The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Which is why my statement was about the mantra, not about Dimmerswitch.

I do think he's using it in an ignorant manner, though. Suffixed with the fact that I have a lot of respect for dimmer and do not consider him an ignorant person.

Kier wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

The solution to discrimination in never more discrimination.

I respectfully disagree. Ostracizing people for unacceptable behavior is an effective method of showing disapproval. The context matters. I do not think it is wrong to refuse to serve bigots who are loud and proud of it.

Sure. And homophobes would use much the same argument for refusing service to openly-gay individuals.

The issues are twofold. First is the "moral" issue, for lack of a better term. If you respond to bigoted actions in kind, it's awfully easy to cede the moral high ground. In effect, you're turning the discussion from "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals" to "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals I like". At that point, it's a pissing contest about whose favorite / least favorite group is the most fabulous / icky.

Secondly, there's the question of outcome. If the goal is to undermine bigotry and promote tolerance, is it likely that Sen. Campfield will take this as a wake-up call and turn his heart towards treating his fellow humans with kindness? Or is it perhaps more likely that Sen. Campfield will treat it as more grist for his homophobic agenda, and a fundraising opportunity demonstrating that gays are out to destroy America? We'll see how he chooses to respond, but I'd wager no small amount of money that it's not the former.

Your logic hinges on bigotry being genetic, like homosexuality is. If we can't discriminate based on the content of a person's character, like MLK preached, then society falls apart.

Seth wrote:

Your logic hinges on bigotry being genetic, like homosexuality is. If we can't discriminate based on the content of a person's character, like MLK preached, then society falls apart.

In no way does his logic hinge on that.

It also is very sound and convincing. If nothing else, the part about outcome is completely void of any intentions and is purely based in what actually happens in reality. In reality, society will not fall apart by serving that man.

Seth wrote:

Your logic hinges on bigotry being genetic, like homosexuality is. If we can't discriminate based on the content of a person's character, like MLK preached, then society falls apart.

Ah, but of course most homophobes would posit that homosexuality is also a choice. (I believe they're wrong, but this makes the homophobic argument much the same as the ones happening in-thread in support of discriminating against bigots).

Remember when all those black businesses refused service to whites in the 1960s? Those bigots sure got a taste of their own medicine, and the Civil Rights movement got universal support afterwards.

Spoiler:

I get the appeal of denying Sen. Campfield service. Were I in their shoes, I would probably have been sorely tempted to do the same. That doesn't make it right though - nor does it make it a tactic that's likely to produce the results I value: namely, less bigotry and more tolerance.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Kier wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Ostracizing people for unacceptable behavior is an effective method of showing disapproval. The context matters. I do not think it is wrong to refuse to serve bigots who are loud and proud of it.

Sure. And homophobes would use much the same argument for refusing service to openly-gay individuals.

The issues are twofold. First is the "moral" issue, for lack of a better term. If you respond to bigoted actions in kind, it's awfully easy to cede the moral high ground. In effect, you're turning the discussion from "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals" to "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals I like". At that point, it's a pissing contest about whose favorite / least favorite group is the most fabulous / icky.

Secondly, there's the question of outcome. If the goal is to undermine bigotry and promote tolerance, is it likely that Sen. Campfield will take this as a wake-up call and turn his heart towards treating his fellow humans with kindness? Or is it perhaps more likely that Sen. Campfield will treat it as more grist for his homophobic agenda, and a fundraising opportunity demonstrating that gays are out to destroy America? We'll see how he chooses to respond, but I'd wager no small amount of money that it's not the former.

I don't disagree that it would have been better to treat him like any other patron, I just disagree that Boggs was wrong to ask him to leave. It wasn't his beliefs that caused Boggs to ask him to leave, it was his actions. He is actively promoting hate, intolerance, and severe misinformation, and I don't think Boggs was wrong to discriminate against him based on his actions.
As for the outcome, Sen. Campfield is unlikely to have a change of heart no matter how he was treated. It's not like having one good experience in a gay-friendly restaurant would make him withdraw his bill to make it illegal for teachers to say "gay."

