I suspect this is the right attitude. The outrage probably does do some good, but we shouldn't forget that the Westboro Baptist Church has on the order of only 40 some members, yet they're a household name and can create international diplomatic incidents and get worldwide news coverage almost at will.

Thanks Silvercord, I do believe you've articulated yourself here better than I have. I don't take much issue with anything you've said above and I think we agree more than we disagree.

You're right, I'm from Canada. I have a unique perspective of American culture at the same time as living in the most culturally diverse city in the world. Here, multiculturalism is enshrined in law. We see ourselves as a mosaic instead of a melting pot. Something I'm quite proud of. (but not all Canadians feel the same way) There are plenty of conflicts of culture to choose from around here.

But when I'm speaking about an individuals 'fundamental human rights', I'm not speaking as a Canadian, or Torontonian or North American, I'm speaking as a human. And when I stated that religious/cultural rights were trumped by physical ones I didn't mean to suggest they were non-existent. The Klu Klux Klan for example is a religious organization (or at least that's what they call them selves) as is the Westboro Baptist Church and it's because their rights "extend to the tips of their noses" that they can't impose their will over people they believe are lesser than themselves. They are free to carry hateful ideas around in their heads, (as is their "right") but if it causes them to commit hateful actions, they are breaking the law.

The same can be said of the baker and the photographer. Albeit of varying degrees. The reason the baker and photographer have a sacred idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman is because of an intolerance of homosexuality. You say they're not intolerant because they serve the gay community in every other aspect outside of marriage and I say if there is any way they treat the gay community differently than that is the very definition of discrimination. Again, it's just in varying degrees.

What if I held a religious belief that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman and refused to supply services to anyone outside of that definition? "Sorry we can't in good conscience go there. Oh, it's not you, it's me." I would be running my business in a discriminatory fashion and I would pay a fine. As it should be.

Might I suggest if you want to be selective as to who you will serve and who you won't based on the physical attributes someone was born with, that you keep those reasons to yourself and politely refuse service to those people citing a scheduling conflict or artistic differences. Because to stand up proudly saying you don't recognize gay marriage or mixed race coupling as your 'fundamental human right' is offensive. By all means, carry your intolerant ideas in your head, just don't carry out intolerant actions and think the rest of the community has to respect you for them.

"Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't."

Um, no, you're right. It doesn't work that way. But laws do create culture if not for this generation, than for the next. As Yogi stated above; "Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality." A little harsh perhaps, but when you you think back to the '40s, '50s and '60s and the how attitudes and culture have changed for the Black community you can't deny that civil rights laws have made the world a better place, for equality and for everyone.

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

Could be for a some but not all of the following reasons:

Peeps here have neurotic voting habits.

Peeps here abide by some anal-esque adherence to their neurosemantic–dexterity circuits.

Peeps here can't stand anything that has to do with churchy-stuff or goddy-god-god subject matter (becasue they have a log-jam the size of Ohio lodged in their asses).

Peeps here think kids doing cute shit is not worthy of their time or vote.

Peeps haven't seen it yet (It's only been up 3hr 10 mins and only 20 or so peeps are logged-on at any given time, and considering the votes-to-views, it will most-likely get a buncha votes as 4 of 11 that have viewed, voted it up)

Peeps have something against Baptists in Kyrgyzstan and children or a combination of, or all of the three.

Some peeps simply suck at life.

Lifes' a bitch when there's so many personality-types and the baggage that comes with 'em....

