Skip to main content

Speaking out against those preventing equality is not the same as speaking out against equality

Ever since Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the controversial RFRA bill (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and Walkerton, Indiana pizza shop Memories Pizza stated they'd never provide pizzas for gay wedding celebrations, only to receive a great deal of backlash from moderates and progressives, many conservatives have decided to respond with the following argument:

"Weren't liberals supposed to be the people all about tolerance? Them speaking out against our beliefs and calling us homophobes just goes to show how big of hypocrites they really are!"

This isn't the first time I've heard such an argument. I've heard it used before, often times with regard to the battle over the rights of the LGBT community. I'm sorry to upset these conservatives, but they're sorely mistaken, for speaking out against those preventing equality is not the same as speaking out against equality.

While I and many other progressives may not agree with conservatives on most issues, conservatives still have the right to believe as they so choose on those very issues. If they feel gays shouldn't be legally allowed to get married, so be it; that's their opinion, and they have a right to that opinion. However, when conservatives allow that opinion to prevent gays from having equal rights under the law as everyone else (even outside of marriage), that's where we run into problems. The owners of a pizza shop (or anyone else) can disagree with gay marriage all they'd like; that's their First Amendment right. However, that's not all that's happening here. These owners (and others) have gone one step further and decided to refuse service to gay couples due to their orientation. So, I'm sorry, but it seems these conservatives have run into another case of false equivalence. If progressives state that conservatives didn't have the right to be against gay marriage, then these very conservatives would have a valid point on liberals being hypocritical on this issue, but that's not the case. Let's simplify the matter...

1) Liberals tend to support gay marriage

2) Conservatives tend to be against gay marriage

3) Both groups, while disagreeing with the other, don't tend to state that the other doesn't have the right to their opinion on the matter


That's basically all there is to the equation we're dealing with here. If conservatives or liberals made their opinions known on the issue and said the other didn't have the right to theirs, that group would then be hypocritical. The outlier here is the fact some conservative business owners want to refuse service to homosexuals due to their orientation. This has nothing to do with the previous equation. Sure, if some progressive business owners wanted to refuse service to heterosexuals, then once again, they could be deemed hypocrites, however, I'm not thinking that's a likely scenario. So, once again, progressives aren't saying conservatives can't be against gay marriage or have any opinion they so desire, no matter how crazy we may think it is. What we are saying is business owners shouldn't be able to pick and choose whom to provide service to based on an opinion they have regarding the individual's gender, race, creed, or orientation. That isn't hypocrisy by liberals; it's false equivalence by conservatives.

Also, I know these very conservatives are sick and tired of being called homophobes and the like, but refusing service to a person or a couple based on their sexual orientation (or gender, race, creed, etc.) is a textbook example of discrimination, so, as the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."

The definition of "discrimination" is the "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

So, based on that definition and the pizza shop owners' words and actions toward the LGBT community (and others like them), how would they like to be labeled on the matter?

Sure, "homophobe" is a strong term, as it translates to the "hating of gays." But what other term would better describe such individuals?

I can hear them now attempting to justify their words and actions by saying, "We don't hate gays; we just don't think they should be treated like human beings under the law. We're not saying they're less than people - just that they should be treated like less than people, you know?"

Right, just like African-Americans used to be considered 3/5 of a person when racism was "nonexistent."

Like now with homosexuals, some businesses used to refuse service to blacks due to "religious beliefs," but no, they weren't being racist and it'd be hypocritical for progressives to call their actions racist, because while progressives believe in equal rights for blacks and other minorities, it'd be hypocritical for them to tell businesses they shouldn't be legally allowed to refuse service to minorities due to the color of their skin...

While people can believe whatever they'd like under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, when a person refuses service to a minority due to the color of their skin, they're racist, and when a person refuses service to a gay man, woman, or couple due to their orientation, they're homophobic. The First Amendment may protect those from being legally punished for expressing discriminatory words, but it doesn't protect these people from being called out for what they are. Like the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination?s=t

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"