ADVERTISEMENT

I think I will pass on celibrating the reseraction.

Neither one of those examples

is the moral equivalent of criticizing someone for discrimination.

Your last two lines are nonsensical. I would respond to them if they made any sense.
 
You Are Hiding

from the truth.

Those people at that pizza parlor - they had a heart-felt, genuine belief in their faith.
Perhaps they were misguided.
But they weren't bigots.
 
No, I'm not.

I'm refusing to follow you down a rabbit hole that detracts from my original point: that the Christian right has successfully framed the discussion of bigotry to include "attacking bigotry" as a form of bigotry.

Now, if you want to argue whether or not accusing the pizza parlor owners of bigotry is fair, and if not, if it is rooted in an actual instance of anti-Christian bigotry, that's fine, but I'm not going to do that unless you agree with me that the actual state of intolerance against bigotry is not itself a form of bigotry. If we can't agree on that, any further discussion of specifics is meaningless.
 
No, you are being nonsensical

There is a difference between being a bigot and engaging in dsicrimination. If you think one who refuses to particiapte in a same sex wedding because of religious beliefs is being a bigot, you are the bigot not the believer.
 
Same ol' rabbit hole.

That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about same-sex marriage or about the pizza parlor owners, or florists or bakers, or anything. I just pointed out that the Christian right has come to frame criticism of bigotry as a form of bigotry itself, which I think is morally laughable.
 
I can only imagine . . .

the annual family Christmas present drawing, with RZ . . . .
 
Then Give Me an Example of What You Claim Constitutes

the right wing Christians framing "attacking bigotry" as instead being "bigotry."






This post was edited on 4/4 7:31 PM by MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
 
Right

It doesn't matter what you said about pizza etc. You did say, as an intended criticism of the moral right, that they frame criticism of bigotry as bigotry itself. They are spot on. Tim Cook et al are exhibit "A".
 
Well...

That's what I took this to mean:

The bigotry recently expressed against gay people in Indiana and the bigotry recently expressed in Indiana against Christians is not much different - in either scale or amount or type or content.

Which is why I jumped in and said what I did. And a few posts above, COH essentially owns up to it.

goat
 
I have a disability


If my spell check fails I am lost. Plus my disability puts me in a protected class.
3dgrin.r191677.gif
 
And There You Have It

You think those pizza parlor folks are bigots.
And if I disagree, I'm equating "attacking bigotry" with "bigotry".

You have no room in your well-educated open mind for less educated folks who perceive their faith as meaning something with which you disagree. Once a religion "means" something you don't like, the "right" to hold that religious view just falls away.

You equate a kind but misguided person with a KKK racist, and then extrapolate it all the way out to "right wing Christians" who call "attacking bigotry" "bigotry" - and call yourself tolerant at the same time?

Nope. I call BS on that.
That is not tolerance.

When you call non-Nazi's Nazi's you diminish the meaning of the atrocities actually committed by the REAL Nazi's.

Calling those pizza parlor folks bigots is the same thing.

And I'd ask you this too - does calling them bigots increase or decrease the likliehood they will ever see things different?
 
Huh?

I'm not calling anyone a bigot. I'm specifically avoiding that.

I'm simply pointing out that criticizing someone for being a bigot is not itself bigotry.

Now, it's perfectly possible that criticizing someone for bigotry is unjustified, and is itself rooted in some other form of bigotry - perhaps a hatred of Christians, for example. But the actual argument that someone is a bigot is not itself a form of bigotry. By moving the debate there, you've essentially made the term "bigotry" meaningless.

And the fact that you think me bringing this up is the equivalent of calling someone a bigot whom I have never actually accused of bigotry is evidence of my original point. You've framed criticism itself as intolerance. Doing so makes this debate entirely useless.

goat
 
Bull

You claim you are attacking bigotry and having your attack wrongly called bigotry.

Well, what is the bigotry you are attacking?

Is it not people who call themselves Christians and oppose homosexuality to the point where they say "won't work a gay wedding - violates my religion to condone it by working the wedding"?
 
Then clear it up for me, goat

Was Tim Cook's response calling for a boycott a bigoted response to IRFRA or not?

I think it obviously was because he showed considerable intolerance for honest religious beliefs. He left no daylight between those who are religious and those who are homophobic. But if you think otherwise, I am all ears.
 
And When I Asked You For An Example

of someone attacking "bigotry" and having it wrongly called "bigotry" by the right wing Christians, you offered the example of folks calling the pizza parlor folks bigots and the Christians call that attack bigotry.

Either the pizza folks are bigots, and the right wingers are impropely calling that label bigotry - or you have NOT given an example of the thing you decry - i.e. the right wing improperly calling it bigotry when a right-thinking lefties attacks bigots.
 
Take it as me refusing to debate fake events.

