Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing

[Nearly Sane]

Nothing to see..



http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/05/gov-bryant-signs-religious-objections-bill/82654578/

[Brownie]

What I got was: 

OOPS!
This page exists to tell you
that this page doesn't exist.

Disappointing but not the end of the world as you can tell us what was written!  Please.  'Sounds' interesting.

[Nearly Sane]

Try this?

http://tinyurl.com/zk95hdb

[john]

Oh I see

To protect the rights of the Christian sincerely held beliefs of a few it is OK to trample on the rights of others.......That's religion for ya. Yaal have a nice day now.

[Hope]

Oh I see

To protect the rights of the Christian sincerely held beliefs of a few it is OK to trample on the rights of others.......That's religion for ya. Yaal have a nice day now.

The problem with this comment, john, is that there many non-Christians, even non-religious people who hold understandings and beliefs that this bill covers.

[Shaker]

The problem with this comment, john, is that there many non-Christians, even non-religious people who hold understandings and beliefs that this bill covers.

There are a few, not many. And they don't have to be pandered to.

[Hope]

There are a few, not many. And they don't have to be pandered to.

I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim.  I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.

[Shaker]

I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim.  I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.

But they're dying out. No bad thing either or we'd never see progress in the world.

Cohort replacement in action, as the sociologists call it.

[Rhiannon]

I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim.  I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.

I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.

My childrens' generation don't even notice the differences. All they see are relationships of various kinds.

[Shaker]

I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.

I'm over thirty (just ... and change) and don't know anyone at all who has a problem with equal marriage, including people in their eighties.

It's not that most people of my acquaintance don't have a problem with it; nobody does.

Just about every single survey/opinion poll I've ever seen is quite clear that support for liberal and progressive measures aimed at the betterment of society and happier individuals is lower in the older cohorts, but we do people a grave disservice if we take this to reflect more than it actually does. It shuffles all older people into an amorphous mass of at best hidebound, unthinking and change-fearing oldsters and at worst a bunch of cramped and narrow bigots. Anybody of 50 today will have grown up in a society not only where homosexuality was legal but where its social visibility and acceptance increased and improved leaps and bounds. The older cohorts may perhaps be partially excused for having grown up prior to that era, but there's nothing at work in less enlightened attitudes that the willingness to be rational, thoughtful and flexible of mind can't tackle.

[Rhiannon]

It's interesting; I do know a handful of people who make anti-gay comments, but even they aren't actually against gay marriage.

My mother is in her seventies and has had gay best friends for as long as I can remember. She's been to more gay clubs than I have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.

My childrens' generation don't even notice the differences. All they see are relationships of various kinds.

All that of course depends on who you actually mix with and whether you are at a good school in a middle class area.

I would move that there are pockets of reactionary attitude which don't overlap your territory but overlap that of the great unchurched.

[Rhiannon]

All that of course depends on who you actually mix with and whether you are at a good school in a middle class area.

I would move that there are pockets of reactionary attitude which don't overlap your territory but overlap that of the great unchurched.

I don't know how old your kids are, but their attitudes are driven largely by social media. Where they live is secondary to what YouTube channels they enjoy watching.

I grew up on the edge of East London. All pie and mash and COYI.

[Shaker]

I don't know how old your kids are, but their attitudes are driven largely by social media. Where they live is secondary to what YouTube channels they enjoy watching.

Also I think what plays a very large part is that young people, by definition, have had less chance to be exposed to and to take on homophobic ideas which are ultimately predicated on the belief that difference (including or especially minor difference, e.g. sexuality, skin colour, etc.) is wrong and bad.

People learn to be homophobic. It has to be absorbed from the outside, wherever that may be. You can see this very clearly at work in racism, for example.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Bryant also denied claims by opponents that the bill would allow restaurants or governments to deny normal services to gay or lesbian people unless it was in the performing of a wedding ceremony. He cited a restaurant as an example, saying that a restaurant would not be allowed to deny serving a gay patron but could deny allowing a wedding to take place in the restaurant.

