3 ms·

> He actively gave to organizations that were formed to restrict freedom. > And the LBGTQ community, we're not going to sit and be quiet about those sorts of t

> He actively gave to organizations that were formed to restrict freedom. > And the LBGTQ community, we're not going to sit and be quiet about those sorts of things. You seriously don't see the irony in this at all? Retaliation against someone for what they do in their personal lives is... what, exactly, if not restricting freedom? Purporting to speak for an entire community without any authority or consent is... what, exactly, if not restricting freedom? Workplace retaliation for private lawful activities should never occur. That seems like a principle that the GLB community should embrace.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
Do you not know what protected statuses are? There's a reason those exist. There's a reason it's allowed to penalize someone for being bigoted but not for being gay. This is not a symmetrical/both-sides thing.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  I can't quite tell if you're trying to discuss policy (which is currently being discussed in this thread) or the law. If you're trying to discuss the law, then your summary is both paradigmatically flawed (conflation of legislative versus constitutional protections, protected status versus suspect classification, etc.) and factually incorrect (being gay was not a protected class in 2008 in almost any jurisdiction, and making a political donation is not an action subject to the Civil Rights Act). If instead you're trying to discuss principles, then your explicit embrace of being unprincipled seems... odd. Principles always apply symmetrically and to both sides. That's what makes them principles.
ebiester 3y ago
You're trying to treat a game theory problem as a philosophical consistency problem. We have a group of Christian Dominionists that would kill us if they could, and only those consequences stop them. (And sometimes, such as the Pulse shooting, not even then.) In my lifetime, we had these same people saying "thank God for AIDS" and fighting funding for research because they cheered our deaths. There is no moral equivalence here. Then there is a group that wouldn't explicitly kill us, but actively fights against us having equal rights. Prop 8 was exactly that. Prop 8 was forged to actively tear families like mine apart. We were (and are!) being attacked and philosophical consistency has little use in a firefight.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  Omar Mir Seddique Mateen was not a "Christian Dominionist" and I'm pretty sure you knew that already. "These same people"—which in this thread means Brendan Eich—did not say "thank God for AIDS." And I'm pretty sure you knew that already too. Please stop.
  - ebiester 3y ago
    Did you see "Then there's another group" there? The difference in the groups are a function of what they think they can get away with. Do you dispute that Prop 8 was an effort to tear gay families apart?
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      > Do you dispute that Prop 8 was an effort to tear gay families apart? Yes, for three reasons. First, the text of the ballot initiative said and did no such thing; indeed, it left domestic partnerships untouched, which apport "the same rights, protections, and benefits, [as well as] the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties" as marriage. https://web.archive.org/web/20091116180023/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 https://web.archive.org/web/20091116180023/http://www.leginf... Second, Prop 8 did pass and was the law of the land until 2013, and—predictably, since, as stated above, the text said no such thing—it had no such effect. Lastly, when not explicit in the text, divining the intent of millions of people who voted for the initiative is an exercise in folly. By contrast, death threats and anthrax hoaxes tend to have a pretty negative effect on families. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters#Death_threats_and_vandalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition...

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

Do you not know what protected statuses are? There's a reason those exist. There's a reason it's allowed to penalize someone for being bigoted but not for being gay. This is not a symmetrical/both-sides thing.

torstenvl 3y ago
I can't quite tell if you're trying to discuss policy (which is currently being discussed in this thread) or the law. If you're trying to discuss the law, then your summary is both paradigmatically flawed (conflation of legislative versus constitutional protections, protected status versus suspect classification, etc.) and factually incorrect (being gay was not a protected class in 2008 in almost any jurisdiction, and making a political donation is not an action subject to the Civil Rights Act). If instead you're trying to discuss principles, then your explicit embrace of being unprincipled seems... odd. Principles always apply symmetrically and to both sides. That's what makes them principles.

ebiester 3y ago

You're trying to treat a game theory problem as a philosophical consistency problem. We have a group of Christian Dominionists that would kill us if they could, and only those consequences stop them. (And sometimes, such as the Pulse shooting, not even then.) In my lifetime, we had these same people saying "thank God for AIDS" and fighting funding for research because they cheered our deaths. There is no moral equivalence here. Then there is a group that wouldn't explicitly kill us, but actively fights against us having equal rights. Prop 8 was exactly that. Prop 8 was forged to actively tear families like mine apart. We were (and are!) being attacked and philosophical consistency has little use in a firefight.

torstenvl 3y ago
Omar Mir Seddique Mateen was not a "Christian Dominionist" and I'm pretty sure you knew that already. "These same people"—which in this thread means Brendan Eich—did not say "thank God for AIDS." And I'm pretty sure you knew that already too. Please stop.
- ebiester 3y ago
  Did you see "Then there's another group" there? The difference in the groups are a function of what they think they can get away with. Do you dispute that Prop 8 was an effort to tear gay families apart?
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    > Do you dispute that Prop 8 was an effort to tear gay families apart? Yes, for three reasons. First, the text of the ballot initiative said and did no such thing; indeed, it left domestic partnerships untouched, which apport "the same rights, protections, and benefits, [as well as] the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties" as marriage. https://web.archive.org/web/20091116180023/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 https://web.archive.org/web/20091116180023/http://www.leginf... Second, Prop 8 did pass and was the law of the land until 2013, and—predictably, since, as stated above, the text said no such thing—it had no such effect. Lastly, when not explicit in the text, divining the intent of millions of people who voted for the initiative is an exercise in folly. By contrast, death threats and anthrax hoaxes tend to have a pretty negative effect on families. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters#Death_threats_and_vandalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition...