TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Go To

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#4126: Aug 1st 2012 at 3:58:10 PM

Well, think about it this way. You've looked the other way because you have a general policy of non-intervention. Now, people start to complain. So you get off your ass and start to do something about it. That's how the system works. Maybe you don't like that that's how the system works but, fundamentally, it is what it is.

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#4128: Aug 1st 2012 at 4:06:05 PM

Starship, I understand your concern about "if we take those rights they'll take ours next".

But here's the thing: you have to have the right first for it to even be taken away.

No one can just put a business anywhere. Just like we have rules where churches, schools, hopitals, and everything else can go. If the people of an area vote against a development, regardless of their motives, it doesn't go.

Again, it's a balance of rights. The public has a right to not want and not have something in their neghborhood that is against their wishes.

We as a society also need to crack down on those who perpetuate the horrible attitudes. People are being killed. Talking about homosexuality in a public school, even to answer a student's question can be a fireable offense in some states. Gays can't adopt or be foster parents.

Artificial insimination methods and donations of sperm or egg are cut out to them. Basic inheritance laws even discriminate against them.

They are already so below the average heterosexual's standard of equality it would take a lot for the rights of the average heterosexual to be stripped enough to match theirs.

And another thing, at any given time only about 10% of a population is gay. So if there is supposed to be a stripping of rights, who is going to start it? Most likely the same demographic who is stripping our rights with things like the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay: politicians bought and paid for by -ta da!- wealthy corporations...like Chick-fil-a.

You see why people are so concerned with businesses, especially wealthy ones who have a history of funding arguablly radical groups, get involved in a social issue they had no business involving themselves with in the first place. He didn't make a statement as a person. He made it as the CEO with other offical spokesmen backing his play.

That's the kind of situation that concerns people. The LGBT community has so few rights to begin with. They can't afford to loose anymore. Because when these corporate funded entities get done with the LGBT community, what's next? Athiests? Muslims? Hispanics?

It's just one piece in a huge clusterbomb we as a society need to jump on now before it all explodes in our face.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#4129: Aug 1st 2012 at 4:29:38 PM

@Gabrael: Serious question. Do you want to simply revoke the First Amendment where it intersects with speaking about, for example, maintaining discriminatory laws against LGBT people?

Should LGBT rights be coercively imposed, whether or not this is against majority opinion, and views that dissent with these rights (for example, opposition to gay marriage) be forcibly silenced?

edited 1st Aug '12 4:31:20 PM by Ramidel

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#4130: Aug 1st 2012 at 4:34:27 PM

Wow. This thread is way too heated, or at least was so a couple of pages ago.

I'm gonna lock this thread for now. We'll see what happens to it.

EDIT:

I came to this thread from a Holler, and the Hollered page included people playing the Nazi card (never a good sign,) as well as some very confrontational posts of the kind that usually lead to personal attacks. After reading that page, I decided to lock the thread to prevent it heating up more while I read up on it. It turns out that this time, the discussion didn't go too far towards hostility, but I'm sure you can understand why I'd want to lock it until I'm done reading it.

It's entirely possible to have a perfectly enjoyable heated discussion while remaining civil. The discussion is ruined when someone decides to make it personal, or to argue in bad faith. That's what we're trying to prevent.

I'm opening this thread, as it turns out it wasn't as bad as it seemed at first. Consider this a friendly reminder to keep things civil, and to argue in good faith.

edited 1st Aug '12 6:11:40 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#4131: Aug 1st 2012 at 6:12:18 PM

Maybe I should bump this so that people will notice that it's open. I edited the lock announcement.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#4132: Aug 1st 2012 at 6:16:59 PM

It was on the first page. tongue

But my interpretation of Free Speech is "You are allowed to speak what you want, as long as it's not to harm anyone. This does not protect hate speech or discrimination." I never thought of it as an excuse for someone to be an ass to others. Or to flame/troll others. To me, using it like that is a violation of its meaning, which is to help others, not hurt them. If misused, like any "right", it can and should be taken away. This could mean jail, making specific speech illegal, and so on. And I'm all for it.

Quest 64 thread
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#4133: Aug 1st 2012 at 6:27:02 PM

We gave women the right to vote against popular opinion.

We emancipated the slaves and started the Civil Rights Movement against popular opinion and very vocal opinion.

What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.

Extending equal civil liberties to the LGBT community on par of that to the rights of the average heterosexual does not negate anything of the First Amendment. If anything, it upholds that very right by keeping the Chruch and the State two diferent entities.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#4134: Aug 1st 2012 at 6:29:34 PM

What? Who was arguing that extending liberties to LGBT invalidated the 1st amendment? The only thing I saw was that you can't have the state discriminating against a firm based on who it donates to (unless it's donating to terrorist groups I guess)

occono from Ireland. Since: Apr, 2009
#4135: Aug 1st 2012 at 6:34:30 PM

Show these actions.

The groups it funds have lobbied against anti-bullying laws and have lobbied against Congress opposing the Ugandan death penalty for homosexuals. This is just actual physical harm I'm talking about.

I don't know what I think of these mayors statements and the discussion of that here.

