LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Or both of you go to heaven, and each get your heads & assumptions messed with in highly unexpected ways.

That makes me think of a particular scene.

There are places in the world where religious persecution happens, but it's not in America and it's never because "the gays" are behind it.

You're putting words in my mouth. I don't want to lock people up unless they present a risk to others or themselves. But I shouldn't have to go to my supervisor and tell them a fellow employee keeps proselytizing me even when I tell them I'm not interested in the second coming or the rapture or what have you. No one should have to go to the authorities saying "this person has been following me on multiple occasions, accosting me and my family in public" and get a restraining order. People should be able to understand when enough is enough and back off when told to. Am I wrong for expecting that? I don't think so.

I was kinda working on the possible outcomes of them being right. If we both ended up in Heaven I'd be all "Ah-HA! *flips bird* Right, you on the throne! Explain this shit..."

Sorry that I misunderstood you. However, I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech—religious or otherwise—has never been considered absolute in a private workplace, or when used in the service of accostations that rise to the existing legal definitions of "harassment." I'm not aware of any ordinary, non-wingnut groups—religious or otherwise—who'd dispute that, so I don't know why you'd imagine I was referring to that. But there's a considerable difference between what you describe, and the public voicing of arguments that you might find irritating or personally hurtful.

I have to agree with Morgikit. While we do have free speech, imo it still doesn't give people the right to shout hate and insults at people, no matter the religion, lifestyle or background. Even if you do block it out, it is still going to negatively affect you in the long run. Hate speech can sometimes a lot hurt more than a punch could (and it will likely stay with you longer).

The free speech to shout hate thing reminds me of the logic some people used to say in school ('It's a free country, so I can be as mean/hurtful as I want').

Actually, in the U.S. that's precisely what it gives people the right to do, long as there's no incitement to imminent physical harm and assorted other narrowly defined caveats. However poorly another person's speech affects me—however much it might hurt me—it's that person's liberty to voice said speech, and it's my responsibility to nut up & deal with it. This goes for ostensibly religious speech, same as any other kind.

And unless your nation's law differs radically from ours, your schoolmates had the right of it: outside of school and in the public sphere, at least, a fellow may indeed be as mean/hurtful as he wants—long as he doesn't mind reaping the social or private-sphere consequences.

edited 7th Jan '14 6:35:54 PM by Jhimmibhob

And if you live in the south like Morgkit and myself, then you soon realize that the haters have popular support even just passively.

And no. Freedom of speech doesn't cover harassment.

You can say "I believe homosexual people are an abomination." You cannot say a specific person is.

We have slander, liable, and threatening laws for a reason. But if you have bias enforcement then you're screwed.

edited 7th Jan '14 7:49:07 PM by Gabrael

"Harassment," however, is a narrowly defined offense in most places, and doesn't cover a lot of what we're discussing here. Nor do existing laws that deal with slander, libel, &c., for the most part. All these statutes are a far cry from anything that amounts to defense of any individual's feelings.

P.S.: As a native Southerner myself, I'm not sure what kind or degree of "passive support" you're talking about, and with respect to whom exactly.

I'd say the support for homophobia is pretty active here.

Passive support is when no one objects to something, so by quiet majority the action is allowed to continue.

Not enough people, especially in the southeast, are disagreeing with the level of harassment and pain that is inflicted on the LGBT community and their allies, so an atmosphere of passive support for the negative and harmful attitudes and actions inflicted on this group is created.

It's like this:

You (vague generic you-not anyone specific) may not personally go out and threaten gays or discriminate against transexuals. However if you participate or allow the harassment, you consume and encourage media that espouses violent thoughts and actions against the LGBT community and their allies, and you continue to act as if LGBT people are not equal citizens, you are passively supporting the more aggressive actors.

There is a reason why most of the hate groups Gabrael mentioned have a stronger footing in the south than the north. The south has generations of not just racist and bigoted attitudes that are much stronger (in general) than those held in the north, but also the south has just as equal tradition of live and let live which encourages passive support.

If so remember it goes both ways, so responding to "you're going to hell" with "fuck off you medieval religitard" is perfectly valid.

Correct.

"medieval" is a good qualifier for this. "Go back to your flat Earth, witch-burner!"

This is a rather social darwinist philosophy. It allows the strong (the more elonquent or numerous) to easily harass the weak with no fear of liability or retaliation. I guess it fits the US.

Not with no fear of consequences. It's simply not illegal. And legal liability (for libel or slander) is a complicated matter. To massively oversimplify it, an opinion is not legally actionable unless it falls into the "Hate Speech" category (which is itself has a rather narrow legal definition).

edited 8th Jan '14 5:49:21 AM by Madrugada

What consequences do people have to fear who harass their homosexual coworker when the rest of the town is homophobic? It just allows bullies to thrive.

4x But if you do that, you're a militant homosexual pushing an agenda, whereas the other guy is an innocent victim.

But according to some (not all) Christians, bullying is merely an expression of their religious freedom, and shouldn't be hindered in any way.

edited 8th Jan '14 5:54:25 AM by Morgikit

Conquences may vary.

Harassment is a different matter. That also has a specific legal definition, though. A person randomly approaching you on the street once isn't harassing you. Neither is a guy preaching on a soapbox in the park who you walk by. Again, massively oversimplifying, to be harassment, it requires continued or repeated action once they've been told to stop.

Morgikit: and those people are assholes. They'd be assholes no matter what their hobbyhorse was.

edited 8th Jan '14 6:17:56 AM by Madrugada

Precisely.

Actually, by default you certainly can and may say that about a specific person. Now, in certain places, times, and contexts such words might legally constitute harassment, threats, or incitement, but the words themselves don't inherently—not even if directed at an individual. The legal burden of proof is on the target to prove that they're threatening.

And though calling someone an "abomination" is mighty unfriendly, it's not subject to slander & libel laws—those only apply to provable/disprovable statements of fact, which most specifically religious arguments don't fall under.

It may not be illegal, but it is immoral. And it does people a lot more harm than romantic relationships you (general) may not understand or approve of. Saying you (general) have no intention of harming people doesn't change that. I wish more people understood that.

edited 8th Jan '14 7:23:32 AM by Morgikit

Certainly, it's usually unwise. And under even the most orthodox construal, it can be immoral if the speaker forgets his duties of charity, economy (in the theological sense), and proportionality, or if he unworthily misuses his duties to the truth as a vehicle for his personal dislikes. Often, though, that's more than we can reasonably claim to know about the average religious voice.

Saying what one takes to be the truth can sometimes be harmful, or feel harmful, to other people. Sometimes that's good enough reason to keep one's peace, but sometimes it's not. One should never be gratuitously harmful, take pleasure in inflicting harm (even indirectly), or be insensible to the possibility of harm. But neither should religious voices be bound to keep their moral voices and propositions hostage to the possibility. In the end, that's merely a passive-aggressive form of the "heckler's veto."

The problem is that the people most likely to speak up are the ones who enjoy the harm caused by their words, followed closely by the people who simply don't care if there's harm caused by their words. The people who actually care about how their speech is accepted^note in the sense of "the person listening has heard and understands what I'm saying," not the sense of "the person listening now agrees with me" are far, far less likely to be offensive or escalate to the level of harassment.