Businesses banning AZ legislators for their anti-homosexual stance

[Lefty 0]

Do people not see that it weakens the argument against being able to ban homosexuals from businesses on moral grounds?

Is popular opinion the only reason one ban is condemned while the other is celebrated?

On a purely personal note, I say it serves the idiot legislators right. But on a political/philosophical level, it makes the business owners banning them just as bigoted as it would if they had banned gay people.

Just looking for some consistency.

Clicky 1
Clicky 2

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Boogers 0]

Yep, two wrongs don't make a right.

Different people have different hates. They think their hates are okay, and other people's hates are wrong.

A lot of people loved to bash Tebow on the football field for his Christian beliefs. But those same people now say its wrong to bash Sam for being a gay football player.

Both sides are equally wrong.

If you participate in one form of hate, you have no business criticizing other people for other forms of hate. That's hypocrisy.

[inline Tebow.jpg]

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Just looking for some consistency.

If it was consistent it wouldn't be ironic, pretty much by definition.

I believe the point of the "no legislators" sign is to point out that a law that allows businesses to ban people because they are gay can also be used against other groups including legislators. They are an ironic protest against the law, not intended to be taken literally.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Lefty 0]

GeorgiaDon

I believe the point of the "no legislators" sign is to point out that a law that allows businesses to ban people because they are gay can also be used against other groups including legislators. They are an ironic protest against the law, not intended to be taken literally.

I'm sure everyone would appreciate the dry humor of a "No gays or blacks" sign with equally ironic intentions.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Remster 24]

It's called protesting. Maybe you've heard of it.

Remster

[Lefty 0]

Remster

It's called protesting. Maybe you've heard of it.

I'd say that demonstrates the point I was making about inconsistency pretty well. Thanks!

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 3]

Lefty

Do people not see that it weakens the argument against being able to ban homosexuals from businesses on moral grounds?

It's called political satire. You might want to look into it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

They are an ironic protest against the law, not intended to be taken literally.

Are you trying to tell me my "Redskins Fans Only" parking sign is unenforceable?

- Dan G

[Lefty 0]

quade

***Do people not see that it weakens the argument against being able to ban homosexuals from businesses on moral grounds?

It's called political satire. You might want to look into it.

Funny, I don't remember there being so many finely-honed senses of humor around when discussing satire by, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Read that second story I linked. The owner of the bar is gay. I don't get the impression he's joking.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Lefty

***I believe the point of the "no legislators" sign is to point out that a law that allows businesses to ban people because they are gay can also be used against other groups including legislators. They are an ironic protest against the law, not intended to be taken literally.

I'm sure everyone would appreciate the dry humor of a "No gays or blacks" sign with equally ironic intentions.Not unless "gays or blacks" seized control of the legislature and tried to pass laws discriminating against heterosexual whites. If that were to happen, I'm sure some would understand the intent and message of such a sign.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 3]

Lefty

******Do people not see that it weakens the argument against being able to ban homosexuals from businesses on moral grounds?

It's called political satire. You might want to look into it.

Funny, I don't remember there being so many finely-honed senses of humor around when discussing satire by, say, Rush Limbaugh.
A lot of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are mentally incapable of understanding subtext and satire. They believe literally everything they hear. I'd estimate that upwards of 30% of the population of the US suffers from this inability to see anything other than that which is shown on the surface.

If you don't believe me, write some satire, hop up on a stage during on open mic night and do your own experiments.

This is the problem with Rush Limbaugh. Not that he's a clown, but that people do not realize he's a clown.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lefty 0]

quade

This is the problem with Rush Limbaugh. Not that he's a clown, but that people do not realize he's a clown.

Yes, yes. So, is that second link I provided tickling your satire bone yet?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 3]

Lefty

***This is the problem with Rush Limbaugh. Not that he's a clown, but that people do not realize he's a clown.

Yes, yes. So, is that second link I provided tickling your satire bone yet?

Are you saying your original post was itself satire?

If so I think I can probably help you write better stuff.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lefty 0]

quade

Are you saying your original post was itself satire?

If so I think I can probably help you write better stuff.

Aaaaand I have no idea what you're talking about now. Did the second clicky not work for you?

In any case, a better example of satire or irony would involve the pizzeria or the bar offering all legislators who support the bill free jumbo sausages in fresh, hot buns or something along those lines. That would at least avoid giving the appearance of lowering themselves to the level of bigotry they're opposing.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 3]

Lefty

Did the second clicky not work for you?

The second link works just fine. It's satire. It's not as obvious as your example, but it's is in fact satire by the owner.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lefty 0]

quade

It's satire. It's not as obvious as your example, but it's is in fact satire by the owner.