Come up with a genuine response by someone you think was bigoted, and I'll address it. I'm not going to address things that only happened inside conservative heads.
 
Sigh...

I can't believe I'm being this unclear.

Calling the pizza parlor owners bigoted is not itself a form of bigotry.

That doesn't mean the people doing so aren't anti-Christian bigots. They might be. But simply attacking what one sees as bigotry is not itself bigotry.

My point is true regardless of whether or not the pizza place owners are actually bigots. It's irrelevant.

goat
 
Avoidance is telling

Tim Cook's call for a boycott was pure intolerance and lack of respect for those holding good faith beliefs about what marriage is. That is bigotry.
 
Head slap

Make it Dan Malloy. I think you know the individual isn't the issue. It is the boycott.

In any event, Tim Cook said this: (my emphasis)
There's something very dangerous happening in states across the country.

A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
Click to expand...
This is nothing but hyperbole, ignorance, disrespect, and intolerance. This adds up to bigotry.
 
No, it doesn't.

Disagreement is not the same as bigotry. Cook doesn't like the law. He thinks it's bad policy. He might be right, he might be wrong. But he has a rational basis for his belief. It's not bigotry. Bigotry is irrational.

Now, if he actually believed that the law was bad because he thinks Christianity is evil and doesn't deserve legal protections, that would be bigotry.

This is the same thing I'm trying to say to MITOTF below. Disagreement is not bigotry. Criticism is not bigotry. They can be rooted in bigotry, sure, but they are not themselves per se bigotry. And I've seen nothing in Cook's comments to suggest he holds a bigoted viewpoint of Christians.

goat
 
There is no rational basis

to say this about IRFRA: "individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law." [/B]This is hyperbole and smacks of disrespect and ignorance. Maybe Cook subjectively believes this or maybe not. But subjective irrationallity is still irrational.

Anticipating that you might say "reasonable minds can differ about this" I'll save some time and ask you (once again) to give me an example of the testimony to be offered by a store owner that will lead a judge to say "yep, you have a legitimate relgious objection to serving that slice of pizzza to a gay and you can therefore refuse to serve gays in your restaurant."

Oh, I am not asking for another of your "in theory" response here. We are talking about reality.
 
I already said about a million times I don't think that argument will fly

I think discrimination laws would beat RFRA challenges in court. But that doesn't make Cook's view of the law irrational. You can be wrong without being irrational.

And you can be irrational without being bigoted. Not every wrong opinion is bigotry. Which, yet again, goes back to my original point. Opposition to RFRA isn't necessarily bigotry. Opposition to the right of a business to refuse service to a same-sex wedding on religious grounds isn't necessarily bigotry.

It's okay to think people are wrong. It doesn't make you a bigot.

If he said that today, after the non-discrimination language was added, I'd be much more critical.

goat
 
I agree with you

But I don't think any of that applies to Cook. He took the time to use a national forum to feed ignorance and the emotional firestorm. He used hyperbole and emotionalism after deliberation. And he wasn't alone.
 
You know what?

I haven't thought enough about it. You could be right. Tim Cook might be a bigot.

But my original point to MTIOTF still stands: simply being opposed to someone's claimed religious freedom isn't necessarily bigotry. You can be opposed for non-bigoted reasons. I'm certainly not anti-Christian, and yet I'm opposed. My position is based on what I think is proper policy, not based on how I feel about Christians.
 
LOL!! What's funny is . . .

he and I talk about you too!

Tomorrow's gonna be a tough day in Duckville . . . and as a Hoosier fan you're gonna have to give it a rest for a couple of weeks, I suspect.

The only satisfaction I take in Wiscy's win tonight is in recognizing before the game that Wiscy was actually a better bball team than UK . . . too many shooters, too much toughness.
 
People used to use "religious principle" to justify ownership. . .

Of other human beings. I'm sure they felt as strongly about that as you do about using your religion as an excuse to refuse certain services to gay people. Services you likely wouldn't refuse to straight people who have committed adultery or steal things, even though those are actually commandments.
 
Used to?

People are exterminating and owning people on religious grounds today.







This post was edited on 4/5 3:23 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
It wasn't

murder was it....it was a killing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D

Attorneys on the board...What do you think of this?

Replies
22
Views
679
The Water Cooler
IU_Hickory
IU_Hickory
BradStevens

Rwanda: 30 years on

Replies
3
Views
142
The Water Cooler
zeke4ahs
zeke4ahs
B

Painter to UK?

Replies
8
Views
621
Premium IU Hoop Forum
JBT Assoc
J
Ohio Guy
  • Poll

Indiana Fever - Caitlin Clark

Replies
198
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
Spartans9312
S
UTFO

Man, I hate Citizens United.

Replies
2
Views
128
The Water Cooler
AFreshPerspective
A
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back