In order, short summary responses to various posts on this Facebook link (below):
(1)
Queer folk arguably have no more "inferiority complexes" than any other
group of people. The only thing that unites queer folk is the obvious
hatred and (probable) discrimination that is shown to
them by some heterosexual men who are (probably) queer themselves, at
least to the degree that they hate in others what they (secretly) hate
in themselves. There would be no other reason for the hostility, would
there?
(2)
Queer folk "wear" their sexual preference quite a bit less that
heterosexual people do. How often, really, do you see men kissing each
other in public? Or holding hands? Or showing other signs of affection
toward each other, expressions that happen quite "regularly" and
"normally" among heterosexuals, say in casual restaurants, places of
entry and exit, on public streets?
They
"wear" it less because they understand their mutual affection tends to
arouse hostility in a homophobic culture such as ours. Still, some
queer folk are especially courageous and are willing to brave the social
hostility. Good for them! I admire them and I look forward to a time
when mutual love among same sex people does not arouse phobic fears.
(3)
People (not "faggots") should be (IMO) much more important than any
doctrine. Government should represent the people, not a religion. It
should be about protecting individual rights. Why else have a
government?
(4)
The point about public infrastructure is not silly to those who are
forced to pay for it, or for those who use it, which was the point.
Simply put, if a citizen pays taxes to provide a road, how is it that a
business having access to this public good can possibly think it has the
right to deprive that citizen-taxpayer access? Are you completely
unaware that this issue was settled in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the
public accommodations section? True, that Act does not explicitly
mention "sexual orientation", but surely you grasp the spirit of the
Act, which was to recognize that the general public should have legally
protected access to "public" goods and services? The business may not
be "public" in the sense of "public ownership", but its economic
viability depends on the public willingness to permit access to that
business of the public's property, i.e. the taxpayer-provided
infrastructure. That is the issue.
(5)
Freedom and liberty includes the freedom and liberty of citizens to
marry whom they wish, as marriage is a legally binding contract. It is
not a religious deal at all, as it is a civil procedure. It can be a
religious procedure as well, but religion is not needed here. In that
sense, of course, "it" is about homosexuals, since they are the class of
people whose rights are being infringed. How hard can this be to
grasp?
(6)
Queer folk would be delighted if heterosexual homophobes would quit
murdering them or otherwise infringing upon their individual rights.
You will never find a group of people so committed to the idea that
people, including both heterosexuals and homosexuals, should be treated
with dignity and decency.
(7)
Private businesses absolutely DO NOT have the right to refuse service
to the general public, for you cannot accept taxpayer-funded benefits,
that the general public provides to you, and then decide you wish to
discriminate against that same general public, or classes of that public
based on your private preferences. The very idea is absurd. The very
purpose of business involves making transactions with the general
public.
(8)
Even if there were no law against invidious discrimination in public
accommodations, clearly to discriminate on the basis of arbitrary
criteria is irrational and, therefore, immoral. We need, each of us, to
put ourselves in the shoes of the person against whom we would
discriminate, and ask, "How would I feel in that person's position? How
would I like it if I could find no gas station, no hotel, no help, when
traveling? How does it feel to be treated as Afro-Americans were
treated under Jim Crow?"
If
you have even an ounce of compassion, or empathy for another human
being, then how could you even think invidious discrimination is a good
thing? The ONLY way you could think such a thing would be if you
regarded the people in question as second-class citizens, as sub-human.
And it is clear that some do regard queer folk as such, even on this
thread. But it really is no different than what the white southern
racists used to do prior to 1964.
(9)
Finally, I am not a liberal, except in the classical sense of favoring
government limited to the protection of individual rights. I oppose big
government and all its works. People might call me a libertarian. I
am a radical for capitalism. I support laissez-faire capitalism. And,
most importantly, I strongly support property rights, including the
right of taxpayers to determine use and disposal of their own property,
including, of course, public infrastructure.
I
don't support the public funding of infrastructure myself, but that is
the system we have chosen, ever since the start of the republic, so we
really have no choice here but to protect the taxpayer and require that
no user of the public benefit be permitted to discriminate against any
member of the public, just in case the citizen in question is about a
legitimate business purpose.
PsychMstr
https://www.facebook.com/PatriotPost/photos/a.82108390913.80726.51560645913/10152103684280914/?type=1&comment_id=10703438¬if_t=like
No comments:
Post a Comment