• RSS
Payday loans
RedShirts 2 Ad Banner for Kickstarter

If You Don’t Discriminate Against the Same People I Discriminate Against Then You Are Discriminating Against Me

May 14th, 2014 by skippy

The title is pretty much literally what the American Family Association is claiming right now.

I wish I was making this up.

So its not enough to have a state allow discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.  You have to actively support it or you are trying to limit somebody’s religious freedom.

If we were talking about fruit instead of, y’know fruits, the entire dialogue would go something like this:

AFA:”I like apples.”
Gay People:”Well I like oranges.”
AFA: “Oranges are not as good as apples.  They’re disgusting and you shouldn’t eat them.”
Gay People “I don’t see how its any of your business what I eat.”
AFA: “NO! Oranges are WRONG, and you shouldn’t be allowed to eat them!  We’ll make laws against it!”
Federal Courts: “Oh FFS guys, it’s really none of your business what anybody puts in their mouth or any other part of their body for that matter.”
AFA: “But if they can eat oranges, it makes apples less delicious!”
Federal Courts: “Sounds like a whole bunch of your problem.”
Gay People: “You seems suspiciously obsessed with oranges for people that hate them so much.  Are you sure you’re not just mad because you would really like to try an orange?”
AFA: “Noooooooo.  And the fact that anti-orange…I mean PRO-APPLE people keep getting caught with oranges, and occasionally tangerines, by no means suggests that we are curious about your juicy and tangy citrus fruit.  For reals.”
Gay People: “If you say so.”
AFA: “Shut up!  We’re just going to make it okay to deny basic services to people who like oranges.”
Gay People: “That’s not very nice.”
If You’re Buying: “We’ll sell any kind of fruit you want.  Apples, oranges, pears, even tomatoes.  We’re fucking crazy!”
AFA: “Tomatoes aren’t a fruit, they’re a vegetable!”
If You’re Buying: “Will you please shut up and read a goddamn book for once?”
AFA: ” Why do you hate apples? STOP OPPRESSING ME!”

 

Subscribe to Comments for Skippy's List

«Previous Story:
Next Story: »

34 Responses to “If You Don’t Discriminate Against the Same People I Discriminate Against Then You Are Discriminating Against Me”

  1. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Except the Supreme Court just ruled that governments can take a moment before doing business to have someone say just how much apples rule and oranges suck, because it’s traditional, and orange-eaters have to take their lumps.

    I wouldn’t bet on religious non-discrimination to survive the current Supreme Court, if the right case comes their way.

    Reply

  2. Cooldaddysquid Says:

    I love it when I see idiotic bumper stickers that espouse some nonsense about protecting religious freedom (from the “gay agenda”). It’s not religious freedom that’s at stake, but religious supremacy. Protecting religious supremacy violates religious freedom. I think THAT would make a good bumper sticker. Unfortunately, I live in Texas, where the castle doctrine extends to a person’s car, and I just KNOW that there’s a jury here that would acquit because my bumper sticker’s “gay agenda” was threatening the sovereignty of someone’s car space.

    Reply

  3. Phelps Says:

    Change this argument to apples vs GMO apples, and all of the sudden your side are the idiots.

    Reply

  4. skippy Says:

    If we change it to apples and GMO apples *and* I happen to believe that, then yes. If you just assumed I believed that with no evidence to support it you look foolish. (Pssst…I don’t believe that but thanks for playing)

    Of course if we are on the subject of statements looking bad by changing the text; did you know that if we change your handle to “Phelpsdiddleslittleboys” you look like a child molester? It doesn’t make you one. Presumably. Please various deities let that assumption be right.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 10:30 am:

    I said “your side”, not “you.” You’re the one lumping people together generally. Generally, the same people who are all about “you secretly love oranges because all the people who say they don’t like something actually love it” are the same people who think that using pesticide to have enough food to feed everyone is much less important than them feeling better about how “natural” their food is.

    Personally, I think the state should never have been in the marriage business in the first place, since it’s a religious rite. If the state wasn’t in the marriage business, gay people could form whatever gay religion they want, have All The Gay Marriages, and this would all be worked out under the first amendment without having to get in penumbras and whatnot.

    Before it gets too far into the weeds, yes, I do believe that there are tons of rights that aren’t enumerated that fall under the umbrella of the 9th, like privacy and the right to ingest whatever you feel like, but this isn’t one of them. This is a “right” to force a religious rite on others. It isn’t right for either side to do. It also seems really short-sighted to me for a wiccan to support the idea that recognition of religious rites can be forced on people who don’t follow that religion, just because you think it would be really neato and nice to do in this situation.

