pro prop 8 hypocrisy

[Flyndaran]

...
I'd suggest coming over this way. ...

Of course, we still have that whole gay marriage debarcle here anyway... but that's mere ignorance and intolerance, rather than a religious discrimination... you don't as often hear 'God' get mentioned, nor Bibles.

Yeah, anti-gay isn't always religious based. It can be a simple hatred for the others that do "icky" things.
It's just that that lame reason rarely gets play over here. Here it's always religious based hatred.

Where are you anyway? England? I and my life mate wish we had the money to move to another country. She prefers New Zealand and its Wetta Workshops for her graphic design career.

[spookysonata]

It's freedom OF speech. It's freedom OF religion.

Not freedom FROM them.

So are you saying one can pick any religion...as long as they pick one?

Freedom OF religion is absolutely meaningless unless the freedom to be free FROM religion is present.

As for the pro-prop 8 businesses whining about boycotts...hey, if your beliefs aren't worth defending and taking some fallout for, perhaps you should rethink them.

[AFPheonix]

Freedom of speech goes both ways. If you don't like the fact that people don't appreciate a religious organization that should not have been using its money and influence inappropriately, well, I don't know what to tell you. Because that is exactly what the leadership of your church body did.

Prop 8 should have never happened. Civil rights are not a matter of popular vote. If they were, we'd probably still have Jim Crow in some areas of the country. Unfortunately, it's going to take courts taking bad legislation like this and DOMA to task to make things change. However, I do have hope that they will, and I think we will see gay marriage become more mainstream within 2 decades in this country.

[Rapscallion]

Civil rights are not a voting matter? I have to take issue with that statement.

Back in the days of slavery (I'm more thinking ancient Rome and Greece here), it was a right to be able to own a slave. That was decided by the people, not by a small number of people deciding what was right for everyone.

It has to be society deciding how it wants to act. If not the people deciding how they want to treat others, then who?

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Back in the days of slavery (I'm more thinking ancient Rome and Greece here), it was a right to be able to own a slave. That was decided by the people, not by a small number of people deciding what was right for everyone.

Exactly. Democracy is prone to all sorts of abuses. Some very smart people back in the day recognized this, and set up the US system to operate a bit differently than "rule by mob". Hence the existence of the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court will generally not uphold a law, not matter how democratically passed, that violates an individual or group's civil rights.

The question now is whether or not marriage can be considered a civil right. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that it is, and now no province can deny homosexuals their right to marriage. Our federal government would actually have to amend our constitution if they wanted to change this. The Conservatives were talking about it, but backed off pretty quick. No one can change the constitution around here without Quebec asking for the moon, and then getting pissed off when they don't get it. Political death for whatever party tries it.

[daleduke17]

Slyvtohand - I was talking about the businesses around here that put up icthys and crosses in their shopwindows.

Out of curiosity, do you avoid places that just happen to sell items like that? For example, would you avoid a woodshop that sold crosses for gravestones or the like?

[Flyndaran]

Out of curiosity, do you avoid places that just happen to sell items like that? For example, would you avoid a woodshop that sold crosses for gravestones or the like?

Isn't there a big difference between saying that your entire business is religion X and simply selling items that appeal to religion X?

[AFPheonix]

Civil rights are not a voting matter? I have to take issue with that statement.

Back in the days of slavery (I'm more thinking ancient Rome and Greece here), it was a right to be able to own a slave. That was decided by the people, not by a small number of people deciding what was right for everyone.

It has to be society deciding how it wants to act. If not the people deciding how they want to treat others, then who?

Rapscallion

I mean that the rights of a minority should not be held to a popular vote. We are not a true democracy, we are ruled under our constitution that allows for equal rights for ALL people, not by mob rule who may be influenced by theology or bigotry.
This has precedence when the federal government forcibly desegregated the south and abolished Jim Crow and other "separate but equal" laws. If it had been allowed to be decided by popular vote, I don't doubt that some counties would still have separate drinking fountains for different skin colors today.

[daleduke17]

Isn't there a big difference between saying that your entire business is religion X and simply selling items that appeal to religion X?

