Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.
oh quit your fucking whining. oh boo hoo you can't post your bigotry without repercussions.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I can't post my opinions. The bigots are those who can't tolerate the opinions of others.
I elaborated in my last post.
I'm more interested in what you think of violence in the
name of civil disobedience. But, look, you're fine with a
minor legal infraction. An innocuous enough sentiment in
itself, since the type of trespassing we're speaking of
is generally non-violent and non-destructive. Since you
now state that certain other minor illegal acts are fine
with you how is it significant to you if Davis and the
Tennessee Judiciary are entirely in the wrong legally?
Another minor illegal action, but here the illegality may
be less in question, because if the minister had not
regularly been marrying gay couples, then he hadn't shown
that to be a part of his religious belief in a
substantial way. You understand that ministers and judges
opposed to gay marriage have been or would have been
refusing to marry gay couple for hundreds of years should
the requests have been made. If there were ministers and
judges in favor of gay marriage, who also shared the
common Christian sentiment that marriage is a preferred
state to be in, then such an incidence as the Alabama
minister would be just one in a series stretching back
hundreds of years. After all, minister are known to seek
unmarried couples and recommend it.
I thought both cases you mention were about illegal
actions done in the name of Christianity, or "Christian
supremacist" as you call it. In your Baume quote, he
states the Minister was claiming religious conscience.
But, that aside your statement confuses me. Firstly, I'm
unconcerned with being offensive, but I
d like to avoid being silly, as in absurd. But, what I
see is two sets of people acting on their conscience, and
making claims (for which all I know may be sound among
both respective peoples) that the constitution is in
Your advice has been noted, though I still don't know why
you offered it being that I asked what you think of such
a comparison, not offered what I think.
See my last post to Deacon. There I clarify the intent of
my question. That aside, I'm also confused by the
statement as well. It seems the presumption in your
statement is that the issue of legality aside, you're
position in favor of human rights and basic decency are
without question. But, I only put your position in favor
of gay rights without question. I challenged you on the
issue of gender rights and you asked for details, which I
gave and which you ignored, then claimed the aspect of
our argument was becoming circular.
With that statement I can no longer let the presumption
that you didn't read my above quote be of any value. I'd
expect that before such a detailed criticism and
comparison of my question to others, you would have taken
the time to wait for me to respond to your early
questions from the same post.
Basically, I asked a simple question, having already
established myself as one willing to elaborate, and
rather than giving me the opportunity to elaborate you
make presumptions about the reasoning for it's brevity.
If you're saying that you're experienced at responding to
questions in general then fine, though I don't know why
you would need to tell me that while I still await a
response from you for an earlier issue. I think you're actual responses
will be more impressive than your claims -- if
impressing me is for some reason your intent.
But, to leave it at that would be to ignore the
insinuations in that statement and the insinuations in
the remainder of the post.
Firstly, I have not brought up the gay rights question in
itself, only aspects of it, secondly, I'm unconcerned
with your record in discussing these issues with people
for whom I've given you no reason to believe I associate
untrue your allowed to post your opinion. the thread in which you uttered that bigoted filth you call your opinion is still able to be viewed. your mistaking the fact that you having to the suffer the consequences of your bigotry as not being allowed to present such ideas. your allowed to you just have to deal with the fact you will be criticized for them. thats the problems with bigots like you self. you think you have the right to be a bigot and not be called on it you don't. the view point you posted was morally repugnant and just vile in nature.
ah yes the classic i'm not a bigot the people who admonish my bigotry are the bigots because they won't let spew my filth without admonishment and critique. sorry princess you don't have to the right to not be criticized. also I don't think anyone other than other bigots has ever fallen for that sanctimonious bullshit of defense. what you posted was clear bigotry and thats not tolerated her, well maybe if its against islam but even than only a little bit and by some mods. so quit your whining and own the consequences of your hate.
Part the First
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not very well:
"Being there was much illegal actions done during the heart of the civil rights movements regarding race, I assume you're implying that it's supposed to be obvious that such illegal actions were morally right, and I assume you're implying that illegal actions of the same kind (violence against law abiding citizens, and many lesser crimes) are justified for the sake of gay rights as well."
Remaining vague and alluding to hypothetical potential doesn't really help. Are there any specific episodes that might help us understand what you're on about?
