Judge: Prop 8's donors must be identified

[PhantomWolf]

No, instead I should be compelled at gunpoint to give my business to the people I disagree with. That's so respectful of the free market.

No one is holding a gun to your head. I will point out that acting in a negative and intolerant way towards people you disagree with politically is being just as bigoted as you accuse them of being though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It appears that blacks were the racial demographic that most strongly favored proposition 8.

I await the death threats and mass boycotts directed at California's black-owned businesses.

There seem to be lots of people with different analysises citing different numbers for what percentage of what groups voted for prop 8. I have also seen 57% cited as the percentage of blacks who voted for prop 8.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No one is holding a gun to your head. I will point out that acting in a negative and intolerant way towards people you disagree with politically is being just as bigoted as you accuse them of being though.

You are a loon.

I am being an evil bigot if I don't choose to eat at the Aryan Nation Resturant?

This clearly related to Blago, he lost his job for what he said, that is a clear free speach violation right? That is even worse discrimination that this.

 

[Upchurch]

I await the death threats and mass boycotts directed at California's black-owned businesses.

which ones voted for Prop 8? Unlike the donations, votes are not attached to any one person.

 

[fuelair]

Yes because it's so liberal and tolerant to drive people out of business, destroy careers and ruin the lives of those that disagree with you.

Neither liberal or tolerant. Not the reason for it. I do not eat at Outback since finding that the corporation donates to anti abortion organizations. I have a right to not spend my money at primitives businesses. I firmly believe that (except for certain activities involving law enforcement) people who support political fuctions with active support and or (especially) with funding/fund raising should be identified - among other reasons so that when they lie about the purpose of a bill/amendment to voters that can be spotted earlier.
That's both ways of course - not picking on the homophobes.

 

[PhantomWolf]

HMM, I thought it was actually quit CONSERVATIVE, I do believe that they even have a name for it. Free something or other - gees I wonder what it could be?

Regardless of who it is showing intolerance for the other it is bigotory, trying to pretend you have the moral high ground doesn't change it, on either side. Attacking people because they have a different political or religous belief from you is bigotry, pure and simple.

It seems to me that the common theme for those defending these P*&%$s is that

their names should not be released because they'll be attacked/threatened etc.

Considering the attacks on Churches and the like, what does publishing their names and addresses achive other then opening them up to attacks and abuse?

BUT there are laws and protections against such actions already.

Yeah, it's wonderful how the law will prevent a molitof cocktail from smashing through a window into a child's bedroom....

Further, this analogy is something like.

Maddof is a jewish banker, ergo jews are all part of a banking consiracy to rule the world.

That analogy has nothing to do with anything, the worry is that when names and adresses are made public, that the people resonsible for attacking churches will vent their anger in other more deadly ways on the individuals they deem responsible. This is intolerance itself and is no better than someone attacking a person because they are gay or black.

The issue IS that if the morom church can finance a political campaign to push their agenda without revealing themselves than SC$ should be able to puch their stuff in the workplace!?

That's nothing to do with the issue at all, the issue is whether people should be exposed to danger because of their political beliefs.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Yes because it's so liberal and tolerant to drive people out of business, destroy careers and ruin the lives of those that disagree with you.

Where do you place the Montgomery bus boycott, then?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You are a loon.

Personal attack noted

I am being an evil bigot if I don't choose to eat at the Aryan Nation Resturant?

I note also that you are putting words into my mouth, nowhere have I say anyoine is an evil bigot. I would inquire as to what you would think of people that choose not to eat at a resturant that employed openly gay waiters though.

This clearly related to Blago, he lost his job for what he said, that is a clear free speach violation right? That is even worse discrimination that this.

How is a Governer who was selling political positions and taking kick backs relevant to this disussion?

 

[drkitten]

Where do you place the Montgomery bus boycott, then?

He doesn't. He almost certainly doesn't give it that much thought.

It's just a standard bigot's to quoque defense. When a policeman captures a burglar and takes the stolen money away from him, the policeman is just as bad as the burglar (since the cop is taking property without the consent of the holder). When a kidnapper is sentenced to jail, the judge is just as bad as the kidnapper, because he's placing involuntary restrictions on the kidnapper's movement and behavior. When a bouncer throws a violent drunk out of the bar, he's being just as "violent" as the drunk.

And when someone refuses to do business with a known homophobe, he's just as bigoted as the homophobe.

It's never the drunk's fault he got thrown out of the bar.

 

[Upchurch]

Regardless of who it is showing intolerance for the other it is bigotory, trying to pretend you have the moral high ground doesn't change it, on either side. Attacking people because they have a different political or religous belief from you is bigotry, pure and simple.

There is a difference, I think, between attacking people because they have a different political or religious belief (or sexuality) and responding to someone who has attacked you because of your political or religious belief (or sexuality).

(note: I use "attack" in a rhetorical sense, not literally attacking.)

Yeah, it's wonderful how the law will prevent a molitof cocktail from smashing through a window into a child's bedroom....

??? link?

 

[drkitten]

I would inquire as to what you would think of people that choose not to eat at a resturant that employed openly gay waiters though.

That's their choice.

But those people shouldn't be surprised, after they've made a big deal about how they're not spending their money at a place that supports abhorrent practices, if I choose not to buy cars at their dealership.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Where do you place the Montgomery bus boycott, then?

The Montgomery bus boycott was not an attempt to target individual people over political views, it was targeting the city and the state because of legalised discrimination. Totally different issue. If those that disagreed with Prop 8 were targeting the State with their anger then you might have a point, since it's being aimed at private citizens and organisations which have a right to hold different and equally vaild opinions, you don't.