Stengah wrote:

I don't disagree that it would have been better to treat him like any other patron, I just disagree that Boggs was wrong to ask him to leave. It wasn't his beliefs that caused Boggs to ask him to leave, it was his actions. He is actively promoting hate, intolerance, and severe misinformation, and I don't think Boggs was wrong to discriminate against him based on his actions.

As for the outcome, Sen. Campfield is unlikely to have a change of heart no matter how he was treated. It's not like having one good experience in a gay-friendly restaurant would make him withdraw his bill to make it illegal for teachers to say "gay."

If he was doing that in the restaurant, I'd agree that they were refusing service based on his actions, and would have no issue with their refusing Sen. Campfield service. It sounds like he was just going there to eat, though.

And I agree that Sen. Campfield is a terrible excuse for a human being, for what that's worth. I hope the people of Tennessee vote him out of office at their next opportunity.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

If he was doing that in the restaurant, I'd agree that they were refusing service based on his actions, and would have no issue with their refusing Sen. Campfield service. It sounds like he was just going there to eat, though.

And I agree that Sen. Campfield is a terrible excuse for a human being, for what that's worth. I hope the people of Tennessee vote him out of office at their next opportunity.

Isn't voting him out of office an unfair punishment akin to refusing him service though? What I hear you saying is that there should be no negative consequences to spouting hate speech, because you're taking Campbell's side over a business owner refusing to serve him food. Wouldn't voting him out be equally unfair?

Seth wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

If he was doing that in the restaurant, I'd agree that they were refusing service based on his actions, and would have no issue with their refusing Sen. Campfield service. It sounds like he was just going there to eat, though.

And I agree that Sen. Campfield is a terrible excuse for a human being, for what that's worth. I hope the people of Tennessee vote him out of office at their next opportunity.

Isn't voting him out of office an unfair punishment akin to refusing him service though? What I hear you saying is that there should be no negative consequences to spouting hate speech, because you're taking Campbell's side over a business owner refusing to serve him food. Wouldn't voting him out be equally unfair?

I can reasonably understand a viewpoint that says your political views should have repercussions in the political arena but not in restaurants.

Pretty sure that's not saying there should be no negative consequences nor is it taking Campbell's side.

gregrampage wrote:
Seth wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

If he was doing that in the restaurant, I'd agree that they were refusing service based on his actions, and would have no issue with their refusing Sen. Campfield service. It sounds like he was just going there to eat, though.

And I agree that Sen. Campfield is a terrible excuse for a human being, for what that's worth. I hope the people of Tennessee vote him out of office at their next opportunity.

Isn't voting him out of office an unfair punishment akin to refusing him service though? What I hear you saying is that there should be no negative consequences to spouting hate speech, because you're taking Campbell's side over a business owner refusing to serve him food. Wouldn't voting him out be equally unfair?

I can reasonably understand a viewpoint that says your political views should have repercussions in the political arena but not in restaurants.

Pretty sure that's not saying there should be no negative consequences nor is it taking Campbell's side.

Yeah, I can understand Dimmer's position, and I think it's definitely a valid position, I just don't share it. I enjoy idiots getting their comeuppance too much.

Seth wrote:

Isn't voting him out of office an unfair punishment akin to refusing him service though? What I hear you saying is that there should be no negative consequences to spouting hate speech, because you're taking Campbell's side over a business owner refusing to serve him food. Wouldn't voting him out be equally unfair?

If that's what you're hearing me say, at least one of us is doing a terrible job communicating.

I am not saying Campbell should suffer no consequences for his hateful ideology. I am saying that a business discriminating against an apparently nondisruptive customer is wrong, regardless of whether or not I personally find that customer sympathetic or repugnant.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Seth wrote:

Isn't voting him out of office an unfair punishment akin to refusing him service though? What I hear you saying is that there should be no negative consequences to spouting hate speech, because you're taking Campbell's side over a business owner refusing to serve him food. Wouldn't voting him out be equally unfair?