This is why details matter, Stuart. This is why function is important. As it is, we might wonder if perhaps you're just grasping after straws. Functionally speaking, Ms. Davis' lawbreaking and her attorney's desire to extend that dereliction to force others to break the law, would be construed, in terms of civil disobedience, as a protest on behalf of supremacism, and in order to deny others their civil rights.
Ms. Davis' political supporters in this dispute have been pushing some manner of this assertion for decades; everyone else's constitutional rights are supposed to be subordinate to some inchoate usurpation of Christianity. As I've noted before, we've heard this petty formulation over and over, whether to censor music and books, or to demand a say in whether some woman out there can have access to birth control. And they have, for the last quarter century at least, cast themselves as the victims; they are oppressed if they enjoy mere equality, and cannot truly be equal unless given superior protection and privilege under the law.
As it is, you have an appearance of undertaking a certain foolish endeavor by which bigots try to cast themselves as victims and elevate their hateful push as some sort of noble endeavor under the guise of civil disobedience. Yet when we look at their standard, we might as well call white supremacy or coverture "equality". And, you know, the racists and male supremacists have tried. Desperately. Historically, to that end, I can at least say I'm impressed by how much support Kim Davis and Liberty Counsel are not getting.
Would you please at least do us the courtesy of making sense?
Judges, magistrates, and chancellors, as such, are sworn to uphold the law. They have taken an oath to do so. They cannot refuse to enforce the law merely for personal aesthetics.
Furthermore, if we frame this as Kim Davis has, her own case is undermined if she has, even negligently, failed to check that she isn't issuing a marriage license to a divorceé whose former spouse still lives. And given her own four marriages?
Were one to assert that Christian conscience licenses child sexual abuse because Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me", might we expect that someone, somewhere, would stand up and remind, "Ah ... that's not quite what He meant"? To the other, that argument would at least have what Ms. Davis' assertion of Christianity lacks, an attempt to derive the argument from the words of Jesus.
We do not wonder at the lack of functional details about your post; Ms. Davis' alleged Christian conscience is a mockery of the Bible, Christianity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Again, details matter. Furthermore, I don't know if you think you're some sort of original, or something, but this is really stale, crusty pabulum at this point.
The probate judge chose to refuse to uphold his sworn oath in order to deny constitutional rights.
At this point, we might also consider that Ms. Davis' attorney, Mat Staver↱, has argued that it is not at all unreasonable to send applicants to another county and have someone else do it.
What we have in the arrest and sentencing of Rev. Anne DePrizio is a judge who refused to do his job, someone else stepping up to do it, and the judge having her arrested. In politics, we call this bad optics. As a judicial matter, there is a question of trespassing. As a logical or moral argument, however, Probate Judge Al Booth hasn't a grain to stand on.
If one actually attends the details of what is actually happening, we see this circle running 'round over and over again. To wit, Liberty Counsel argued in a brief on 28 August that taking Ms. Davis' name off the licenses would remove the personal nature of the authorization; Mr. Staver repeated that point publicly on 31 August; on 4 September he asserted Ms. Davis' personal nature of denying authorization to extend to other county clerks who were following the law. You tried to argue around this, and it's becoming clear why, but if Ms. Davis wants both, to remove her personal aspect from the license, and to assert her personal aspect to deny issuance of the license.
And this is the circle. This isn't really about Ms. Davis' conscience speaking against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; this is about denying constitutional rights for the sake of petty, personal aesthetics.
With Ms. Davis' case, as with Judge Booth's, allegedly acceptable alternatives were at hand, and in both cases the bigots would hope to prevent those alternatives from taking place.
As I've suggested, details matter.
Mantyla, Kyle. "Staver: It's Reasonable To Force 20,000+ KY Residents To Drive 30 Minutes For A Marriage License To Protect Kim Davis". Right Wing Watch. 2 September 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 7 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1JNPa4B
―End Part I―
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Part the Second
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I said: Pretty much any comparison of Christian supremacism to genuine civil disobedience is going to be offensive and make you look silly.
The fundamental function you're asking about is pretty clearly illustrated: Supremacy ≠ Equality. That is, as you inquired:
"Do you put your morals regarding your support for gay rights over the law at any time, and if so what past illegal actions done by those in the name of promoting gay rights do you find acceptable and which do you find unacceptable?"
Ostensibly, one side is fighting for equality, the other is fighting for supremacism. The mere comparison is pretty stupid, as it suggests you can't tell the difference. Also remember something else I said in that post: Please remember that in the gay rights question, my team has gotten plenty of practice with these questions over the last quarter-century since Christians picked this fight. We've been through this puerile needlepoint routine over and over and over again, and the striking thing throughout that time is that conservative advocates never seem to get any better at this.
