The Lounge Guidelines Help Search Members Calendar Blogs

Welcome Guest [ Log In | Register ] ]

> What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
kissmypineapple
post Apr 26 2006, 08:21 AM
Post #1


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 137
From: Indianapolis


I'm kinda with kjhink on this one. The second you start telling people that not all speech is protected, simply because it offends you (and don't get me wrong, it offends me too) is the second that no speech is protected. It's a slippery slope, and as much as I don't want to hear anybody gay-bashing, psycho fundies probably don't want to hear me yelling that abortion should be 100% legal and on demand. That offends them. We hear bigotry, they hear murder.

Secondly, does anybody know if the Boy Scouts retained their 501(c)(3) status? I know that Bob Jones University lost theirs because they would not admit unmarried black people, and they basically made it so that interracial relationships were grounds for expulsion. So, they can do that, they just can't be tax-exempt and do it...so it seems like a similar situation with the Boy Scouts. (Of course, the crappy thing is, none of us could initiate litigation to have them stripped of their tax-exemption, b/c with non-profits, you have to be a board member, member, or the attorney general to have standing...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smurfin
post Apr 26 2006, 04:45 AM
Post #2


BUSTie
**
Posts: 73
From: The old world - Europe, that is.


Crappitycrap, double post


(and all my own fault, as well!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smurfin
post Apr 26 2006, 04:45 AM
Post #3


BUSTie
**
Posts: 73
From: The old world - Europe, that is.


Tyger, I think I love you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
venetia
post Apr 25 2006, 07:04 PM
Post #4


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 456
From: Aotearoa (aka New Zealand)


Surely the people who work in a tertiary/"higher ed" institution have the right to be protected from hostile workplace.

I mean, when you attend a university you are agreeing to abide by its rules and it is agreeing to provide you with a specific type of education. If students can reserve the right to run around hate-speeching people without consequences within an institution, what's next - reserving the right to turn in crappy, badly spelled, unresearched papers and still get an A?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
minx
post Apr 25 2006, 07:00 PM
Post #5


Fuck me gently with a chainsaw.
***
Posts: 1,178
From: The dregs at the bottom of your coffee cup


Whatever happened to the addage "Love the sinner, hate the sin"? If these people are truely Christian, they really wouldn't be in the business of "hating" anyone. Bring back the new covenant.

This is one of the main reasons why I loathe religion (and that is excluding me being a staunch, unapologetic atheist). It is the incredible amount of hypocrisy which I find alarming and vomit-inducing. I rather think that most of the extremists are not so much "Christian" as "Sociopaths" who got lost and perseverated upon a dogma which suits their not-so-latent phobias and abject fear of death.

Who in the fuck are these people fooling? Get back into your bubble, or go find your own damned country where you can have your fucking THEOCRACY. Until, keep your GODDAMNED religion out of my GOVERNMENT.

*BTW, did anyone else notice that these chicks go to a PUBLIC university? Go fagbashing at one of your private schools. I think it is incredibly embarrassing that a prestigious polytech university like this would tolerate this sort of sophomoric behavior. State-funded education ought not be plagued by phantoms, the living dead, or crazy Bushheads*

Freedom to practice religion my achin' white ass. If you want to be like that, start paying your fucking taxes like every other establishment in America (well, unless you happen to be a Big Business who is a friend of the Bush-bots).

And yeah, I know this is vitriol on my part, but I don't walk into their churches demanding that they give up their false idols. Unless they are inviting that sort of attention from the Pink Mafia, they ought to pray silently and hope for the rapture to take them a bit sooner than planned.


--------------------
It is too late now
Because

You have not been
paying attention
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
treehugger
post Apr 25 2006, 06:02 PM
Post #6


cryostat bitch
***
Posts: 1,717


Well, I'm coming into this discussion late but I thought the issue was religious freedom? Not so much freedom of speech? At least, that's what THEY are bringing up. So, God hates gays. Kewl. Keep it to yourself, eh?

Just because "god hates gays" doesnt mean you have to be hateful. Just my two cents.

I don't understand how tolerance is undermining religious freedom at all. I mean, what's killing your religion, that you need to be courteous and not hateful?

I just don't get it. I live in a very gay-friendly city and yet we still get some of the fringe religious groups that come in and protest various things...put billboards up and so forth.

I just HATE intolerance and bigotry.


