Thoughts, prayers, and hate

[crandc]

When 49 people were killed and 53 injured in a hate crime shooting at Latinx night at a gay club, many Republicans issued generic "thoughts and prayers" that avoided mentioning it was mostly gay people killed, in some cases avoided mentioning how they were killed, they just generically died. Apparently even the generic "thoughts and prayers" were too much compassion.

So on the one month anniversary of the massacre in Orlando, the House is holding hearings on the most wide ranging antigay bill in the nation's history. Based on the Mississippi law (the most extreme of the approximately 150 antigay laws proposed/passed in the last year), a law already ruled unconstitutional, the bill allows anyone working for a private company, government department, or nonprofit to refuse goods and services to anyone based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or having had sexual relations outside marriage. It would overturn laws like Family Leave Act by prohibiting a person time off to care for a critically ill same-sex spouse. If an unmarried pregnant woman goes into premature labor and heads to the emergency room, she could be denied admittance - got any mangers handy? It would prohibit transgender people from using public facilities. (Apparently cops would be stationed to check our DNA; party of small government!)

This bill has zero chance of becoming law. In the unlikely event both houses of Congress pass it, President Obama would veto it. In the even more unlikely event of a successful override, the equivalent state bill was ruled unconstitutional on two grounds: 1) it was clearly designed to discriminate; 2) it establishes a religion by saying people of some religious beliefs can avoid performing essential functions of their job, which people of different beliefs are obligated to perform. In the very unlikely event that Trump (who has endorsed the bill but still says "the gays" love him) is elected President with large enough majorities to get this through the House and Senate, he would need to replace three Supreme Court justices.

Sometimes legislators introduce bills with no chance of passing in order to make a political point they consider important. In this case, to show the world how much they hate gay and trans people. And women who have sex.

I guess the reason their "thoughts and prayers" were so generic was that they were actually praying for all of us to be murdered. FUCK their prayers.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

They're idiotic. However, I read today that 21000 people will die today from starvation or diseases related to hunger.

So, us worrying about this or police shootings or cancer is pretty fucked up in the grand scheme of things.

What got me thinking about this is a System of a Down song.

While we're dropping bombs around the world children are starving to death. I should find the thread about our being unpatriotic and post it there.

By the way, those numbers may not be 100 percent accurate, how could I know?

 

[Further]

They're idiotic. However, I read today that 21000 people will die today from starvation or diseases related to hunger.

So, us worrying about this or police shootings or cancer is pretty fucked up in the grand scheme of things.

What got me thinking about this is a System of a Down song.

While we're dropping bombs around the world children are starving to death. I should find the thread about our being unpatriotic and post it there.

By the way, those numbers may not be 100 percent accurate, how could I know?

There are many important issues, and we can't all concentrate on just the worst one, regardless what it is.

But, with regards to cancer, in 2012 8,200,000 people died worldwide from it. Just here in America alone, this year we are expecting ~ 600,000 deaths from cancer, about 1600 per day.

But does that mean we don't pay attention to LBGT issues, incarceration inequities, police security, veteran benefits or the environment? Of course not. We have 7billion brains in the world, we should multitask.

 

[MarAzul]

We have 7billion brains in the world

If we had half that number, wouldn't that reduce cancer deaths by a larger number each year than any cure here to date?
It would fix the carbon foot print to below the wishful target too!

 

[MarAzul]

incarceration inequities

What the heck is this?
No crime,
no time.

 

[MarAzul]

Do your work, and I shall know you.

Who does this vs conform?

 

[crandc]

It's not idiotic for me to care about my life and my civil rights.

Congress can't do anything about Zika, or background checks for assault rifles, or for that matter any of the issues raised, but they can hold hearings to prove they hate gay people.

They don't have to prove it to me.
Just don't fucking insult me by pretending to "pray" for me.

 

[MarAzul]

Just don't fucking insult me by pretending to "pray" for me.

A winner! Doing her work.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

It's not idiotic for me to care about my life and my civil rights.

