Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[Rau]

…Semantics aside, do you believe that prejudice, hatred, and discrimination are real experiences for gay people, or are you actually suggesting it doesn’t exist?

Sure, these things are real. But so is the habit today of labelling as biggoted or homophobic any person who does not believe SSM is a “human right”, or any person who believes that sex outside marriage is wrong.

 

[Corki]

Are you under the impression that people think “homophobes” are people who truly “cower in fear” at the presence of gay people? You don’t like the word…fine. I’m not even suggesting you don’t have a point, but are you really denying that prejudice and hatred toward gay people doesn’t exist? You seem to be using semantics to avoid actually addressing the OP’s point. Semantics aside, do you believe that prejudice, hatred, and discrimination are real experiences for gay people, or are you actually suggesting it doesn’t exist?

By definition, a phobia is an unreasonable fear that has a psychological pathology. It may not be “cowering in fear” but it could manifest in some other way that makes it impossible for the person suffering from the phobia to function without severe psychological stress.

A phobia is not exhibiting prejudice or hatred. But semantics aside, the idea that anyone who cannot accept homosexual behaviors as “normal” is doing so out of hatred or prejudice is just posturing and, as mentioned before, usually put forward as a way to shut down the conversation and to reject the other person’s right to an opposing point of view.

do you believe that prejudice, hatred, and discrimination are real experiences for gay people, or are you actually suggesting it doesn’t exist?

Well, prejudice is not the same as hatred and neither are the same as a phobia. Yes, discrimination for those who present themselves openly as embracing an alternate sexuality exists. Sometimes, but not always, it is unjust discrimination. Sometimes, it is quite just. Hatred is a real experience for such people in some cases. But, as a group, at least public, they are more likely to either perceive or characterize any disagreement or lack of acceptance as “hatred” or “prejudice” when it is more likely simply a rejection of the idea that their choices are “normal”.

There is a lot of discrimination in this world. Catholics are discriminated against, other Christians are discriminated against, men are discriminated against, women are discriminated against, criminals are discriminated against and yes, people who embrace sexual deviance are discriminated against. It’s part of life in a heterogeneous society. Discrimination is simply to choose based on some characteristic.

Discrimination, especial that which is not unjust, is not a phobia.

 

[john_ennis]

Sure, these things are real. But so is the habit today of labelling as biggoted or homophobic any person who does not believe SSM is a “human right”, or any person who believes that sex outside marriage is wrong.

That is a crucial observation. It is true that stereotyping of anyone who views homosexual activity as wrong, is widespread. Shouldn’t there be a loud call to stop that? In the press and in schools, there is much harsher treatment of “anti-gay” non-bigots, than homosexuals.

 

[estesbob]

You wouldn’t want to know or you wouldn’t care?

I wouldn’t care

 

[estesbob]

Are you under the impression that people think “homophobes” are people who truly “cower in fear” at the presence of gay people? You don’t like the word…fine. I’m not even suggesting you don’t have a point, but are you really denying that prejudice and hatred toward gay people doesn’t exist? You seem to be using semantics to avoid actually addressing the OP’s point. Semantics aside, do you believe that prejudice, hatred, and discrimination are real experiences for gay people, or are you actually suggesting it doesn’t exist?

Homophobe, like bigot or racist, is a term whose sole purpose is to shut the discussion down .

Whether an individual homosexual is discriminated against is totally irrelevant as to whether homosexual behavior is a sin.

 

[edwest2]

Homophobe, like bigot or racist, is a term whose sole purpose is to shut the discussion down .

Whether an individual homosexual is discriminated against is totally irrelevant as to whether homosexual behavior is a sin.

That is right. It is a fake term designed to stop discussion. Period.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

By definition, a phobia is an unreasonable fear that has a psychological pathology. It may not be “cowering in fear” but it could manifest in some other way that makes it impossible for the person suffering from the phobia to function without severe psychological stress.

A phobia is not exhibiting prejudice or hatred. But semantics aside, the idea that anyone who cannot accept homosexual behaviors as “normal” is doing so out of hatred or prejudice is just posturing and, as mentioned before, usually put forward as a way to shut down the conversation and to reject the other person’s right to an opposing point of view.

Well, prejudice is not the same as hatred and neither are the same as a phobia. Yes, discrimination for those who present themselves openly as embracing an alternate sexuality exists. Sometimes, but not always, it is unjust discrimination. Sometimes, it is quite just. Hatred is a real experience for such people in some cases. But, as a group, at least public, they are more likely to either perceive or characterize any disagreement or lack of acceptance as “hatred” or “prejudice” when it is more likely simply a rejection of the idea that their choices are “normal”.

There is a lot of discrimination in this world. Catholics are discriminated against, other Christians are discriminated against, men are discriminated against, women are discriminated against, criminals are discriminated against and yes, people who embrace sexual deviance are discriminated against. It’s part of life in a heterogeneous society. Discrimination is simply to choose based on some characteristic.

Discrimination, especial that which is not unjust, is not a phobia.

Thank you for that reply. Go to any LGBT web site and the “emotion words” are everywhere. Hate, attack, bigot - are applied to people and institutions, including governments.