Again, it would help if you would try to make sense, but let me see if I can follow.
Re: Your last post to Daecon ― Again, I would simply note it isn't much of a clarification.
Re: Constriction to "your position in favor of gay rights without question" ― I suppose it's not quite fair to wonder how much of my post I should recycle here; the problem with your general inquiry is that it is, technically, irrelevant to the details of what is actually happening. Perhaps there is some grain of utility to be discovered in there somewhere, but that would be your scavenger hunt, sir, not mine.
Look, here's the problem: When one enters the discussion with such apparent ignorance as you show, it would behoove them to familiarize themselves with the details. Basically, you're pretty much recycling the same stuff we've been through countless times since Lawrence, and all the way back to around 1990 in the current arc of the Gay Fray. And it's always the same, this pretense of naïveté; these questions have been addressed so many times in the public discourse that we no longer find it coincidental when this pretentious naïveté suddenly reappears in a range including your own entry.
The confused pretense, seemingly the difference between a supremacist asking "why" or "why not", really is threadbare after all these years. And, essentially, it comes down to that classic inability to tell the difference. A formerly supremacist presupposition―e.g., Christian superiority under the law―has broken. Advocates have fought to reiterate and reinforce their historical advantage to no avail. So the new thing is to ask, wide-eyed, "Why not?" as if history itself is irrelevant. And throughout, in the case of gay rights, American society has generally rejected that sleight; it's too obvious, this time.
So yes, I admit I do find it rather curious that people keep trying. And despite your point about elaboration, we're still waiting.
No, what I'm saying is that we've been through your entire routine before. Many times. You aren't original by any measure; the tactic you're following has been eviscerated repeatedly over the last eleven years, at least; and you're so visibly concerned with posturing yourself without actually offering anything substantial that it reads exactly like textbook cheap politicking.
Your determined disregard for history is exactly what makes this behavior look so foolish.
Why should anyone tolerate homophobia? Should we tolerate racism, or is wanting equal rights somehow "bigoted"?
Loathing the Character Limit (Part the First)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For my part, having discussed these issues with him before, the thing is that he already knows what's wrong with what he tried to argue in that other thread. He remembers Oregon. He remembers the OCA coming for the gays. And he remembers how they shouted about if you don't use the state to persecute homosexuals, next thing they'll want to get married. And he remembers how laughable that was, then, but how they kept trying and kept trying, and how the homophobes eventually got so ridiculous that they lost in Texas, and suddenly the marriage race was on. He remembers how a Multnomah County clerk issued a marriage license because there was nothing that ordered him not to, and how the Christians and conservatives screamed and wailed about how following the law was subverting democracy, because regardless of what the law says, Christians never approved it. He remembers what started a quarter-century ago in Oregon, and how the movement there and in Colorado, and eventually nationwide helped ensure that gay marriage happened by going out of their way to turn reality upside down and inside out in a most undignified, multi-decade temper tantrum. And how every time the question came up on a ballot here or there, The Gay was suddenly that much closer to voters because the assault against what human rights homosexuals had forced them out of the closet, and with each new ballot measure more and more voters had to look someone they knew in the eye the next morning and explain why they voted as they did.
The bigots did this to themselves; they panicked, and set off a social revolution that passed in a quarter-century instead of, say, the fifty-eight years between Plessy and Brown. And here we are, sixty-one years after that and the racists are still pissed off. And just like the racists, the reason the homophobes are stripped down to this skeletal supremacist tantrum is that they've driven everyone else away.
Even one of the more desperate appeals has come to pass; when the constitutional case became clear, years ago, conservatives shouted about the ballot box and usurping the people, which they'd been complaining about in this issue at least since Romer, when the federal courts said they couldn't use the ballot box as a supremacist weapon.
The rush to pass legislation, that virtually blank run in the states as vote after vote established new barriers, sealed their fate. That's just one thing you cannot do, and religious aesthetics are not a vital state interest.
But what the conservatives―including Bowser↑―said was that gay marriage could never be legitimate without winning in the states. The Supreme Court tacitly agreed, passing over Windsor in the autumn, 2012 docket in favor of spring, 2013. There was an election afoot, and at least since Bowers, all judgments against gay rights relied on a perception that society had always disapproved. With an election coming up and the issue on the ballot in four states, everything was on the table. Three states voted to approve gay marriage; one state rejected an amendment that would have written its existing DoMA statute into the constitution, which in turn began a tumble for marriage equality opponents that saw the legislature ride the momentum to do away with the statute and legalize gay marriage. The table was sent.