    Reply

    Stonewolf reply on May 16th, 2014 11:39 am:

    I partially agree with Phelps here. I think we need two terms, legally distinct. A State Marriage, being a licensed issued by the government, conveying things such as tax status, power of attorney, etc, and a Church Marriage, defined however the church deems appropriate. If a church doesn’t want gays to get married, they have the right to refuse. However, that same couple can go down to the county courthouse, fill out a marriage license recognized by the state. Separation of church and state.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 11:51 am:

    We tried the whole Civil Unions thing. It turns out that the big push WAS about forcing religious beliefs on straight people.

    skippy reply on May 16th, 2014 12:37 pm:

    “I said “your side”, not “you.” You’re the one lumping people together generally. ”

    Your side is a lumping of people together generally. And the word “your” is applying it to me. If that’s not what you meant, I’m sorry. I can only go off of what you wrote.

    ” It also seems really short-sighted to me for a wiccan to support the idea that recognition of religious rites can be forced on people who don’t follow that religion, just because you think it would be really neato and nice to do in this situation.”

    WTF are you even talking about?

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 1:02 pm:

    WTF are you even talking about?

    I’m talking about how if we start letting people from outside a religion define how a religion will be practiced, it’s going to be a very SHORT slippery slope before the general public starts telling wiccans what they can and can’t believe. (And Zoroastrians. And Sikhs.) Seriously, if the state can decide these things for a group as large and influential as Christians, what hope does a less numerous religion have?

  5. Stonewolf Says:

    Yeah, I like that “Protecting religious supremacy violates religious freedom.” I got accused once, by relatives, of violating their religious rights, by refusing to say grace before a meal, in my own home. Uh huh. Keep in mind, 1) they knew I’m not religious and 2) I didn’t stop them from saying grace. I just started eating when the food was ready. Apparently its disrespectful of me to follow my own beliefs in my own home, but it’s not disrespectful of them to expect me to follow their beliefs, nor are they expected to adhere to my beliefs under my roof. Back somewhat to the topic at hand, aren’t most religious conservatives also capitalists? If so, how can it be wrong to sell someone something they want to buy? Gay, black, Martian, non-corporeal life form? Eh, their money spends just as good as anyone’s.

    Reply

  6. skippy Says:

    Phelps: The is no push on telling Christians what to believe.

    That is a comforting lie some people tell themselves when they can’t force *their* views on others.

    Civil Unions were not the exact same thing as marriages. Separate but equal has already been shot down around fifty years ago.

    You can believe what you want, but you cannot treat people differently under law based on your beliefs.

    Your argument is based on the exact opposite of what has been happening.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 3:47 pm:

    I’ll discuss the philosophy. I’m not, however, going to cooperate with you fucking lying to my fucking face.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/politics/scotus-religious-liberty/

    http://www.npr.org/2013/12/10/250098572/no-cake-for-you-saying-i-dont-to-same-sex-marriage

    Reply

    skippy reply on May 16th, 2014 4:03 pm:

    And I’m not going to be called a liar by someone who is either ignorant about, or lying about, what those articles are actually covering.

    Denying services based on religious principles hasn’t flown in a very long time. It’s not special now simply because some people think gays are icky.

    That’s what I meant by equality under the law. Pretending its something else is bullshit, no matter how you package it.

    They already tried this bullshit with black people.

    Your right to religious freedom ends at the freedoms of others.

    You are not describing religious persecution. You are describing not being allowed to persecute.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 4:08 pm:

    If they had cited any other reason — any reason other than christian religion — it wouldn’t have been anything.

    I don’t like the way you asked would have been enough, if they had just been willing to lie.

    You aren’t happy with that. This isn’t about some bullshit equal rights argument. Gay people do not have a dearth of businesses willing to work with them. This is about them being butthurt that he told them no.

    The only crimes were THOUGHTCRIMES.

    You might like to imagine yourself a libertarian, but on this subject, you very much aren’t. You are a libertine fascist.

    You want to keep them from believing what they believe.

  7. skippy Says:

    “I don’t like the way you asked would have been enough, if they had just been willing to lie.”
    I didn’t say that. I’m only responsible for what I say, not what you hallucinate I said.

    Sure people can lie and get away with breaking the law. It doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make the law invalid.

    “This isn’t about some bullshit equal rights argument. Gay people do not have a dearth of businesses willing to work with them.”
    In some places they do. And from an equality under the law standpoint it doesn’t matter.

    “You are a libertine fascist.”
    It hurts when ignorant people call me bad names. Especially when they use big words that they clearly don’t understand.

    “You want to keep them from believing what they believe.”
    I said the exact opposite. They just cannot inflict those beliefs on others. There is a difference. Believe anything you want. You just can’t act on that at another person without their permission.

    To be perfectly clear:
    Societies refusal to allow you to discriminate against others is not a form of discrimination. It’s just a whiny self indulgent argument from people who are sad that the world isn’t giving them everything they want any more.