If that's what you're hearing me say, at least one of us is doing a terrible job communicating.

I am not saying Campbell should suffer no consequences for his hateful ideology. I am saying that a business discriminating against an apparently nondisruptive customer is wrong, regardless of whether or not I personally find that customer sympathetic or repugnant.

I see it as little different from refusing to serve someone based on their party affiliation. It's choosing whether to serve them based on their political leanings (in this case, on a single issue). Once I can choke down the irresistible schadenfreude, it rings pretty douchey to me.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I am saying that a business discriminating against an apparently nondisruptive customer is wrong, regardless of whether or not I personally find that customer sympathetic or repugnant.

Fair enough. We can disagree amicably on that point. I think that a person making a nonviolent stand against bigotry using the tools at her disposal is pretty admirable.

Seth wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

I am saying that a business discriminating against an apparently nondisruptive customer is wrong, regardless of whether or not I personally find that customer sympathetic or repugnant.

Fair enough. We can disagree amicably on that point. I think that a person making a nonviolent stand against bigotry using the tools at her disposal is pretty admirable.

Perhaps an alternative (and maybe better?) way of making that stand would have been to sit down at the Senator's table, explain that you vehemently disagree with his homophobia, and that you considered refusing to serve him, but that on reflection, you felt that that would have been making two wrongs, and that you hope he enjoys his meal.

And/or letting the Senator know that the entirety of his bill will be donated to PFLAG (or some other gay-friendly charity)

Dimmerswitch wrote:

And/or letting the Senator know that the entirety of his bill will be donated to PFLAG (or some other gay-friendly charity)

We should go into business catering to bigots. What could possibly go wrong?

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

Seth wrote:

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

Does it effect the change you think it does? Dimmerswitch made a good point in that it might actually add more fuel to their hate.

Also that is absolutely admirable. But that doesn't mean any other option is without it's own merit.

Seth wrote:

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

Indeed. But protesting intolerance by refusing service to an intolerant person is like protesting high gas prices by charging more for gas.

Kier wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

The solution to discrimination in never more discrimination.

I respectfully disagree. Ostracizing people for unacceptable behavior is an effective method of showing disapproval. The context matters. I do not think it is wrong to refuse to serve bigots who are loud and proud of it.

Isn't this the very thing that this thread was created in protest of?

This thread is about the fight to roll back institutionalized discrimination inherent in our government. That people are confusing that with refusing service to assholes is why I call that logic ignorant at best.

Bed, made, lie. If you don't want to be treated like a pariah, don't act like an ass. If you are convinced you are right, deal with the consequences. That's why civil rights leaders are so respected, they took the negative reaction and acted like adults about it. The restaurant is now, in turn, going to have to deal with the community's reactions. A private establishment has the right to refuse service to people who they disagree with personally (with the exception of the protected groups). The government cannot force you to have a (business or personal) relationship with someone you find personally reprehensible.

I'm starting a non-violent dissent catch-all to prevent the derail from expanding too far:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

Nomad wrote:
Kier wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

The solution to discrimination in never more discrimination.

I respectfully disagree. Ostracizing people for unacceptable behavior is an effective method of showing disapproval. The context matters. I do not think it is wrong to refuse to serve bigots who are loud and proud of it.

Isn't this the very thing that this thread was created in protest of?

Absolutely.

However, there are two questions on "unacceptable behavior" currently on the table: 1) is bigotry against gay people acceptable? and 2) is homosexuality acceptable?

Society will decide which way those answers will be determined and may, in fact, change its mind later on.

Seth wrote:

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

Comparing consumer boycotts of BP or the Montgomery Bus Lines to the decision of Bistro at the Bijou to refuse service to a non-disruptive customer is pretty disingenuous. A more apt comparison might be British Petroleum deciding to not sell gas to Congressman Kucinich.