Since you won't just come out and say it, I'll assume you're referring to the fact that the establishment is a "gay" bar. So the legislators are unlikely to visit in the first place. Is that correct?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 3]

Lefty

***It's satire. It's not as obvious as your example, but it's is in fact satire by the owner.

Since you won't just come out and say it, I'll assume you're referring to the fact that the establishment is a "gay" bar. So the legislators are unlikely to visit in the first place. Is that correct?

Your might want to consider yourself part of that 30% I talked about earlier.

YES! FFS.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lefty 0]

quade

Your might want to consider yourself part of that 30% I talked about earlier.

YES! FFS.

Before you get too pleased with yourself--I was actually just trying to coax that out of you but lost patience. See, what you've just done is admitted the double-standard and lack of consistency that I've been alluding to. A gay bar can ban patrons outside their demographic, even posting a sign stating such. You assume it is ironic and satirical even though the tone of the story, the source of the story, and the owner of the bar suggest it is anything but.

Flip that around. The owners of a Christian bakery want to attract others like them to a place they can feel comfortable and do business based on shared values. They post a sign saying "No homosexual couples allowed" because that demographic does not comport with the beliefs of the owners and their clientele.

Would you still laugh it off as satire? Would society? Will it be considered just a joke to be shared by anyone who reads the sign?

I'm guessing not. How is one better than the other?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 3]

Lefty

You assume it is ironic and satirical even though the tone of the story, the source of the story, and the owner of the bar suggest it is anything but.

You're saying they "suggest it is anything but."

Really? Where?

No, sir. It is you who have simply not understood the meaning from the get go.

As for your hypothetical bakery example, it would only be satire if it was satirizing a situation. Do you understand how that works? See, FIRST there has to be something to make fun OF. If they do it without prior provocation (like a well known national story), then it's not satire, they're just being jerks.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Boogers 0]

GeorgiaDon

Not unless "gays or blacks" seized control of the legislature and tried to pass laws discriminating against heterosexual whites. If that were to happen, I'm sure some would understand the intent and message of such a sign.

How many white women were there in the Miss Black America contest?

[Boogers 0]

quade

A lot of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are mentally incapable of understanding subtext and satire. They believe literally everything they hear. I'd estimate that upwards of 30% of the population of the US suffers from this inability to see anything other than that which is shown on the surface.

If you don't believe me, write some satire, hop up on a stage during on open mic night and do your own experiments.

This is the problem with Rush Limbaugh. Not that he's a clown, but that people do not realize he's a clown.

Does that affliction only affect conservatives?

[Lefty 0]

quade

As for your hypothetical bakery example, it would only be satire if it was satirizing a situation. Do you understand how that works? See, FIRST there has to be something to make fun OF. If they do it without prior provocation (like a well known national story), then it's not satire, they're just being jerks.

They're satirizing the gay bar in the news story I linked. Your move.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 3]

Boogers

***A lot of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are mentally incapable of understanding subtext and satire. They believe literally everything they hear. I'd estimate that upwards of 30% of the population of the US suffers from this inability to see anything other than that which is shown on the surface.

If you don't believe me, write some satire, hop up on a stage during on open mic night and do your own experiments.

This is the problem with Rush Limbaugh. Not that he's a clown, but that people do not realize he's a clown.

Does that affliction only affect conservatives?

Certainly seemed like it when Steven Colbert was booked at the National Press Club.

But in reality, no. As I said, I believe it afflicts upwards of 30% of the population; all of it. It's just Rush Limbaugh is carried on far more radio stations across the country than any equivalent, strictly left wing clown and therefore more people of the US are taken in by his nonsense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Lefty

***As for your hypothetical bakery example, it would only be satire if it was satirizing a situation. Do you understand how that works? See, FIRST there has to be something to make fun OF. If they do it without prior provocation (like a well known national story), then it's not satire, they're just being jerks.

They're satirizing the gay bar in the news story I linked. Your move.

You've made no "move." You've just made a silly hypothetical.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,114]

They're both stupid.

And putting up head shots of the legislators in question might be considered setting them up for harrassment (however much they deserve it).

As alluded to down below, a business can make itself as attractive as it can to its target demographic, and as unattractive as it can to its antithesis examples. But it shouldn't be able to actively discriminate against them.

A gay bar should not be able to forbid someone wearing a T-shirt that says "women only, I'm Mormon," or a lady big hair with a church dress accompanied by a man in a maroon suit with a white belt and shoes, no matter how obvious it is that they don't belong.

And neither should a cross-adorned bakery be able to say that gays cannot buy their cakes. They are well within their rights to say that they will not put two men or two women on their cakes (IMHO), or to say that they will only make cakes with Christian messages, or that they won't make cakes shaped like tits or penises. But if someone who's gay wants to buy one of their awesome cakes and write something of their own on it, or buy their own dolls, I can't see why they should be allowed to say that's now allowed, either.

No matter what's agreed to by most parties, some asshole can torture it to piss someone off. Let's give as few of those people the satisfaction of knowing it worked.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)