Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 88297

The City of Springfield Missouri has announced it’s intention to "consider"an ordinance to give homosexuals extraordinary new powers to silence and punish Christian landlords and businesses through civil rights lawsuits. Framed as an “anti-discrimination” measure it is in reality a “Gay Fascism” Bill that will make disapproval of homosexuality illegal in the City of Springfield and grant gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders (GLBTs) legal standing to sue their opponents, primarily Christians. Starting in the 1980s in cities like San Francisco, homosexuals have forced many U.S. cities and numerous states to adopt similar “Gay Fascism” laws with disastrous effects on Christian landlords and businesses. Empowered by recent successes, they are now pushing into conservative cities.

Scott Lively, Joe. My. God. 60 Comments [7/23/2012 2:59:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 64
Submitted By: Aspergus
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3


Discrimination isn't a right, ya d-bag.

7/23/2012 8:18:08 AM

\m/>_<\m/

fascism. you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means...

7/23/2012 8:22:35 AM

Firewing

Considering Christianity's many, heinous, centuries-long crimes against humanity (not just LGBT's) that its followers have attempted to cover up, that the LGBT community can now fight back should be the least of Lively's worries.

7/23/2012 9:51:06 AM

fishtank

GOOD.

7/23/2012 10:07:29 AM

Axel

A problem I have is that, while this guy is a bigoted fuckhead, his argument is a serious and important one. Do we have the right to deny people service based on our opinions? If, after all, it is our property and work that goes into providing the service, don't we have a right to deny it on the grounds of what we feel is immoral?

If you owned, say, a restaurant, and a group of Neo-Nazis or Klansmen wanted to use it to host a social function, you'd naturally want to tell them to fuck right the hell off and you'd feel in the right for doing so, but you're discriminating against them for their beliefs. Is it any different from, say, denying a Jew from being in a restaurant because you don't like their beliefs? Or a Muslim? Or a Christian?

It's a very important question: Do we have the right, when we open a business without any public funds, to pick and choose to whom we provide service?

7/23/2012 10:17:48 AM

J. James

The City of Springfield Missouri has announced it’s intention to "consider"an ordinance to give [Negroes] extraordinary new powers to silence and punish [white] landlords and businesses through civil rights lawsuits. Framed as an “anti-discrimination” measure it is in reality a “[Black Power]” Bill that will make disapproval of [integration] illegal in the City of Springfield and grant [negroes], [spics], [chinks] and [micronesians] legal standing to sue their opponents, primarily [upstanding white folk]. Starting in the 1980s in cities like San Francisco, [Negroes] have forced many U.S. cities and numerous states to adopt similar “[Black Power]” laws with disastrous effects on [white] landlords and businesses. Empowered by recent successes, they are now pushing into conservative cities.

See how you sound to reasonable people? The similarities are fucking uncanny.

7/23/2012 10:38:03 AM

Filin De Blanc

"If you owned, say, a restaurant, and a group of Neo-Nazis or Klansmen wanted to use it to host a social function, you'd naturally want to tell them to fuck right the hell off and you'd feel in the right for doing so, but you're discriminating against them for their beliefs. Is it any different from, say, denying a Jew from being in a restaurant because you don't like their beliefs? Or a Muslim? Or a Christian?"

There's a big difference between "you cannot host your social function here" and "you cannot eat here at all". Chances are there are already people eating at the restaurant who hold repugnant beliefs, but if they're allowed to start mouthing off about these beliefs to the extent that it disrupts the other customers, then that's an acceptable reason to kick them out.

7/23/2012 10:39:44 AM

John

Framed as an “anti-discrimination” measure it is in reality a “Gay Fascism” Bill that will make disapproval of homosexuality illegal in the City of Springfield

The bill doesn't make disapproval of homosexuality illegal. Fred Phelps can still walk around with "God Hates Fags" signs all he wants. Disapproval of homosexuality is protected by the First Amendment. Refusing to rent housing to a whole class of people or serve them in stores because you disapprove of them is not. That's why we don't have Jim Crow laws anymore.

You're basically saying that a bill that forbids discrimination against gays isn't really an anti-discrimination bill. Are you inventing your own version of English?

7/23/2012 10:57:51 AM

Jesus Klingon

What's this? You want gay people to have the same access to housing, employment, and business accommodations as everyone else? That's Fascism!

7/23/2012 11:25:00 AM

shykid

@ Axel:

I left the IRC because I had lost my patience with you and your obtuseness, and I was about to get nasty, so I decided to take the high ground and leave even if it implied defeat, but now that I have cooled off a bit, I will try to explain this to you as clearly as I can:

I have the right to be treated the same as others and to receive the services as others if they are offering them to the public. Nobody should be forced to do business with me, but if they are offering their services to the public, they are should not allowed to pick and choose whom they wish to serve based on arbitrary criteria, which means as long as they are doing business, they are obligated to do so with everyone who is willing to pay. Being allowed to pick and choose whom you serve based on irrelevant things about them enables the systematic oppression of a group of people. We already established that, and I honestly figured that would be enough for you to piece the rest together on your own, but apparently not.