Yes there is (in my opinion), but there are people out there who flip just because there is a cross or a fish symbol in a business.

[anriana]

Out of curiosity, do you avoid places that just happen to sell items like that? For example, would you avoid a woodshop that sold crosses for gravestones or the like?

No, because Christianity is so pervasive in our society it is difficult to find stores that don't cater to it in some degree. I'm not going to avoid Half-Price Books because they stock The Purpose Driven Life, but I would avoid Lifeway.

Since you seem so interested I also avoid businesses that have the crosses in the boardroom but not the shopwindow - Hobby Lobby, Chik-Fil-A, Curves (not that I'd go there anyways)

[Rapscallion]

I mean that the rights of a minority should not be held to a popular vote.

Why not? This one's puzzling me. I reckon you're right about this, but I'm trying to work out an argument for it. My viewpoint is that democracy is a good thing and the will of the majority rules. If the will of the majority is that a certain minority should have fewer rights, then that is the democratic process. If the majority vote to change the constitution to allow such treatment, then that is also democracy.

Murderers are a minority of the populace, and the rights they lose as a result of what the general population accept as being appropriate are either liberty or life. That seems to be a generally accepted element of modern, western society.

I don't know the full ins and outs of proposition eight (I've never actually seen the text of it), but a large proportion of the populace voted to remove marriage rights from homosexuals, if I read comments from others right. I disagree with the result that I see, but I agree with the process by which the result was brought about.

Am I making sense here? This is the part I'm struggling with. We live in a democracy, which means that the people as a whole make the really major decisions. If we don't like the proposals on the table, we campaign against them, but if they are passed then we have to accept them. You can't declare an alleigance to a system where democracy is the ruler and only accept the results you like. (I get enough of that at work).

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

California already had gay marriage on the books due to a court decision. Prop 8 seeks to bring that decision down, but I hope will be struck down itself for being unconstitutional (equal rights under the law and all that).

When our founding fathers made our constitution, they created that paper and also other things like the electoral college to nullify mob rule. While I'd like to believe that the majority can have the best interests of all in mind, realistically we know that they don't, and that has been shown to be true over time immemorial across many cultures. Instead, our law and ideals are held up to a certain standard (ie, the constitution) and laws that are made either through popular decision or through legislature must conform to that standard or else they are struck down or altered so that they DO fit.
Democracy is indeed a good thing in general, as the will of the people most of the time is a better indicator of social good over that of one person or a few. Unfortunately, the majority can also be selfish, so for that reason, the minority must have some protection against the minority. This is one of those times, as was desegregation.
While the process itself was sound, the result does not hold up to the scrutiny of the standard of the constitution. Bad things can be done through good processes, so we have checks and balances in place throughout our government to keep things at a fairly steady keel.

[Pedersen]

Why not? This one's puzzling me. I reckon you're right about this, but I'm trying to work out an argument for it. My viewpoint is that democracy is a good thing and the will of the majority rules. If the will of the majority is that a certain minority should have fewer rights, then that is the democratic process. If the majority vote to change the constitution to allow such treatment, then that is also democracy.

Well, first, I'm going to toss out a favorite quote of mine. I believe it was made by Larry Flynt (sp?): "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Democracy is only one half of the equation, and is put in place primarily to protect freedom/liberty (choose your favorite word).

Now, democracy has one particular failure, and that's mob rule (also called the tyranny of the majority). Suppose that a town has a vote: Should Pedersen be executed because we don't like him? The vote comes in, and the town doesn't like me. I'm executed. Pure democracy would actually allow such a thing to occur. It's at the far extreme of what could happen, to be sure. It's not likely to happen. But it could.

As such, democracy does need limits. Rules have to be put in place which protect everybody equally, to prevent such travesties (well, it'd be a travesty to me, anyway!).

Failure to put limits in that require fair treatment of the minority by the majority means that the minority no longer can enjoy liberty. And, at that point, what's the point of the democracy?

[smileyeagle1021]

Yeah, I think Pedersen put it much more elequontly than I can, but I've been known to tell people that the primary reason for even having a supreme court is so there is someone there to tell the majority that they are wrong.