But the argument had always existed; rhetorically, the supremacists wanted one last movement of the goalposts, and that was the ballot box.
Because from the time gay marriage became legal in Masssachusetts, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV kicks in, and it seemed strange how pretty much everybody tried to tiptoe around the issue. Judge Heyburn explicitly ducked Article IV↱ in Bourke, asserting that the Equal Protection question would resolve all else. Heyburn was wrong; the Sixth Circuit carved out an exception for Ohio in Obergefell, tacitly criminalizing homosexuality. You know, so they could unmarry a dead man.
Naturally, Obergefell is a familiar name, as it is the gay marraige decision, but Judge Heyburn's duck and dodge will live forever; Obergefell is the case name, but it was composed of four cases: Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee), and, that's right, Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky).
But that's the thing. From the time gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the Article IV pathway existed; what the homophobes wanted was to wait, wait, wait, until it happened at the ballot box.
And then it did.
And the Court read the sense of the nation and knew exactly what needed to happen in the tax case that came before it in 2013.
Yet still the bigots fought on.
And Bowser? He knows this history. He also knows his side flat lost. He knows we jumped through every goddamn flaming hoop and came through on our feet.
And that's the thing. He knows the score. He remembers the history. He and I went through a bunch of this over a decade ago. And that's what's puzzling, and I should mention, why people aren't willing to sit around and take it from him. Sciforums has an appearance of being unwilling to lay disciplinary hands on certain members as if we're afraid of punishing disability. That is to say, most of us who have known the character Bowser has played over the years at Sciforums are at least a little taken aback; we've never known him to go dusty potsherd like this. That is to say, I might not like his politics or moral outlook, but I've never thought of him in that gutter by which we can only wish well as they stumble through the muck.
―End Part I―
Part the Second
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You know, sometimes it looks like this community has a little niche carved out for disciplinary problems that look like disability. In general, I do often wonder why certain conservative political outlooks are so willing to throw in with that lot; I sometimes recount a story from the Pacific Northwest in which hundreds of Christians from around the Puget Sound region wrote to the Post-Intelligencer to denounce its coverage of a megachurch scandal―in the end, when everything was on the table, they didn't want to give up, and thus had the effect of saying, "So a pastor molested a kid at Disney World! Can't you just let it go? It's a private, family issue! Stop oppressing Christians!" And, you know, I'm pretty sure there are thousands of Christians in the area who just didn't appreciate being represented like that, but strangely, they never spoke up. Take Kim Davis: Small government, law-and-order conservatives are now lining up to back a Kentucky Democrat who asserts a religious right to violate the law and force others to, thus interfering in personal decisions between people whether or not to get married. And it's always like this. Can't give your workers cancer? Intrusive government. Rewriting zoning regulations in order to close every medical clinic in the state that performs abortion? Not intrusive. Hell, there's a South Dakota Republican using the occasion to denounce the coasts and declare South Dakota Culture; all he wants is to peek at kids' genitals before school sporting contests. No ... no ... not intrusive at all, you know? But watch your conservative neighbors rush to the various causes. It sounds almost stupid to say, but I have quite literally known people who believe one thing, then a person claiming a label says something really stupid that the one doesn't believe, but when everybody calls out the stupid something the one throws down with common identity. No, really, like book bannings. I knew people in the eighties who understood and asserted the case against library censorship, but one day a Republican shouted about how Christians were oppressed for not being able to have the final say over what is allowed in a public library, and suddenly these people throw in for censorship, but not for censorship, it's just that they can't abide by persecution of Christians. And it's true; when your friend repeatedly tells you why you are inferior, it mucks up the relationship, which in turn only adds to the feeling that Christians are persecuted, and so on.
I recall there's a book out there, and I can't remember the title, from about 1994, in which a Buckley conservative argued that the Republican Party was slipping toward the death of the conservative intellectual. Comparatively, it would seem that notion was prescient; had we suggested a Palin vice presidential campaign, or our entry to Iraq in 2003, at the time, we would have been laughed out of the room.
These phenomena are not unrelated; persecution of Christians these days, to hear conservatives tell it, includes science, equal protection, free speech, and in some cases―the aforementioned former Alaska governor―merely disagreeing with them. To hear them tell it, the human rights of woman are the Fourth fucking Reich.