Congress can't do anything about Zika, or background checks for assault rifles, or for that matter any of the issues raised, but they can hold hearings to prove they hate gay people.

They don't have to prove it to me.
Just don't fucking insult me by pretending to "pray" for me.

I didn't say you were, I said they are. Our government is going to hold hearings on this shit and who the fuck knows what else? Why?

I'd say to pretend they are busy while we kick the can down the road.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

There are many important issues, and we can't all concentrate on just the worst one, regardless what it is.

But, with regards to cancer, in 2012 8,200,000 people died worldwide from it. Just here in America alone, this year we are expecting ~ 600,000 deaths from cancer, about 1600 per day.

But does that mean we don't pay attention to LBGT issues, incarceration inequities, police security, veteran benefits or the environment? Of course not. We have 7billion brains in the world, we should multitask.

People have to die, cancer sucks. I probably have some growing in me right now because of my job.

It just seems idiotic for our government to hold hearings on this bullshit. Gay people are gay.......PEOPLE...... IT'S BEEN FUCKING DECIDED ALREADY

All the assholes here gave me shit when I said I don't vote.

Have any of you figured out why yet?

Every vote I've ever missed wouldn't have changed anything if I had voted.

 

[Spud147]

It's not idiotic for me to care about my life and my civil rights.

Congress can't do anything about Zika, or background checks for assault rifles, or for that matter any of the issues raised, but they can hold hearings to prove they hate gay people.

They don't have to prove it to me.
Just don't fucking insult me by pretending to "pray" for me.

I saw a story just last week about a lesbian couple who took an egg from one of the mothers and had the other mother carry the baby. In this case the actual biological mother would have absolutely no legal rights because they couldn't put two mothers on a birth certificate. If the mother who gave birth died without paper work in place. It was devastating for them.

 

[crandc]

Spud, here in California, before Obergefell, a married lesbian couple was in Fresno and one of the women had a heart attack. The hospital would not let her wife visit her even though they were legally married in this state.

And they call it Jesus. Funny, even this Jew did not read any such thing from Jesus.

Bodyman, thank you for your clarification; I had thought you were asking why I care.

 

[Denny Crane]

Should Jewish bakers be for ed to bake a cake for Nazis?

 

[barfo]

Should Jewish bakers be for ed to bake a cake for Nazis?

Ed is better at shot blocking than baking, he should stick to what he knows.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Should Jewish bakers be for ed to bake a cake for Nazis?

If they sell cakes they should, and when the Nazi prick picks up the cake the Jewish baker should be free to call him a Nazi piece of shit to his face.

But, the Jewish baker shouldn't be allowed to make a subpar cake or tamper with it in any way.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Spud, here in California, before Obergefell, a married lesbian couple was in Fresno and one of the women had a heart attack. The hospital would not let her wife visit her even though they were legally married in this state.

And they call it Jesus. Funny, even this Jew did not read any such thing from Jesus.

Bodyman, thank you for your clarification; I had thought you were asking why I care.

I know why you care, it is obvious. I don't give these people much credit for smarts but I'm sure they know this won't go through. They just like the drama.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Spud, here in California, before Obergefell, a married lesbian couple was in Fresno and one of the women had a heart attack. The hospital would not let her wife visit her even though they were legally married in this state.

And they call it Jesus. Funny, even this Jew did not read any such thing from Jesus.

Bodyman, thank you for your clarification; I had thought you were asking why I care.

Are they suing? Curious, mostly because I have little respect for hospitals and especially their visitation rules.

 

[crandc]

I believe they did take legal action.

 

[Denny Crane]

Should Jewish bakers be for ed to bake a cake for Nazis?

@crandc

 

[crandc]

Denny

Every business can bar people because of conduct.
For example, steal from a store you are barred for life. Behave badly in a restaurant, you may be kicked out and asked not to return.

That is different from barring people because of who they are.
It's really a very simple concept that people who don't want to acknowledge equality pretend to misunderstand.