--------------------
To block Steve's latest incarnation, Click Here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyger
post Apr 25 2006, 05:16 PM
Post #7


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 948


yeah, but greenbean (at least here in canada) women and men have always been allowed to be boy scout leaders (even before girls were allowed to join as members, which they now are), but men aren't allowed to camp overnight/be leaders for girl guides (canadian equivalent of girl scouts)

quote from someone who thinks it might have originated from michael ignatieff, paraphrased. your right to free speech is like your right to swing a fist; it ends when it hits someone else
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greenbean
post Apr 25 2006, 01:52 PM
Post #8


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 954


One of the things that needs to be addressed more is the difference between homosexuals and pediphiles. A lot of ignorant Americans can't distinguish between the two. The boys scouts have had instances of child molestation, and unfortunantly, they think banning gays will solve that problem. They don't get that a pedophile is a sick orientation in and of it self, and that being gay doesn't atomatically make you one, just as being a straight married man doesn't mean you arent capable of being one.
another note, the girls scouts do not have a ban against lesbians...


--------------------
I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty.--John Waters
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vesicapisces
post Apr 25 2006, 11:42 AM
Post #9


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 473
From: The space between my ears


You also have to remember - freedom of speech, etc. as laid out in the Constitution are only guarantees that the *government* and public institutions cannot abridge those rights. Individuals and their behavior, and private organizations, aren't restricted by them. Which is why the Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, is allowed to discriminate in who they allow to be members/leaders.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kjhink
post Apr 25 2006, 11:31 AM
Post #10


BUSTie
**
Posts: 59
From: St. Louis, MO


tyger, I'm fully willing to agree with you on most of your points. Being gay is not a choice. Of course it's not, but even if it *were* I would support gay rights because who am I to tell consenting individuals whom they should love. I also fully agree that bigotry of every stripe deserves confrontation.

And of course you and your friend and your uncle should be protected from physical assault and harrassment. No matter what.

The thing is, though, is that I think that people have a fundamental right to be bigots. I think it's disgusting. It should be discouraged, denigrated, ridiculed, routed, DRIVEN from our culture. Until it is, though, I still believe they have a right to say what they think.

And in your example, I do support the KKK's right to say what they want as long as it isn't a call to mow down a synagogue or a group of black kids on the playground. They have sued, and they've won.

This all gets much more gray in the workplace, as it should. You don't have a right to behave any way you want at work, my business casual attire is testimony to that. And I don't believe speech should be unencumbered in quite the same way in elementary and secondary schools. Children, frankly, can't and shouldn't be expected to have that level of responsibility.

Colleges and universities are different, to my mind. Everyone is an adult, and people need to 1. exchange ideas (no matter how fucking stupid)and 2. learn how to get along in as adults. Consequently, I think that even ugly speech should be protected.

There is a line between offense and harassment, and I feel that unitl it is crossed, people have a right to be an asshole.

And everyone else has a responsibility to tell them loudly and repeatedly to drop dead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyger
post Apr 25 2006, 11:07 AM
Post #11


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 948


i think that being homophobic should never, ever be protected under law. why should it be treated any different than racism? if it was the KKK and neo-nazis suing for the right to speak out against people who weren't white christians, wear racist shirts to school, etc, most people wouldn't take them seriously. i don't know anybody who has chosen to be gay. i have a friend who was almost run down by a car, had someone from another school come to our school and try to knife her, was jumped in the street, simply because the was the first out lesbian at my school. did she choose to be a lesbian? no, she damn well didn't. did i choose to be queer? no. did my uncle choose to be gay and persecuted? no. so why on earth should someone have the 'right' to wear homophobic shirts to school and speak out against my sexual orientation when i didn't chose it? if your religion says you have to be an intolerant bigoted asshole, fine, but you shouldn't get protection of your bigoted assholeness. you should get a punch in the face.

i'm sorry. the only thing i really can't stand is intolerant people. i find it disgusting that in this day and age people still think it's okay to deem something different than them wrong/evil/deviant/deserving of scorn. and if the first amendment is going to protect their rights to discriminate me, i want it changed. (though i'm in canada and therefore the first amendment doesn't effect me, but i think i made my point)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kjhink
post Apr 25 2006, 10:50 AM
Post #12


BUSTie
**
Posts: 59
From: St. Louis, MO


I think that the woman mentioned in Snaf's argument is a repellant human being who is sorely deserving of a serious ass-whoopin'.

Sadly, I also think that she's probably right.

The problem with the 1st Amendment is that it requires that on occassion one must put up with the most outragageous of idiots. She has a fundamental right to be an intolerant asshat. She has a right to send a nasty letter to the Pride Alliance.

She hasn't been accused of stalking its members, or threatening them, or inciting others to do so. She's being an intolerant and hateful brat. I think she has a right to do so. This woman does own her hate. Her particular "sect" seems to own it, too.

