DiscussionOn the push to reverse Obergefell

submitted by Willpoll from self.LGBDropTheT

Hey guys so I looked into all the crap going on with the new justices wanting to reverse the ruling in Obergefell and from what I can tell, it appears to be BS. In the statement released by the justices they site one main example as to why it attacks religious liberty. The real world one being about a clerk in Kentucky

Kim Davis, a former county clerk in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, was responsible for authorizing marriage licenses. Davis is also a devout Christian. When she began her tenure as clerk, Davis’ sincerely held religious beliefs— that marriage exists between one man and one woman— corresponded with the definition of marriage under Kentucky law. See Ky. Rev. Stat. §402.005 (1998); Ky. Const. §233A (2004). Within weeks of this Court granting certiorari in Obergefell, Davis began lobbying for amendments to Kentucky law that would protect the free exercise rights of those who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. But those efforts were cut short by this Court’s decision in Obergefell. As a result of this Court’s alteration of the Constitution, Davis found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job. When she chose to follow her faith, and without any statutory protection of her religious beliefs, she was sued almost immediately for violating the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

It seems like their reasoning is BS to me. If you work in the public sector you have no reasonable claim to religious liberty if you could even call this scenario that. From my limited legal memory it seems like when you decide to take up a job with government you no longer have a reason to cry religious liberty because the job of handing a same sex couple a marriage certificate doesn't really stomp on your religious liberty does it? I know this sounds super similar to the cake fiasco but I feel that the baker, while being an incredibly bad person, would still have a bit of leeway given the fact he worked in the private sector. Here's the statement released by the justices if you want to take a look and tell me your thoughts: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/10/05/100520zor3204.thomas.pdf

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 18 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

I will process this all later but I will say that re Masterpiece Cake Shop, the sticking point is not that the shop refused to sell a cake to a gay couple, but they refused to create a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding. Which is a huge difference.

I used to work in a bakery and I’ve had to do some basic cake decorating. Custom cakes are an art form IMO. Now there are different degrees of this. Is it just the lettering that is custom? Is there more to it?

In any case, I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of a cake shop being forced to create and design a cake to celebrate my gay wedding if they were religiously or morally opposed to it. It’s just not something I want to get involved in. I’d rather take my money elsewhere and I think as a practical matter this is bad PR for gay people. We made strides when we asked people for tolerance, for forebearance. LGBT has faltered when demanding not just tolerance not even just acceptance but celebration. Tolerance is the normal precursor to normalization which is the precursor to acceptance. You can’t force people over the line.

In any case, Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided on very narrow grounds in SCOTUS and did not reach these broader questions of discrimination, and IMO, that’s for the best for us. I think it would have caused more harm than good.

I am also shuddering thinking about Jazz Jennings’s penis cake where they cut the penis cake to symbolize Jazz’s castration. Can you imagine being required to create that cake, religion aside?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I make this point too and I've had my friends unload on me over this. I think people just get too hung up on "picking a side" and any level of nuance becomes a personal attack.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I mean I used to have knee jerk reactions to this kind of thing too. But gender ideology put everything into perspective for me. It helped me understand what I am and am not OK with in terms of advocacy, how the ends do not justify the means, and it helped me realize that support can be withdrawn and rights can be rolled back.

It’s crazy that straight women were crucial allies in escalating the gay rights movement just a few years ago and now they are under attack and being Karen’ed. Its crazy that the worst Republicans are taking up women's rights issues while Democrats burn the witches. It’s crazy that I cringe when I see “LGBT” in an email at work or read it in the news, and I have to mentally prepare myself. I’m just so embarrassed and disgusted by how our so-called advocates have embodied the worst fever dreams of homophobes.

So yes, you better believe that I am putting us under the microscope too because I don’t want us to be tainted by this mess.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with you. I will defend the rights of individuals who do not want to associate with me for religious or whatever reasons. If we expect them to let us live our lives, we should be willing to do the same.

And by the way, I've had very few problems with conservative religious people in terms of respectful interaction. I have no idea what they think about me privately, but it's none of my business as long as they respect my basic rights.