And, you know, it's never really been about disagreement. To wit, it's not simply that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative that makes him problematic; rather, it's that he's dishonest and his audience doesn't care. He exploits people in order to be deliberately cruel to people. It doesn't matter what his political affiliation is if that's the case. But take Sciforums as an example; over the last decade our conservative representation has consisted of a small number―count 'em on one hand at any given time―members who can write a cogent argument and happen to be conservative, and a larger, fluid bloc of tinfoils and potsherds. It's always striking when one of our "smarter" conservatives throws in with the identity politic, but it's not exactly extraordinary these days. To the other, some days those potshers are the only teammates such conservatives see around here.
They throw in with an identity politic instead of vaunted principles.
It's a business decision at the electoral level; you know, "I want the job to protect and preserve the Constitution, but only after we change it, because I don't want to protect and preserve the Constitution as it is."
At our valence? Bowser's? I have no idea what he thinks he's after, but he has the community's attention with this outburst. Quite clearly, something is bugging him.
All is well. This afternoon, in my frustration, I spent $35.00 on video slots and walked away with $400.00. So the day wasn't a total disappointment. It was an exciting diversion to an otherwise dismal morning. Even the black guy sitting next to me got a bit of a thrill from my good fortune.
Wow, that was weird. Again, today I spent 35.00 dollars on video slots and walked away with 400.00 dollars. I'm not certain why my original post was so mangled, but I thought it was worth repeating.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There's a word for that. It's called "spam".
That paragraph was addressed to Deacon. My elaboration for the benefit of both you and him was in the next paragraph.
Obviously you knew that. It's clear now that you're deliberately using obfuscation.
I asked you a question, that's not grasping at straws.
That doesn't come close to qualify as an answer to my question. The illegality of the Davis issue is not in question, I told you I was through with that for now -- it's difficult to believe that you missed that post. The issue of "supremacism" versus civil rights is also not in question, I have neither stated an opinion on that nor asked you to. The moral value you place on the law is what is in question. I'm uncertain whether this is more obfuscation or simply poor comprehension.
You're being ridiculous.
You're not hurting my argument, after all, I conceded that the examples you gave of actions done by officials may be illegal, and as you just quoted me saying, I stated that in the example of the pro gay marriage minister the illegality of his actions were less disputable.
That is not my concern at the moment.
No, I don't think I'm being original, nor is it my intention to concern myself with the originality or lack of originality in my line of questioning.
If that's true then the fact that your struggling with it contradicts your earlier declaration of overt competence.
I have nothing to say to all that. You already know that I'm not interested in arguing the Davis issue until further reading, so it's only relevant in the context I presented it. Basically, you only addressed one side of the issue. You quoted Baume stating that the pro gay marriage was breaking the law due to religious conscience, then later blatantly ignored that and stated that it was simply a matter of civil rights, while the other public officials in question, were the one's acting on behalf of religion.
Say ... Her ... Name ....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The bloodletting has slowed. These are the murders. We have no reliable count, yet, for the suicides:
† Tamara Dominiguez, 36, Kansas City, Missouri, 15 August 2015
† Elisha Walker, 20, Smithfield, North Carolina, 13 August 2015
† Kandis Capri, 35, Phoenix, Arizona, 11 August 2015
† Amber Monroe, 20, Detroit, Michigan, 8 August 2015
† Shade Schuler, 22, Dallas Texas, 29 July 2015
† K. C. Haggard, 66, Fresno, California, 23 July 2015
† India Clarke, 25, Tampa, Florida, 21 July 2015
† Ashton O'Hara, 25, Detroit, Michigan, 14 July 2015
† Jasmine Collins, 32, Kansas City, Missouri, 23 June 2015
† Mercedes Williamson, 17, Rock Creek, Alabama, 30 May 2015
† London Chanel, 21, North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 18 May 2015
† Keyshia Blige, 33, Aurora, Illinois, 7 March 2015
† Kristina Gomez Reinwald, 46, Miami, Florida, 16 February 2015
† Bri Golec, 22, Akron, Ohio, 13 February 2015
† Penny Proud, 21, New Orleans, Louisiana, 10 February 2015
† Taja Gabrielle DeJesus, 36, San Francisco, California, 1 February 2015
† Yasmin Vash Payne, 33, Los Angeles, California, 31 January 2015
† Ty Underwood, 24, Tyler, Texas, 26 January 2015
† Lamia Beard, 30, Norfolk, Virginia, 17 January 2015
† Papi Edwards, 20, Louisville, Kentucky, 9 January 2015
There was a week not long ago when the news hit on Saturday, or so. The thirteenth body had been found and identified, matching by the end of July, 2015 the total nubmer of transgender women murdered in 2014.