Example: A photo of a man with a sign that reads “No hate in my state.” Or, after same-sex marriage was voted down in one state, a letter appeared in a newspaper, calling it: “The great hate state.”

These emotion words are not the point. They are designed to create an atmosphere. To create confrontation. If a person or state does not believe homosexual behavior should be normalized, that is the issue.

Ed

 

[SavannahGal]

By definition, a phobia is an unreasonable fear that has a psychological pathology. It may not be “cowering in fear” but it could manifest in some other way that makes it impossible for the person suffering from the phobia to function without severe psychological stress.

A phobia is not exhibiting prejudice or hatred. But semantics aside, the idea that anyone who cannot accept homosexual behaviors as “normal” is doing so out of hatred or prejudice is just posturing and, as mentioned before, usually put forward as a way to shut down the conversation and to reject the other person’s right to an opposing point of view.

I have previously conceded that “homophobia” is probably not the best word to encompass the attitudes and behavior we’re talking about. You can take issue with its etymology or its linguistic precision. I have no issue with you on this point. To me, it seems an “ism” suffix is much more in order, just as we use the terms racism, sexism, ageism, etc… I have heard the term heterosexism used, but it certainly hasn’t caught on. My only point is that dismissing the word “homophobia” because of its shortcomings, should not be used as an excuse to avoid the OP’s point.

Well, prejudice is not the same as hatred and neither are the same as a phobia. Yes, discrimination for those who present themselves openly as embracing an alternate sexuality exists. Sometimes, but not always, it is unjust discrimination. Sometimes, it is quite just. Hatred is a real experience for such people in some cases. But, as a group, at least public, they are more likely to either perceive or characterize any disagreement or lack of acceptance as “hatred” or “prejudice” when it is more likely simply a rejection of the idea that their choices are “normal”.

There is a lot of discrimination in this world. Catholics are discriminated against, other Christians are discriminated against, men are discriminated against, women are discriminated against, criminals are discriminated against and yes, people who embrace sexual deviance are discriminated against. It’s part of life in a heterogeneous society. Discrimination is simply to choose based on some characteristic.

Discrimination, especial that which is not unjust, is not a phobia.

This is also a distraction from the topic at hand and an attempt to minimize the discrimination faced by LGBT people, it seems another attempt to avoid to the issue.

Let’s be very clear. Catholics, other Christians, men and women, all have protections under federal law prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. While they may exist on the local or state level, gay people have no such protections on the federal level and therefore are not afforded any protections in some jurisdictions. You are only attempting to minimize the issue and distracting from the problem instead of providing a response more focused on the OP’s original point.

 

[Rau]

…While they may exist on the local or state level, gay people have no such protections on the federal level and therefore are not afforded any protections in some jurisdictions.

Which absent protections /discriminations cause you concern?

 

[SavannahGal]

Which absent protections /discriminations cause you concern?

Protections from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

 

[Rau]

Protections from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

I suggest that protections are fairly widespread for these issues. Material breaches in the first two are relatively infrequent, and you’re unlikely to find any here disagree with you that - in almost all cases - such discrimination is unjust. And the last item sounds like a euphemism for such things as forcing videographers to accept commissions they’d rather not (and similar…). And based on press reports, I’d suggest that those suffering the most on this point is not the customer!

The OP and I probably feel and act no differently toward “gay people”. But we clearly have different ideas about certain behaviours and the question of the redefinition of marriage and the State endorsement of same sex sexual unions.

 

[SavannahGal]

I suggest that protections are fairly widespread for these issues. Material breaches in the first two are relatively infrequent, and you’re unlikely to find any here disagree with you that - in almost all cases - such discrimination is unjust. And the last item sounds like a euphemism for such things as forcing videographers to accept commissions they’d rather not (and similar…). And based on press reports, I’d suggest that those suffering the most on this point is not the customer!

The OP and I probably feel and act no differently toward “gay people”. But we clearly have different ideas about certain behaviours and the question of the redefinition of marriage and the State endorsement of same sex sexual unions.

Actually they’re not widespread. In many areas of the U.S., especially in the South, gay people have no such protections afforded to them. You suggest that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing are “relatively infrequent,” but how can you possibly make such a claim when this type of discrimination is perfectly legal in 32 states? Again, unless there are ordinances in place by city or municipal governments, there are no protections, and this is the case in much of the South.

As far as public accommodations, the number of lawsuits filed against wedding providers represents a very small percentage in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of same sex marriages that have taken place in the recent past. And you’ll notice that none of those cases are from the South or from other areas where gay people are not protected from discrimination in public accommodations. The fact is that in much of America not only can a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple, they can refuse to serve them at all. And that goes for any business. Unless prohibited by law, it’s perfectly legal.

Living with this discrimination is just a fact of life for many gay people because they have absolutely no legal basis for filing a suit against an employer, a landlord or a wedding vendor. Unless you give credence to the surveys and anecdotal evidence from gay people who disclose their experiences of discrimination, you’re not likely to ever hear about or consider it a problem.