A Jewish baker would not want to serve a Nazi because of his/her behavior - joining a Nazi party, displaying their regalia, etc.
A Jewish baker could not refuse to serve a Christian just because he/she is Christian (although if the person comes in and says convert or burn in hell, that's a different matter)

It's very simple.

It would be wrong to see this as a publicity stunt. The House majority has been going all out on antigay legislation (as have states with more than 150 bills in the past year alone). The House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that permits federal contractors, paid with my tax money, to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Another amendment would prohibit transgender people from using public restrooms in the Capitol or the Library of Congress. So don't drag in your damn stupid Nazi sidetrack.

 

[MarAzul]

Bill that permits federal contractors, paid with my tax money, to discriminate based on sexual orientation

I think you just gave us a line of BS. What does the bill you refer to actually state?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny

Every business can bar people because of conduct.
For example, steal from a store you are barred for life. Behave badly in a restaurant, you may be kicked out and asked not to return.

That is different from barring people because of who they are.
It's really a very simple concept that people who don't want to acknowledge equality pretend to misunderstand.

A Jewish baker would not want to serve a Nazi because of his/her behavior - joining a Nazi party, displaying their regalia, etc.
A Jewish baker could not refuse to serve a Christian just because he/she is Christian (although if the person comes in and says convert or burn in hell, that's a different matter)

It's very simple.

It would be wrong to see this as a publicity stunt. The House majority has been going all out on antigay legislation (as have states with more than 150 bills in the past year alone). The House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that permits federal contractors, paid with my tax money, to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Another amendment would prohibit transgender people from using public restrooms in the Capitol or the Library of Congress. So don't drag in your damn stupid Nazi sidetrack.

Sounds like a double standard to me. There's no law against being a Nazi, and they're protected by the 1st amendment.

Either Jews must bake the cake or nobody must.

 

[MarAzul]

If they sell cakes they should, and when the Nazi prick picks up the cake the Jewish baker should be free to call him a Nazi piece of shit to his face.

But, the Jewish baker shouldn't be allowed to make a subpar cake or tamper with it in any way.

Should an Artist creator be required to take an order for a creation from a prick that gives him bad vibes?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Denny

Every business can bar people because of conduct.
For example, steal from a store you are barred for life. Behave badly in a restaurant, you may be kicked out and asked not to return.

That is different from barring people because of who they are.
It's really a very simple concept that people who don't want to acknowledge equality pretend to misunderstand.

A Jewish baker would not want to serve a Nazi because of his/her behavior - joining a Nazi party, displaying their regalia, etc.
A Jewish baker could not refuse to serve a Christian just because he/she is Christian (although if the person comes in and says convert or burn in hell, that's a different matter)

It's very simple.

It would be wrong to see this as a publicity stunt. The House majority has been going all out on antigay legislation (as have states with more than 150 bills in the past year alone). The House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that permits federal contractors, paid with my tax money, to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Another amendment would prohibit transgender people from using public restrooms in the Capitol or the Library of Congress. So don't drag in your damn stupid Nazi sidetrack.

Seems to me that:
A Jewish baker would not want to serve a Nazi because of his/her behavior - joining a Nazi party, displaying their regalia, etc.
is the same as
A Christian baker would not want to serve a gay wedding because of their behavior - marrying two people of the same gender.

If the second is not OK, then neither should be the first.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Seems pretty simple to me, if you are a Nazi and go into a Jewish bakery to order a cake, they have to make it. If the Nazi asks for swastikas to be decorated on the cake the bakery owners can refuse but they still have to sell the cake.

Now before some of you disagree with this, lots of stores have these frosting printer things for cakes, you can go in there with a USB drive with an image, give it to them and they will print it on the cake. But if you give them a picture of people having sex or a decapitated body or whatever, they have the right to say no to printing that image.