[–]FrostyNugsI'm allergic to nuts 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This. I think the concept of forcing people to agree with homosexuality personally instead of just giving us equal rights legally is questionable at best and Orwellian at worst. I don't want to go the way of the woke and start interrogating people for thought-crimes. If people get kinda grossed out at the thought of two chicks or two dudes going at it, that's their perogative.

[–]Shadow_Lurker 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

associate with me for religious or whatever reasons.

If by "associate" you mean validating then yes, I agree with you. On the other hand, if by "associate" you mean denying services or employment, then fuck no.

The cake case was very specific: the two idiots tried to force the bakery to do a custom service for them, it wasn't standard service that was denied.

On the other hand, if some religious looney barred them the right to adopt children or employment, then they would be totally right to be mad.

I think is always good to reinforce this.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No by associate I’m not talking about employment or housing. I am talking about something closer to validation.

Some people have this idea that if someone is uncomfortable around gay people that they need to be shamed for it and have their noses rubbed in it. On a social basis, I would rather that such people be permitted to keep a wide berth from me without having to be personally and publicly shamed for it. Again, as long as they’re minding their own business and aren’t harassing me or anything like that.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's crazy that straight women were crucial allies in escalating the gay rights movement just a few years ago and now they are under attack and being Karen’ed. Its crazy that the worst Republicans are taking up women's rights issues while Democrats burn the witches. It’s crazy that I cringe when I see “LGBT” in an email at work or read it in the news, and I have to mentally prepare myself. I’m just so embarrassed and disgusted by how our so-called advocates have embodied the worst fever dreams of homophobes.

Couldn't agree more. You make an interesting observation about straight women, I never realized that was something that changed so much.

[–]Willpoll[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with what you said about the cake shop. I was just using it as an example of how these things should be settled differently in the private and public sectors.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t mean to disagree with that point, just adding color.

[–]artetolife 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The cake shop is equally responsible for turning it into a religion vs gay battleground. There are a hundred ways to jettison a client you don't want to work for without making a big deal out of it.

[–]Shadow_Lurker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is the religious right weaponizing of this case to push for a religious exemption on civil rights legislation, which in practice would mean basically the complete nullification of said legislation.

And it's always good to remember that civil rights legislation is not only applicable to sexual orientation and gender identity but sex, race, ethnic background and religion itiself.

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On the cake issue, I want to bring up the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit in Oregon. A couple used the same florist for 9 years before she denied them flowers for their wedding. While I don't agree with suing her, I can understand the couple's frustration with her. In the 9 years they did business with her, that also meant that they didn't do business with someone who was legitimately accepting of LGB people in their business practices. If they had known this 9 years ago, they would have been able to support another business that may have folded in that time, possibly owned by another LGB person.

Part of our vie for tolerance has been giving up our communities and often our support of LGB-owned businesses in favor of assimilating into the larger heterosexual society. It's meant we don't know who to go to when we need a good or service because we are alienated from one another in our local areas. Theoretically, if LGB businesses have all folded over the years due to lack of support, in certain locales we may have nowhere to go to get certain items.

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I am not actually going to vote for Biden because I'm in a state where it doesn't make a difference, but for those of you considering voting for Trump, Donald is stacking the courts with extremely conservative judges who will reverse all the rights gays have.

[–]ExecuteHomophobes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Biden supports the tr-nscult. Biden voted for DOMA and DADT.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Check out what conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is talking about regarding the gay marriage decision.

And be scared, because, again Trump is stacking the judiciary, every position he can, with conservatives, many of whom are not friends to gays.

[–]ExecuteHomophobes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What reason have we given them to support us? This is how including the T is coming back to haunt us. Homophobes can point to that to say "I told you so."

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As someone who remembers when US gay men lived in fear of assault 24 hours a day, I am truly frightened that the backlash against the TQ madness will send gays back into those Dark Ages.

Drop the T is urgent and every person who supports it needs to tell others ASAP what exactly the TQ and their demands have done to gay rights.