Exactly, you didn't get the point. It isn't about punishing people for being hypocritical idiots, it's about calling them out for it and making clear that behaviour isn't ok.
Let's stick with the wedding cake example for a moment. It's not about forcing somebody to make a shitty cake a dozen other people can do as well or having them pay damages for percieved (by lawyers or pissed off grooms) emotional trauma. I would be perfectly fine with it if a judge ordered those kind of businessowners to just hang some Westboro Baptist style posters on their storefront and call it a day. At least then everybody knew with what kind of people they're dealing with.
The problem isn't that people with shitty opinions exist, they'll be always there, the problem is if we let them act as if it's normal and fine and not adress it.
You would crucify them if they'd say that sex with children is ok, you'd call them out if they were telling you black people should be glad their slave ancestors were treated so well. Shit, just try to open a mosque one block away from ground zero and someone will talk to you about that too.
Why is it wrong then if you confront them when they put gay relationships on the same level as people fucking their dogs or tell us that two fathers can't raise a son?
I was serious when I said I admire the Phelps familiy for their honesty. They're horrible, disgusting people but at least they made up their minds and stick to their beliefs. They won't come to us calling homosexuality a "controversial lifestyle" where you can have "differing opinions" than all the "gay friends they have". You fuck a bloke in the ass you go to hell, that's it. No cures, no dicussions. It's antisocial, cruel and stupid but at least, they very least, it's honest.
Those anti discrimination laws are just crude tool to protrect yourself from their stupid hatred. Not everybody lives in San Francisco where you call your transgender girlfriends for a protest sit in at the local homophobic bakery. Some people have only big brother on their side in their hometown.
It's not about getting your way, it's about stopping others from continuing taking a shit on you.

And yet here you are a demand homosexuals to keep their sexuality a secret, keep it away from the public eye because it upsets you with your faith.
Nobody makes you go kiss a boy (assuming you're male yourself here) but nobody stops you from holding your girlfriends hand in public either. Nobody tells you you can't get married in the legal sense because you're straight and no kid gets bullied in school because they're into the other gender.
You talk about beliefs and lifestyles and in that you disrespect gay people, force your belief onto them. It's not a lifestyle, it is who they are, at the very core of their existence, like being straight is not a lifestyle for you. Your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but deminishing their very identity.
If homosexuality was a lifestyle, so would be heterosexuality. Lifestyles are not natural attributes given by the gods, lifestyle is choice. Do us a favour, choose neither of them, become asexual. It's the best proof, the Pope will agree.

In the end you won't be able to let go of this because christianity has always been obsessed with sexuality, especially that of other people. So eager to control masturbationary habits (Don't be Onan, fight the urge!), women's sexual freedom (Contraception is for whores!) and the queer (Worse abominations than seafood!) and therefore blind to see that this nonsense crusade against everybodys desires drives the masses away from their oh-so-important message of salvation. That's why you loose the fight, mankind is becoming more tolerant and we refuse to beat down the minorities for you any longer.
You can't have it both ways, you can't preach god is love and then hand us a list of people we're supposed to hate and expect us to nod in silent obedience. Times have changed, the minorities get more and more allies.
Honestly, that's what I admire about the Westboro Baptist Church, they're idiotic haters but at least they're consistent with their ideologies and brave enough to stand up for them.

Here's a scenario for ya bobby...like, next world war shit?

3 first strike options:
conventional
nuclear
doomsday (biotech, other)

Uhh, fuck the entire planet being able to survive oblivion, how about, about a hundred mother-FUCKERS being able to survive underground just fine with all the food, pussy, and time until the shit blows over for everyone, and everything else.

Totally doable.

Talk about yer 'antichrist' scenario, and fuck yours, mine, and anyone elsers, Polytics, religion or lack thereof, this is something you may believe in.

It's the real doable shit that scares the funk outta me and should wake anyone else with a fucking clue, the motherfuck the FUCK UP!

Or I dunno, maybe I'm just some John the Baptist motherfucker, crying-out in the wilderness of complete imbeciles, myself, submiiter of embed, squirrels and dolphins, and and hater of chingy included??

Baptist? Don't think so. That is a pretty hilarious example to have chosen...

It is Westboro BAPTIST Church, you know that, right?

It's pretty preachy. Makes me think you could hear almost the same thing in a Baptist church.

Ok firstly for ChaosEngine, your paraphrased quote of statements which voiced a sentiment I have had since engaging in conversation with seekers about the existence of 'God or no God': The same mechanism of filtering the words you read through your own belief system is a time-honored technique of the most fundamentalist of back-assward Christians and theologians who read the words of the Bible and fit them conveniently into their limited world view filtered through a similar limited and linear, perception of existence.