    If you substituted the word “gay” for the word “black” you would never have the balls for this argument.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 5:34 pm:

    I’ve HAD this argument with black substituted with gay. So, again, you are wrong.

    You just can’t act on that at another person without their permission.

    This isn’t about people acting. I’m fine with that. You can’t assault someone because they are gay. You can’t go disrupt a gay wedding.

    You want to criminalize inaction. I won’t bake your cake. I won’t take your photos. You want to talk about Jim Crow? Let’s talk about slavery. If I’m gay, I can tell you that you must work for me, whether you want to do the work or not.

    But, you know, there were a couple of big words in there, so you can act like I’m the asshole for wanting to leave people alone.

    Reply

    Stonewolf reply on May 16th, 2014 5:44 pm:

    I rather hate to say it, but I feel I must agree with Phelps here. While I think it is bigoted and wrong to deny a non-critical service to people based sexuality/race/etc, I think one is allowed to do so. Now, to be clear, this is non-critical service. If, say, you’re in, say emergency services, you do your job. Period. But I don’t think it is justified to compel someone to bake a cake or take photos. I think this falls into the same idea that, while say, adultery is wrong, its not illegal. In the same way, I think this photographer is wrong, but I don’t feel the law should compel them to take these photos. Its a damn sticky morale/legal grey area.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 6:18 pm:

    The hardest part of being libertarian is admitting that you have just as much of a duty to fight for the rights of shitheads and morons as you do the good people.

    Reply

  8. skippy Says:

    Phelps – “If I’m gay, I can tell you that you must work for me, whether you want to do the work or not.”

    No, they are saying you have to treat them the same as anyone else.

    And I totally don’t believe you on the black thing.

    Stonewolf – I do understand were you are coming from. But trying to separate essential from non-essential services is no trivial task. The only way to ensure that essential services don’t get cut is to not allow any services to be cut. I suppose we could go for some sort of nightmarish bureaucratic process to separate the services out, but I don’t think it will work all that well. California tried to tax snacks but not food, and that turned out very poorly.

    Both of you –
    It comes to this: Do you believe that homosexuals should be treated equally under the law?

    If the answer is no, then just go take a flying fuck and a rolling donut as far as I am concerned.

    If the answer is yes, then this matter has been resolved long ago. There is no halfway house to equality. You have to give gays the same access to services that you give to everyone else. And you sure as fuck can’t pass new laws that were obviously created to single out a specific group.

    If you want to attack the basis for equal access to goods and services in the first place, that’s a separate argument. But clearly not the one Phelps has been having. And while I strongly disagree with that one, it isn’t quite as crazy-pants, its just misguided.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 6:47 pm:

    Do you believe that homosexuals should be treated equally under the law?

    ABSOLUTELY.

    You’re not talking about under the law. You’re talking about under the baker. You’re talking about under the photographer.

    Phelps – “If I’m gay, I can tell you that you must work for me, whether you want to do the work or not.”

    No, they are saying you have to treat them the same as anyone else.

    Bullshit. You are talking about using the threat of state-sanctioned violence to force someone to bake them a fucking cake. If you don’t think that the end result of passing any law is a SWAT team kicking someone’s door down and shoving guns in their faces, then you haven’t been paying attention.

    You don’t have the right to demand that someone treat you the same as everyone else. You’re an individual. If you want to be treated well, get off your ass and convince them rather than threatening to shoot them in the face if they don’t. When you bring the state into it, you are a fascist thug.

    And I totally don’t believe you on the black thing.

    Well then, you’re stacking on the stupidity in this thread, which I didn’t expect. Using the force of the state to enforce racial “equality” has done nothing of the sort. It has hurt black people in every significant measure there was more upward mobility, family stability, educational improvement, everything prior to 1960 in the black community than before. Before 1960, everything was improving faster than white people. After 1960, everything slowed dramatically compared to other races if it didn’t in fact reverse (like family stability and education.

    Black people were better educated before we ended segregation. Does that excuse segregation? Hell no. But it sure is a huge indicator that we ended segregation the wrong way. Nothing did more to hurt racial unification in this country than forcing white and black people to go to school together. This country was well on its way to the racial equality we have now (including a black president), and all of that was set back 20 years by the thuggish ways that Jim Crow (itself an evil) was dismantled.

    Culture was on the side of equality. It was inevitable. The best way to slow it down is to put it under the direction of a vicious racist like Johnson, make superficial gestures that did nothing but highlight the perceived grievances of both sides and give the racists on both sides ammunition to gin up more hatred, and ultimately delay the inevitable instead of accepting it as inevitable.

    You’re doing it again. There’s my balls. Where are yours? This government doesn’t like gay people. Obama didn’t support gay marriage until he needed to whip up a few gay votes to put him over the top on reelection. A major part of his constituency (urban blacks) are the most vehement gay haters in the country (just like the southern white racists that supported Johnson.)