Veteran hands in Middle America and the South are verging on panic.
See, the thing is that we learned of Shade Schuler over a weekend; Shade was listed as number thirteen. Symbolic. Powerful. A threshold. This should grab your attention, that sort of thing.
By the following Tuesday, we received the news that Tamara Dominiguez, 36, had been killed in Kansas City.
Ms. Dominiguez was number seventeen. Witnesses report she got out of an SUV around three in the morning; the driver of that vehicle proceeded to run her down. And then twice more just to make certain. Tamara Dominiguez lived long enough to die at the hospital.
It's an abbatoir out there. The gaps are filling in, the dates settling into their proper order. We have added two more names since.
And if you note that only adds up to nineteen, there is a story to tell about Bri Golec, age 22. Neither police, media, nor family will openly acknowledge that Bri Golec was transgender; her friends, naturally, will not let that rest.
Kevin Golec, her father, stands charged with her murder:
Kevin Golec, 52, has been charged with murder and felony domestic violence. Police detained him shortly after 10 p.m. Friday [13 February] after responding to several calls to 911 he made alleging that several members of a "cult" had broken into his house to commit robbery and had attacked both him and Bri Golec. With no evidence of a robbery, however, police determined that Golec was lying and that it was he who had had an altercation with and fatally stabbed his child.
(Kellaway and Brydum↱)
Right now the goal is pretty straightforward, to make it through to 20 November without adding any more names to the list. Truth told, I'm not hopeful.
This is the price.
This is the stake.
I need you to take a moment, please, and recite that list; say their names.
This is important.
This list can't get any longer, and yet we know it will.
Kellaway, Mitch and Sunnivie Brydum. "These Are the U.S. Trans Women Killed in 2015". The Advocate. 27 July 2015. TheAdvocate.com. 7 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1ELzm5I
Forgive me if it was a repeat. I had such a good day, I just want to share it with everyone. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You used a pro gay marriage Christian "supremacist" to make a point, and I called you on it. The decent thing to do would be to admit it.
Ok, I understand now how you differentiate the actions of the pro gay marriage minister and the other officials who're against gay marriage. They're both acting on their religious principals (which, once again, I know from reading your Baume quote, even if you won't admit as much in your own words), but one is also acting in the name of equality, the other in a form of elitism you call "supremacy".
I spoke to common denominator, which is religious beliefs, I have not made any comparison between equality and "supremacist", you brought up the two issues, for no apparent reason, being that have nothing to do with my question regarding your evaluation of the morality of law. Also, you have not established that one side is fighting for equality, I challenged you on that issue, and you failed to respond.
That is not my concern. But, I will say it's ridiculous that you continue to make declarations about your competence, when your actual degree of competence is clearly on display in your responses to my questions and comments.
More presumptions. I have advocated nothing, nor given you any reason to believe I follow the belief system generally labeled "conservatism" in America, nor that I am Christian.
I doubt my question concerning morality is original, but assuming that your failure to grasp it is not a pretense, but lack of comprehension, it's likely you have not come across it.
You can't decide whether I'm ignorant and need to do more reading, or am pretending to be ignorant. Altogether the above shows a very poor ability to evaluate my motives. I suggest not concerning yourself with my motives, and responding to my questions and comments with integrity.
You're being ridiculous. My only "point about elaboration" was that I did elaborate and I assure you I no longer have any expectations of a response. It's clear to me that you have no belief inequality.
You continue to say so, despite all appearances showing that you may have never approached the questions I've asked in good faith.
Your presumptions are wrong, I went into this conversation with good faith.
I just realized that I never responded to the previous comments regarding legality vs. morality with equal rights.
I'm not too familiar with the civil rights movement in America, but I thought there were a few occasions of peaceful protests being met with excessive force, under the justification that those protests were illegal. Along with equal rights activists being imprisoned, and other such acts.
That's at least one example of it being morally right to break an unjust law.
I don't think anyone is advocating violence against innocent people or businesses, though.
Yeah, they were fighting back against injustice. Institutionalized homophobia is not really what I'd call innocent.
Separate names with a comma.