 

[edwest2]

Wedding vendor? I don’t understand that term.

wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296

msn.com/en-us/news/us/85k-raised-for-washington-florist-who-refused-gay-couple/ar-AAat0zp

Ed

 

[estesbob]

Actually they’re not widespread. In many areas of the U.S., especially in the South, gay people have no such protections afforded to them. You suggest that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing are “relatively infrequent,” but how can you possibly make such a claim when this type of discrimination is perfectly legal in 32 states? Again, unless there are ordinances in place by city or municipal governments, there are no protections, and this is the case in much of the South.

As far as public accommodations, the number of lawsuits filed against wedding providers represents a very small percentage in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of same sex marriages that have taken place in the recent past. And you’ll notice that none of those cases are from the South or from other areas where gay people are not protected from discrimination in public accommodations. The fact is that in much of America not only can a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple, they can refuse to serve them at all. And that goes for any business. Unless prohibited by law, it’s perfectly legal.

Living with this discrimination is just a fact of life for many gay people because they have absolutely no legal basis for filing a suit against an employer, a landlord or a wedding vendor. Unless you give credence to the surveys and anecdotal evidence from gay people who disclose their experiences of discrimination, you’re not likely to ever hear about or consider it a problem.

So called sexual orientation is not accorded “protected” status in 32 states. That does translate into widespread discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Who would know who is a homosexual?

Homosexual is as homosexual does and there have been laws on sex for some years.

As for the word “gay” it changes meaning within the same sentence.

Why do people get accused of causing a problem when they haven’t been?

Laws have to be framed on a firm basis.

I am not referring to some of the stranger forms of what some in the US seem to group with “religious freedom”.

I think contractors should be made free to turn down a job without stating a reason if it involves communicating something.

 

[Rau]

So called sexual orientation is not accorded “protected” status in 32 states. That does translate into widespread discrimination against homosexuals.

The US never ceases to amaze - I was unaware of the inconsistency of the law across the US. In 32 States a restaurant can declare “sorry we don’t serve gay people here” and the law is fine with that, and in another, a videographer can be sued under the law for turning down an assignment to make a video memento of a SSM, even though declining the commission is not because of the sexual orientation of the customer, but because of the nature of the event!

 

[Rau]

…I think contractors should be made free to turn down a job without stating a reason if it involves communicating something.

Contractors can turn down jobs for almost any manner of reason - it’s too hot, too cold, too far, too small, too big, but NOT for certain reasons which the State holds to be unjust or to be an affront. The latter set of reasons include characteristics of the customer such as sex, race, sexual orientation, etc.

The State has so “normalized” the idea of SSM that to decline a commission to make a video memento of a SSM is taken to be indistinguishable from declining a commission from a gay person because they are gay. I think that goes too far also.

 

[estesbob]

The US never ceases to amaze - I was unaware of the inconsistency of the law across the US. In 32 States a restaurant can declare “sorry we don’t serve gay people here” and the law is fine with that, and in another, a videographer can be sued under the law for turning down an assignment to make a video memento of a SSM, even though declining the commission is not because of the sexual orientation of the customer, but because of the nature of the event!

Its worse than that-a Restaurant can refuse to serve me it they don’t like the sports team depicted on my T-Shirt!!! In fact they can refuse to serve anyone as long as it is not based race, age, gender, disability or country of national origin.

 

[edwest2]

Marketers know who is LGBT:

“In this report, we will:
•
Report on the growing trend of consumers identifying as LGBT
•
Track the rise in married gay and lesbian Americans
•
Explore household arrangements and cohabitation
•
Examine the earnings of lesbian, gay and heterosexual Americans
•
Portion out the amount of money spent on discretionary goods and services
•
Look at sub-segments within the gay and lesbian communities when it comes to
automotive and food lifestyles
•
Highlight the importance of mobile in reaching this consumer segment
•
Identify the top LGBT content websites and what visitors are looking
•
Examine where visitors to LGBT content sites come from and where they go after”

Yes, aside from the intelligence community, you are being watched by marketing firms on all devices.

Ed

 

[SavannahGal]

The US never ceases to amaze - I was unaware of the inconsistency of the law across the US. In 32 States a restaurant can declare “sorry we don’t serve gay people here” and the law is fine with that, and in another, a videographer can be sued under the law for turning down an assignment to make a video memento of a SSM, even though declining the commission is not because of the sexual orientation of the customer, but because of the nature of the event!

Federalism does have its pros and cons. One can hardly find fault with your unawareness, when I would venture to guess that many US citizens are unaware of these variances in state law.

I would point out, however, that you are attempting to making a distinction in the law that has not before been recognized. Even though the “nature of the event” is your stated objection, the end result is that gay couples are always turned away when straight couples are not. Under the law, that is clearly a discriminatory practice (in jurisdictions where currently prohibited). In the same vein, you may serve both black and white customers alike, but if you refuse to provide services for the interracial marriage of a black/white couple, you are practicing a recognized and prohibited form of racial discrimination. That is why the focus has shifted to exemptions in the form of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (“RFRAs”). While these RFRA’s are often tailor made to specifically address objections to gay marriage, I would caution that they will have consequences far more reaching than intended.