    Why in the world would you want the state on your side on a social issue? I’m dead serious, ask yourself that question. The military industrial complex, which you are well aware of, is on the same side as you, and the opposite side of the majority.

    Isn’t that enough reason in and of itself for you to question the morality of what you are doing? Could you have a more sinister ally? You might as well have Emperor Palpatine urging you to pet that puppy.

    Reply

    skippy reply on May 16th, 2014 7:35 pm:

    Bless your heart.

    I’d start to address your points individually, but frankly nearly everything you said was either demonstrably false and/or bat-shit crazy.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 16th, 2014 10:18 pm:

    Last ditch, before I write you off as an emotional “I want what I want now regardless of how much it costs in the future” baby:

    Suppose the Fred Phelps (no relation) Westboro bunch wanted to do some sort of stupid anti-Wiccan black mass thing. Suppose, in doing this, they go to a Wiccan candle dealer for the purposes of securing candles and other ritual materials with no purpose but to desecrate those materials (in the view of the Wiccan selling them) in their stupid mock rite.

    Do you think that candle dealer should go to jail for not selling them the candles?

    If you don’t, you are the rankest of hypocrites.

  9. Michiel Says:

    Wow, just skimming through this makes me glad I haven’t posted anything in a long time.

    Phelps is a fucking idiot and should be ignored by anyone with half a brain.

    Tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable. Look it up.

    Reply

    Stonewolf reply on May 16th, 2014 9:03 pm:

    I think you’re right. I’m pretty sure if it has seeds (like a tomato), its a fruit. If not (like a potato), its a vegetable. If neither…I don’t know, maybe a rock?

    Reply

    skippy reply on May 16th, 2014 9:30 pm:

    Tomatoes are a fruit, that was the point of the gag.

    And Stonewolf, if you want to still discuss this I don’t mind, you’ve always been rational an intelligent in your debates. Phelps however, is done for now.

    Reply

    Stonewolf reply on May 17th, 2014 6:51 am:

    I think this kinda blew up in every ones faces. This kind of discussion I think is best done face to face, so the subtleties of tone and body language can be read, and misunderstandings corrected immediately. Full on arguing on the net is rarely productive in my experience. I feel like I’ve expressed my thoughts, with nothing more to add, so I’ll bow out and wait for the next post. Glad you’re back, by the way.

  10. skippy Says:

    Last Phelps comment:
    “Do you think that candle dealer should go to jail for not selling them the candles?”

    No they should not. You don’t go to jail for civil issues.

    They could be fined or sued.

    Now go away while the grownups talk.

    Reply

    Phelps reply on May 17th, 2014 10:08 am:

    You are the one that needs to grow up. What happens when the shop owner doesn’t satisfy the judgment? Men with guns show up to take her livelihood. If she tries to stop them, they kill her. If there is a declaratory judgment that says she must sell them the candles, and she still refuses, they put her in jail until she agrees.

    People go to jail for civil issues all the time.

    Reply

    skippy reply on May 17th, 2014 12:52 pm:

    Bye.

    Reply

    Ed reply on November 8th, 2015 8:49 pm:

    Thank you!

  11. Gary Says:

    Man, am I glad I grabbed the popcorn just before sitting down to read the comments.
    Oh, and I’m *SOOOO* glad you’re back, Skippy!

    Reply

  12. blithe Says:

    bah, I understand where everyone is coming from, and I think some of what phelps said was stupid, but I gotta agree with one thing he said. The church can make ANY change to itself it wants, regardless of whom the changes affect, because it is up to the church how it runs itself. I feel like thats a bad way of putting it however, and I dont know how to be clearer. Hmmm, how about this; the church deals in religion, which is supposedly not decided by people, but by a god. Therefore, if it is dictated by this god, the church must go along with it. This means that if the church was supposedly told ‘god hates gay people’ they would have no choice but to follow that message. This is not my belief however, this is the church’s mentality. SO, to then tell them they *cannot* follow this new rule of god, would be percieved as a threat to their religious freedom. Personally, what I am getting at is; I think gay people deserve equal rights, and I think it would be wonderful if the church accepted gay people, but I think forcing the church to accept gay people would generate a huge amount of hate and even worse problems. Historically too, forcing a religion to do something has generated a huge amount of bad blood. Look at ireland for the last 100 years.

    Reply

  13. Tyler Says:

    I haven’t been on this site in a coon’s age, but it’s good to see that among the first posts I read, you’ve kept your low tolerance for bullshit, skippy.

    Missed you- I’m glad you’re back.

    Reply

  14. Alex Says:

    This is really good. The more I think about it, human sexuality is really only a big deal because society makes it out to be a big deal. What orientation a person is matters about as much as whether or not they like oranges.

    Reply

Leave a Reply