 

[Upchurch]

private citizens and organisations which have a right to hold different and equally vaild opinions, you don't.

You make it sound like all they did was hold different and equally vaild opinions.

 

[TriskettheKid]

The Montgomery bus boycott was not an attempt to target individual people over political views, it was targeting the city and the state because of legalised discrimination. Totally different issue. If those that disagreed with Prop 8 were targeting the State with their anger then you might have a point, since it's being aimed at private citizens and organisations which have a right to hold different and equally vaild opinions, you don't.

They absolutely have a right to hold different opinions. Just as I have a right not to use their establishments.

But these people just didn't hold opinions. They've tried to legalize discrimination.

 

[Cleon]

No one is holding a gun to your head. I will point out that acting in a negative and intolerant way towards people you disagree with politically is being just as bigoted as you accuse them of being though.

This line of reasoning is bizarre.

Recently, as part of a gag gift, I had reason to purchase a Confederate flag T-shirt. I was looking for something really hardcore "Southern Pride." Now, there's a store nearby in Kennesaw, Georgia, that would've been perfect. They carry "Southern Pride"-style items, as well as actual Civil War artifacts and memorabilia (all Confederate). The items they have for sale also include various KKK posters, books, uniforms, and figurines. The owner, as you might imagine, is well-known locally as an unrepentant racist, segregationist, and Klan sympathizer.

I opted not to get the T-shirt I wanted at this store, because of this individual's disgusting, racist views.

Now, on your planet, this makes me a "bigot."


In the 1980s, it was the fashion not to do business with South African companies, or purchase South African products, in order to protest the South African practice of apartheid.

In your world, the people who participated in this boycott were "bigots."


On planet Earth, though, this isn't "bigotry," this is people exercising their right to not subsidize opinions and actions that are repugnant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

He doesn't. He almost certainly doesn't give it that much thought.

Nice of you to try and answer for me, perhaps you should read my actual answer instead of trying to put words into my mouth.

It's just a standard bigot's to quoque defense. When a policeman captures a burglar and takes the stolen money away from him, the policeman is just as bad as the burglar (since the cop is taking property without the consent of the holder). When a kidnapper is sentenced to jail, the judge is just as bad as the kidnapper, because he's placing involuntary restrictions on the kidnapper's movement and behavior. When a bouncer throws a violent drunk out of the bar, he's being just as "violent" as the drunk.

What a load of codswallop. A burglar and kidnapper are breaking the law, a police officer and a Judge are upholding the law, it has nothing to with the right to hold an opinion without being attacked and treated intolerantly by those that hold a different opinion. Just because you, or I, believe that our opinion is correct, it does not give us the right to force our ideals onto everyone else and invalidate their opinions, even if their opinion is abhorant to us. In such cases it is often quite true that our opinions will be abhorant to them, that doesn't invalidate our opinion. Intolerance of others however, is intolerance regardless of the form it takes. The only way to truely avoid being bigoted is to actually accept that regardless of your own beliefs and opinions, others are equally entitled to theirs no matter how much they may offend you.

And when someone refuses to do business with a known homophobe, he's just as bigoted as the homophobe.

If the reason that they refuse to do business with them is bases entirely on the person's belief, then yes it is just as bigoted. Just because you think you are in the right, doesn't make you any less bigotted than the other person because they think they are right too.

 

[TriskettheKid]

If the reason that they refuse to do business with them is bases entirely on the person's belief, then yes it is just as bigoted. Just because you think you are in the right, doesn't make you any less bigotted than the other person because they think they are right too.

Ok, so let me ask you this:

If I were a black man in the South during the 1960s, would I be a bigot for refusing to eat at establishments that had segregated seating?

If I were a Jew in New York in the late 1930s, would I be a bigot for refusing to work with or use products of American Nazi party members?

 

[PhantomWolf]

This line of reasoning is bizarre.

Recently, as part of a gag gift, I had reason to purchase a Confederate flag T-shirt. I was looking for something really hardcore "Southern Pride." Now, there's a store nearby in Kennesaw, Georgia, that would've been perfect. They carry "Southern Pride"-style items, as well as actual Civil War artifacts and memorabilia (all Confederate). The items they have for sale also include various KKK posters, books, uniforms, and figurines. The owner, as you might imagine, is well-known locally as an unrepentant racist, segregationist, and Klan sympathizer.

I opted not to get the T-shirt I wanted at this store, because of this individual's disgusting, racist views.

Now, on your planet, this makes me a "bigot."


In the 1980s, it was the fashion not to do business with South African companies, or purchase South African products, in order to protest the South African practice of apartheid.

In your world, the people who participated in this boycott were "bigots."


On planet Earth, though, this isn't "bigotry," this is people exercising their right to not subsidize opinions and actions that are repugnant.

I think you are missing what I am saying. Choosing not to buy something from a store because you don't like what it stands for is not being bigotted, that is exercising free will. Targeting the store with a boycott and trying to run it out of business because you don't like what it stands for is.

As to the SA issue, once again is seems that people are having trouble separating actions against Authority (in SA the Government) because oif legislation and actions against private individuals for opinions.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ok, so let me ask you this:

If I were a black man in the South during the 1960s, would I be a bigot for refusing to eat at establishments that had segregated seating?

If I were a Jew in New York in the late 1930s, would I be a bigot for refusing to work with or use products of American Nazi party members?

If you were deliberately targeting them because of their beliefs (or in one case for following the law of the time) in order to do harm to them. Then yes.

 

[TriskettheKid]

If you were deliberately targeting them because of their beliefs (or in one case for following the law of the time) in order to do harm to them. Then yes.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, any form of protest not aimed at authority is bigoted??