DiscussionOn the push to reverse Obergefell

submitted by Willpoll from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.