(*edit-I now realize that you did not in fact, paraphrase my statement rather, bcglorf's , but the sentiment remains true)

My statement was (and yes Dannym3142, that was NOT supposed to be a question mark, edited with the appropriate period): "I have a legitimate beef with rabid supporters of any particular ideology or philosophy when the shit becomes tiresome and repetitious when tinctured with rage and anger and intolerance."

Your paraphrase of sentiment ChaosEngine, "evangelical atheists are as bad as fundamentalists," then followed by "bollocks" (bullshit), is indicative to me of the rage and anger I attributed to the average atheist's consternation with these 'stupid', 'backwards', 'hillbillies' etc.,(who are too dumb or dense to wrap their heads around the very idea that an omnipresent uni-being does not exist, yadda yadda yadda.) Further, the example used 'When was the last time atheists shot a young girl for wanting to go to school?' to justify your position is reminiscent of any Southern Baptist preacher using similar extreme examples of the human condition to support their own arguments for the infallibility of their 'god'. The words used connote a similar intolerance and ignorance of that which is wholly metagnostic or, 'the unknowable' and I regard the mechanism as the selfsame dynamic.

"So, sorry if I'm not going to sit down and STFU about it." Good. It means you are on the path to enlightenment and intend to continue to seek truths which satisfy the gnawing curiosity that ALL humans are frought with in our tenure here on Earth. Keep at it.

dannym3142: (sorry for the question mark, it confused me as well when reading it again) I used Crowley and Planck's observations as an exercise in tossing a non-linear curve-ball into the circle-jerk of those whose search for absolute truth and the nature of the universe, of matter/non-matter, seemingly ended when they decided that it's a no-brainer as to whether or not faith has a place in the argument for or against the existence of a supreme being. Faith can't be argued either, we all need it to perform the simplest of our daily monkey-tasks.

Yes-I was chastising VooDooV for the blanket of down-votes to my comments because I sense his rage and anger at my input on threads similar, and recognize in atheists the same robotic mechanism they accuse Christians of which litter blog after blog when God is mentioned, by the ever-incrasing rabid anti-god fan-boys who attack with guns blazing at the very mention of that which is unable to be understood when approaching it from linear patterns of thought. That, and I refuse ever-again be ganged-up on on this site by a few well-be-nots who have it out for me because they can't understand what the fuck I am trying to communicate. I let my guard down in the past and it cost me over a year in SIFTJAIL (to all you fucking wannabe cops here present and future, suck my balls!)

Your fight is not with God but with the exponentially-increasing non-linearity of the world we inhabit, and the chaotic desire to process the information coming into the grid with time-honored methods of argument. IMLTHO this doesn't work.

All the seemingly trollish statements I make on similar threads are made with a view to wrenching another way of thinking out of the stubborn adherents to any one pattern or direction of mental process.

It can't be argued that a realm of universes exist outside of our own limited perceptive apparatus and all argument ends there for myself for the sake of my own insanity.

The thing is though: Glenn Beck can't deport anyone. The Westboro Baptist church can't lock people up for being gay. Fox News has no control of anything, they're just a news outlet.

In Israel on the other hand, it looks like there are actual people in power who do have the power to imprison the Sudanese in a specially-built prison just for them, where they stay until the Israeli government is ready to deport them. That's what's show in the video.

So, the comparison to US television isn't all that fitting. Sure, it's not showing you or your ilk, but it's still not an apt comparison. It's nothing like this.

He's Dave the Baptist, a voice crying-out for more book signings in the wilderness!

I still lose my marbles when someone uses "it's a sin" as a political argument. Sometimes I feel like starting a real fire-and-brimstones old testament literalist party just to make the point religion is a poor basis for policymaking. Then I remember folks like the Westboro Baptist Church, and wonder if they didn't already beat me to it.