That is not an appeal to consequences, because of the simple fact that it is ethically wrong for others to be oppressed or marginalized, which you have pointed out. (This notion is based upon the "golden rule" that underlies every ethical or moral framework, i.e. treat others as you wish to be treated, without which right and wrong would not even exist.) If it is wrong for something to occur, then it is wrong for others to knowingly act in a manner which enables it. For example, if murdering people is wrong, then others aiding, abetting, or turning a blind eye to it is wrong. Similarly, if oppressing or marginalizing a group of people is wrong, then it is also wrong to knowingly do things which allow that to occur—like refusing to do business with them even if they have the same money as everyone else. If everyone acted in that manner toward LGBT people (or any particular group of people), then they would die of starvation or exposure to the elements unless they took to a life of crime to sustain themselves, since they would have no way of lawfully obtaining food, housing, or even employment to afford those things.

It is an appeal to consequences to point out the fact that means people cannot pick and choose whom they employ or with whom they do business simply because they don't personally like something about them, and it is a pretty blatant appeal to consequences at that. Your personal freedom stops where the rights of others begins, and others have a right to be treated fairly and equally just as they have a right to life (although I already pointed out how such discriminatory behavior could theoretically interfere with their right to life, at least indirectly). Furthermore, nobody is forced to do business with minorities in the first place, because they are not forced to do business at all. If it bothers someone that much, then they can simply close shop. That is acceptable because it is not an act of discrimination: even if they closed shop because they didn't like serving minorities, then they are not doing business with anyone, thereby acting in a nondiscriminatory manner. One can't "discriminate" against everyone, because that is, by definition, not discriminating.

7/23/2012 12:00:08 PM



So it's fascism for a certain group to not be discriminated against?

7/23/2012 12:08:19 PM



Oh noes ! first we haz nigs and kikes and now we haz the homos !

* this is sarcasm *


7/23/2012 12:17:39 PM

The Anonymous

Good. The struggle for equal rights continues on, regardless of bigoted assholes like you writing this stuff.

7/23/2012 12:30:16 PM

Oh My Dog!

Gay fascism you say?

I can't wait to see the uniforms!

I think my Fabulous Sense is tingling.

7/23/2012 12:39:50 PM

Old Viking

Civil standing? We're doomed, I tell you! Doomed!

7/23/2012 1:09:12 PM

D Laurier

citation needed.

7/23/2012 1:45:00 PM

Witchfinder General

Aww, poor baby. The mean old gays are taking away your rights! That must be so hard after decades of GETTING EVERYTHING YOU WANT. Whats next, are they going to discriminate against gun owners? Oh that's right, you have a law protecting them. You upset about that Scott? It prevents good, non-violent Christians from practicing their belief after all!

7/23/2012 3:07:14 PM

Alencon

I will NEVER understand the concept of "you're discriminating against me by not letting me discriminate."

Feel free to disapprove, but you can't refuse what you offer to everyone else. The 14th Amendment frowns upon that.

7/23/2012 5:58:06 PM

Sergeant343

I think more than just fundie christies like yourself would be effected. As a minarchist I may not support the act, but it is far from fascism and you probably view the anti-discrimination laws for race "Colored Fascism."

7/23/2012 6:17:49 PM

checkmate

Reflecting on this, it would seem the Christians don't like gays because they think gays are sinners.

Now, if I owned a store and put up a sign saying "Sinners not Welcome", I'd go out of business immediately. In fact, if a church were to put up that same sign, that church would have to remain empty.

Wasn't it Jesus who said "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

So, if the gays' offense is that they're sinners, then they're just like everybody else.

I know a few pious Baptists who sin left and right, non-stop.

If those Springfield, Missouri landlords are looking for saints as tenants, they might as well sell off their property.

7/23/2012 7:41:09 PM

Wehpudicabok

I really wish more intelligent Christians would speak up for gays.

Well, no. Let me rephrase that. Plenty of Christians are already doing the right thing. I just wish they would make it clear that they are still Christians while they support gays. I am sick to death of people like Scott Lively claiming that the sides of this war are Christians and gays. They aren't. They are rationalists and fundamentalists. Any rational person would see that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and no reason for the government to restrict the rights of sexual minorities. People need to understand that they don't have to choose between their religion and the well-being of others. They just have to not be complete assholes.

7/23/2012 9:51:05 PM

Sploosh

Edit: Tag Fail, My Own

7/23/2012 10:40:29 PM

kuribo

as long as they're granting extraordinary new powwers, can they give me the power of time travel?

7/24/2012 6:17:46 AM

Misterboston

So it's fascism to allow people to sue against people who are discriminating against them? So basically someone's trying to take away your rights to be bigots? Poor you.

7/24/2012 8:01:56 AM

Ebon

One big [citation needed]

7/24/2012 8:34:01 AM
1 2 3