As far as the gay wedding cake controversy we had here a while back, the owners of the bakery were idiots and in the wrong. If gay customers come in and ask for a wedding cake with two grooms on it instead of a bride and groom decoration, the bakery owners could have said they don't stock two groom decorations but they can bake the cake and the wedding couple can place their own decoration on the cake. If the wedding couple asks the bakery to place the decoration on the cake for them all they have to do is say is that for health reasons it's against store policy to place outside items on our cakes. Instead the bakery decided to make some political or religious statement. The bakery has to serve the public but that doesn't mean they have to provide the services the public is asking for.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Should an Artist creator be required to take an order for a creation from a prick that gives him bad vibes?

Anyone who has a business license should have to serve the public. Just like if you have a license to drive, you shouldn't be allowed to speed because God told you so. I don't like working on cars where the driver smokes cigarettes or weed.

I get them quite often and deal with it.

If you are an artist you can create anything you want, forcing someone to paint me banging myself would not be fair by any definition.

 

[crandc]

Seems to me that:
A Jewish baker would not want to serve a Nazi because of his/her behavior - joining a Nazi party, displaying their regalia, etc.
is the same as
A Christian baker would not want to serve a gay wedding because of their behavior - marrying two people of the same gender.

If the second is not OK, then neither should be the first.

No. The Christian (BTW, why always Christian? Would you be so quick to jump if it was a Muslim) is opposing the fact that they are gay. It is not the same. It is not close.

It is legally recognized as not the same. Going back more than 50 years when Christians claimed god opposed racial integration and that as Christians they had the right to refuse service to African-Americans. Or interracial couples. Or to hire Jews. The law is clear. Religion does not give one the right to ACT in a bigoted manner, although you can THINK like a bigot if you want.

 

[crandc]

And you can try to change the subject all you want.

Please justify, on the one month anniversary of the worst mass shooting in American history which just "happened" to be directed against the gay community, introduction of the most extreme antigay law in the nation's history, knowing it won't pass, knowing it has already been ruled unconstitutional, for the SOLE PURPOSE of showing how much they hate gay people.

Thoughts, prayers, hate.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

And you can try to change the subject all you want.

Please justify, on the one month anniversary of the worst mass shooting in American history which just "happened" to be directed against the gay community, introduction of the most extreme antigay law in the nation's history, knowing it won't pass, knowing it has already been ruled unconstitutional, for the SOLE PURPOSE of showing how much they hate gay people.

Thoughts, prayers, hate.

It seems pretty clear that bigots donate more money to politicians. That's why politicians do crap like that, for money and votes.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No. The Christian (BTW, why always Christian? Would you be so quick to jump if it was a Muslim) is opposing the fact that they are gay. It is not the same. It is not close.

It is legally recognized as not the same. Going back more than 50 years when Christians claimed god opposed racial integration and that as Christians they had the right to refuse service to African-Americans. Or interracial couples. Or to hire Jews. The law is clear. Religion does not give one the right to ACT in a bigoted manner, although you can THINK like a bigot if you want.

I'm just looking for consistency. And no, I'm not "quick to jump"--I'm just pulling the most recent example.

From my perspective, there's a difference between not wanting to serve a person because that person is gay (or a Nazi), and not wanting to provide a service for a gay event (or a Nazi rally). Does it really matter if the person's ontology is by birth or by choice? Is it more acceptable to refuse to serve people with tattoos or piercings? In my mind, absolutely not. And is legality really the benchmark we want to apply? For instance, it would be legal to not serve me because I have blue eyes, but I don't think it would be right.

Essentially (to me) it's the same as this forum's "attack the post and not the poster" rule. Or from a religious standpoint, the common phrase is "Hate the sin, but love the sinner". I understand that the case law in that particular case didn't differentiate, but that's simply the way I see it.

And you can try to change the subject all you want.

Please justify, on the one month anniversary of the worst mass shooting in American history which just "happened" to be directed against the gay community, introduction of the most extreme antigay law in the nation's history, knowing it won't pass, knowing it has already been ruled unconstitutional, for the SOLE PURPOSE of showing how much they hate gay people.

Thoughts, prayers, hate.

Can't justify the legislation. Wouldn't want to, regardless of the timing.