However, the bill says people can deny services or goods for the "celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction," which would include pre-ceremony celebrations, post-wedding celebrations, anniversary celebrations and other related celebrations, opponents argue.

From the article.

I just checked with my 16 year old. I asked her if we were trying to arrange a wedding ceremony for her wedding at a hotel, which refused our booking because the owner had a deeply held moral conviction against celebrating women covering their heads or against verses in the Quran that would be recited or against segregation based on gender during the recitation or prayers, whether my daughter thought the owner should be entitled to refuse us service on those grounds, and she said yes.

I then told her about the bill in the US about gay marriages and she said same principle - deeply held moral convictions trump disappointment and hurt caused by rejection of service. Since there is no objective view on what trumps what, I don't think you can assume all young people think that celebrating gay weddings or any weddings take precedence over the rights of business owners to turn away business because it goes against their moral convictions. She didn't care if the issue was related to gays, mixed race or any other variation in terms of weddings - she just thought freedom of the business owner in scenarios related to weddings were more important.

No doubt there will be some slippery slope fallacies in response - which I will disagree with as being remotely relevant to my view on this. I agree with my daughter's views.

[Sebastian Toe]

I just checked with my 16 year old. I asked her if we were trying to arrange a wedding ceremony for her wedding at a hotel, which refused our booking because the owner had a deeply held moral conviction against celebrating women covering their heads or against verses in the Quran that would be recited or against segregation based on gender during the recitation or prayers, whether my daughter thought the owner should be entitled to refuse us service on those grounds, and she said yes.

Of course no one would know if the owner just had a 'thing' against Muslims (or any particular race or religion or creed) but dressed up the objection using any of the 'legit' reasons above?
Not that you would want to give them your business anyway!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think a 'thing' against anyone is usually, though not always, based on some reasoning and some emotion - the emotional response of moral convictions is a response to certain facts. So despite the women at a Muslim wedding consenting to covering their heads or wanting segregation, it might just feel wrong and against moral principles that are very important to the business owner. I think the 'thing' they have against Muslims would be based on thinking and perceptions, which people are not always able to articulate.

This bill seems to me to be about how much freedom to allow the business owner - given that a job takes up a large part of your day and thought process and in the case of a business owner, takes up a large part of your life and can be like your child and often takes precedence over your actual children, I can understand giving business owners some freedom.

I think market forces may lead to many business owners being practical and setting aside their deeply held moral convictions in the interests of profit. And not just in this scenario.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know how old your kids are, but their attitudes are driven largely by social media. Where they live is secondary to what YouTube channels they enjoy watching.

I grew up on the edge of East London. All pie and mash and COYI.

At the moment you are located in the longest river in Africa.

[ippy]

I think you will find that there are more than you like to claim.  I accept that the majority of the under-30s have come to the same conclusion as you, but many older than that haven't.

Hope, your views about gay people are vile.

ippy

[Brownie]

Now why would you hope that, Ippy?

[ippy]

Now why would you hope that, Ippy?

You're right Brownie, I missed a comma, I've put it in now.

ippy

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The problem with this comment, john, is that there many non-Christians, even non-religious people who hold understandings and beliefs that this bill covers.

I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?

I just can't understand it at all.

[jeremyp]

I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?

I just can't understand it at all.

Because God said so.

Actually it is because they are small minded fuckwits who are scared of people who are a bit different.

[Shaker]

I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?

I just can't understand it at all.

Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind. I think it was trentvoyager (apologies if wrong) who said recently however that religion if it permeates society for long enough can allow its own homophobia to filter into wider society and thus rub off even on the non-religious. Sounds about right to me.

Fortunately for the good of right-thinking people everywhere, this sort of influence wanes and finally fades away as the generations thus influenced die out. 

[Hope]

But they're dying out. No bad thing either or we'd never see progress in the world.

Cohort replacement in action, as the sociologists call it.

Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing.  For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.