You're welcome to view either Jonman's or my suggestions (or both) as somehow less-good than engaging in discriminatory behavior. I don't think the characterization I've quoted above does you any favors in making that case, though.

There seem to be a lot of things attributed to me in this thread that I'm not saying - I disagree that "my" logic has been used to disparage boycotts. I support nonviolent action to promote more ethical & moral behavior by companies and politicians (and, in fact, engage in it on a regular basis). To reiterate: my point is simply that a business discriminating against an apparently non-disruptive customer is wrong, regardless of whether or not I personally find that customer sympathetic or repugnant.

Perhaps another thread is needed for "how ought we interact with bigots"?

[Edit: Tannhauser'ed on the new thread by Tanglebones. Thanks!]

Seth wrote:

I wouldn't consider that better. That's basically saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, mr bigot, so long as I can whine about it for a few minutes.

Dimmerswitch's logic has also been used to disparage boycotts, not only during the bus boycotts, but also during the British Petroleum boycotts in 2010. I think it's admirable to use nonviolent means to effect change against actions or events you find reprehensible.

You could always say something like "The person who will prepare your meal will do so unsupervised. He is also openly gay. If you have any words you would like to convey to him prior to his doing so, I suggest you do so now. Oh, and he looks a lot like Tyler Durden."

There's an interesting bit of political theater going on in New Hampshire regarding attempts to repeal the state's popular gay marriage law.

Both chambers of the NH Legislature have GOP veto-proof majorities, but that isn't ensuring that gay marriage is facing its death in the Granite State.

While the bill to repeal the gay marriage law will certainly pass, Democratic Gov. Lynch has said he will veto it. That is a problem for the Legislature because there are several Libertarian leaning GOP members who have publicly stated they will never vote to override the Governor's veto. The current whip count shows that there simply aren't enough votes in either chamber to override the veto. This is why, perhaps, the vote, which was to occur on January 3rd, was postponed until late February.

Additionally, every bit of polling done in NH shows that the gay marriage repeal is opposed by the NH public by a 2-1 margin. It has been rumored that GOP leadership in the Legislature is nervous that repealing the law could spell doom at the ballot box in November. They probably should be nervous. The GOP in New Hampshire has been undergoing a series of black eyes lately considering some of the legislation that has been introduced, from the Magna Carta citation bill to the bill making domestic abuse more fashionable. Of course, the GOP Legislature won't even consider sending the issue to the voters because they know the outcome.

My guess is that the wise GOP leadership in the Legislature will continue to postpone the vote, hoping they can get enough votes to sustain the veto.

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

You don't win hearts and minds by spitting in faces. A better solution: seat him with a happy, committed gay couple. "Your food today is being prepared by our fabulously flaming head chef, and your waiter today is a gay 19 year old college student. We sincerely hope you enjoy your meal." And then kill him with kindness.

It's much easier to say "Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry". Which is why as people know more gay people, they become less and less homophobic and set against gay equality (I don't have any sources on this, just the hope in my heart).

kaostheory wrote:

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

You don't win hearts and minds by spitting in faces. A better solution: seat him with a happy, committed gay couple. "Your food today is being prepared by our fabulously flaming head chef, and your waiter today is a gay 19 year old college student. We sincerely hope you enjoy your meal." And then kill him with kindness.

It's much easier to say "Gays are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry" than it is to say "Jeff and James are bad people and shouldn't be allowed to marry". Which is why as people know more gay people, they become less and less homophobic and set against gay equality (I don't have any sources on this, just the hope in my heart).

Wow...a gay bigot being served by a gay cook and a gay server. I'm having flashbacks to the movies "Road Trip" and "Waiting" as to the stuff that could be done to his food. Only, you know, worse.

I believe the idea would be to provide quality service and food, to somehow show that gays are "good people." Unfortunately, I just don't think it would have much, if any impact.