thing then he’s pretty much left with bitching to himself.

I’d advise that he be left doing so.