Dumbo
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4136: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:11:19 PM

The First Amendment is being used here to protect people's right to hate gays for religious reasons. As odious and self serving as that is.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#4137: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:13:57 PM

The first amendment only works when people are punished for saying stupid shit by virtue of people being able to say shit about people being punished for saying stupid shit.

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#4138: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:26:29 PM

Ramidel asked me if I wanted to revoke the First Amendment to protect LGBT.

Look, while the First Amendment does allow for freedom of speech, it does not allow businesses the right to open shop wherever they want. It does not prevent speech from being considered hateful. It does not prevent people from responding to such hate with disdain and condemnation.

I thought I made myself clear enough the first 15 times I said it:

People have the right to vocally condemn LGBT rights. Just like the KKK has a right to demonstrate, Nazis have a right to publish, the Westburo Baptist church has the right to protest soliders funerals.

That does not negate public opposition in return such as human shields against protests and public outcry against remarks.

Just because someone has the right to call me a liberal Christian-hater who's going straight to hell doesn't mean I can't reply how I pity them in return

But this is not a First Amendment discussion. This is the full Bill of Rights which is being denied a segment of our citizenship because another group's special book says that they are against god's will.

The very amendment that allows these religious people to spout their hate is the same amendment that says the Union cannot integrate, sponser, or support a specific faith.

Interesting how people want to use the speech and faith part, but forget the ending of it.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
occono from Ireland. Since: Apr, 2009
#4139: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:35:22 PM

According to the first part of this, the mayors statements were based on foreseen employment discrimination, based on past lawsuits where they violated state employment laws. The article asserts the media hasn't framed it this way. I read gay news on gay blogs so I'm just throwing this out there, I don't know firsthand what media perception of this is like.

Dumbo
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#4140: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:36:31 PM

Yeah, I'm with the "the media have mischaracertized the statement" crowd now.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#4141: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:44:13 PM

Same with Tomu. If the business has been illegally discriminating, then they should be punished for breaking the law.

Anyway, I don't agree that the political positions of a company should affect whether they're allowed to set up shop on their own land. Forbidding that is coercive state action, not "protest." If you don't agree with their position, you have a right to picket the entrance, but not to forbid them a license to do business with people who, for example, do agree with Chick Fil-A's political position.

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#4143: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:53:42 PM

In this case the way they're being punished for breaking the law is that they are not allowed to open new restaurants in certain markets. This is no different than any other business with a history of law breaking not getting permits. In fact, it's completely normal for lawbreaking businesses to get permits denied and revoked. There's nothing at all revolutionary going on here. Illegal activity is being punished. Not rewarded with new places that the illegal activity can occur.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#4144: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:53:54 PM

Look, to the extent that the zoning places have the ability to make meaningful decisions, and to the extent that they have the right to give a pass or not on the basis of reasonable expectations that the firm will discriminate, they're doing their job properly here. You can argue they don't have reasonable expectations at that point, but that's a completely different argument.

occono from Ireland. Since: Apr, 2009
#4145: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:54:34 PM

The law doesn't buy your definition of real harm, I'm afraid. The way to combat these lobbies is with other lobbies; not censorship.

I wasn't stating they "legally" caused any harm, I'm giving examples of money going to causes supporting physical violence against people because they're gay. And I wasn't advocating any censorship, just replying to your question for examples. The article I'd just thought I'd share, I don't live under American discrimination laws, I shouldn't claim to know them.

edited 1st Aug '12 7:58:25 PM by occono

Dumbo
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#4146: Aug 1st 2012 at 7:58:41 PM

If a company had a pattern of breaking any other laws, illegal dumping, selling alcohol to minors, being a front for prostitution, then no one would bat an eye at them being denied permits to open up another location. Chick-Fil-A is breaking laws, at least in Chicago, and has stated that they don't intend to change that. The Alderman has said that if they change their policies that violate Illinois law, he'll allow them. They don't want to do that. If they can't be arsed to stop breaking the law, why should they be allowed to open up a new location? Why should the alderman facilitate illegal activity?

edited 1st Aug '12 7:59:23 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#4148: Aug 1st 2012 at 8:12:05 PM

Let's take another example.

I live in a dry county. This means that within my county's borders, you cannot buy or sell drinks. No beer. No wine. Nothing. There is not a single liquor store within a 45 minute drive from the interstate.

This was done mainly because I live in a really fundamentally Christian area. They are able to keep the county dry because of public vote. Every season there is the petition to change all of this and make the county "wet" like our neighbors. But every season even though the pro-liquor side points out how it can decrease traffic accidents, drunk driving, and provide revenue and jobs, the Christian fundies in the area get out with their signs and their ads and say how it's an abomination and "God hates drunks".

So because of the population voting, there is not a single liquor store in the area. Now it doesn't matter the reasoning of the vote to the city board. It's a democratic vote.

It's the same thing for zoning and building permits. Now bigger cities have different rules. But it is all based on the same principle. If it is determined to be a safe consideration, a delegation of whatever number, elects to vote on it. If it passes great. If it doesn't, they don't have to give up-they can try again.

Starship, if Chick-fil-a didn't share your view on Homosexuality, would you still so blindly defend them? Even though many of us have given you plenty of legitamate reasons to show the situation isn't as black and white as you claim?

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Total posts: 21,560
Top