When I used to do clinic escorting, the other escorts and I certainly ridiculed the protestors. They were absurd, not to mention judgemental and stupid. That said, though, I had to recognize their fundamental right to be there and wave their stupid signs. Threaten me? No. Touch me? No. Threaten patients? No. Act like a twit? Sadly, yes.

I think it should be noted that I find a big difference between her right to write stupid letters and wear stupid shirts and the Boy Scouts' refusal to allow gay members. Namely, the Boy Scouts are subsidized by government in ways large and small, and they have in their rules a fundamentally intolerant and exclusionary rule. Why should my tax dollars support that stupid shit? It shouldn't.

I also don't think that universities should be forced to give recognition in the form of money to groups that promote intolerance. One fool's speech and the money he or she chooses to spend on it is one thing, but I don't think other students should be required to subsidize it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
miss_jane
post Apr 25 2006, 10:27 AM
Post #13


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: UK


smurfin, got any spare eyeball scrub?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smurfin
post Apr 25 2006, 10:13 AM
Post #14


BUSTie
**
Posts: 73
From: The old world - Europe, that is.


Ehm... can someone help me? I seem to have read (in the article Snaf posted) that the boy scouts do not allow gay people in? Is that true? If so, HOW?

How can that *not* be discrimination? How... I'm just speechless. Really. And inexplicably happy I don't live in the US...


ETA I just visited the boy scouts' national website, and yes, it says: 'anyone who declares himself to be a homosexual would not be allowed to join', but fear not: 'Applications for leadership and membership do not inquire into sexual orientation'.

So all you have to do to be accepted is lie.
Again.

Yuck. I'm going to go and scrub my eyeballs now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyger
post Apr 25 2006, 09:47 AM
Post #15


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 948


but those people aren't getting in trouble for having a frank civil discussion about their religious beliefs (and if their 'religion' is spreading hate then i don't consider it a religion at all, but that isn't the point here). they're getting in trouble for anti-gay slurs and homophobic shirts, and if that's their 'religion' then it deserves to be classified as harassment. one of my best friends was raised catholic and had no problems with people other than straight while she was still part of the church (she left recently). my mother is christian and has no problem with her brother being gay or me being queer. i say people need to stop hiding behind their religion; if you don't want to come out and say you hate a certain group and own your hate and your opinion as your own, keep you damn mouth shut
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alligator
post Apr 24 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #16


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 106


Well, Batty, it's a little more complicated than that. Some of the laws in question define "harassment" so broadly that even a frank but civil discussion of one's religious beliefs violates them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
battygurl
post Apr 24 2006, 08:19 PM
Post #17


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 247


I really don't get how they can argue that they are being restricted from practicing their religion. Their religion isn't "harass gay and lesbians" it's (debatably) "don't engage in homosexual activity." As long as they aren't being forced to engage in homosexual activity their freedom of religion isn't being hindered.

It's all so fucking ridiculous. "Wah, I'm not allowed to be hateful or intolerant."


--------------------
Tears are curious things, for like earthquakes or puppet shows they can occur at any time, without any warning, and without any good reason. --Lemony Snicket
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
snafooey
post Apr 24 2006, 07:58 PM
Post #18


I said a boom chicka rocka chicka rocka chicka boom
***
Posts: 610


Homophobes Protest Tolerance Policies (fancy link wouldn't work b/c of the commas):

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6596503.story

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kittenb
post Apr 23 2006, 06:22 AM
Post #19


There is nothing ironic about Show Choir!
***
Posts: 3,261
From: Chicago


According to the FBI, more people falsely report their own deaths than falsely report a rape. Just my $0.02.


--------------------
In times of destruction, create something.
MHK
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greenbean
post Apr 22 2006, 02:32 PM
Post #1


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 954


I saw some pictures of her with her head down, one shoe off, leaving the party. They were painting her as a sloppy drunk. I think I saw it on an "entertainment news" show, which reeeeally pisses me off.

Nohope, I dont see the comparison the way you do. In each case it seemed to me like the general public has the attitude of, "shes a liar trying to cash in". I think the issue here that gets under our skin is that when rape cases are made public with the undercurrent of "is she telling the truth?" it really makes it hard for other rape victims to come forward. Is it possible that a woman/girl could lie about rape? Sure, but its a rare exception not the norm. When the media sensationalizes a story like this, it gets into our female subconcious that if we are raped, its just too much extra trauma to go through a trial.


--------------------
I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty.--John Waters
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
82 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)

82 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: September 23, 2014 - 04:16 PM