How big a discount are we talking about?
I posted this to another website I visit often.
They have a thread named "Waiting on the Prop. 8 decision" if you need any context. This is mostly in response to a, let's call him a "person", who said the decision doesn't say that gay marriage is bad, it just says that the proper protocol was met to put the thing to a vote and make the election happen. Riiiiiiight...
Anyway, here's what I posted.
It's not the fact that it supposedly followed some protocol. That is a very minimal standard.
It's the fact that we can now laugh at the supposedly anti-discrimination law(s) and "equal" protection they have.
Why stop there? Why not lump everyone else with it? "You can't discriminate against employees/tenants/clients/pupils/etc... unless they (or their relatives) are telemarketers/used-car salespeople/pick-your-own-class-of-people-you-don't-like-here." -- if everyone were being treated equally, they would not *need* any laws for anti-discrimination, fair lending, equal opportunity employment etc.
Screaming at the poor judges for "legislating from the bench" is missing the point: the main reason the entire question ended up with the judges is that the population in general was not being fair, when asked to vote about it they voted to oppress the minority in question, when the legislators were asked to create legislation about it they either failed to deal and/or were overridden by the other legislators. If it were easy to pass the laws, maybe the population at large would be nice enough that you wouldn't *need* anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
And, if we're allowing people to discriminate and be nasty against the homosexuals, well, it kinda peeves me just a teensy weensy tiny little bit that a lot of them are talking nasty talk and plotting against the homos *while* dining at nice restaurants, getting their hair and nails done, getting elegantly dressed, living in a nice decorated house (just to pick on a few stereotypes), or, more seriously, using the web, the internet, software, computers, cars, television, mobil phones, any number of high-tech things, or have water, electricity, gas etc pumped to their homes and workplaces, their supermarkets are stocked and run by non-straight people too. If all the non-straight folks just took the next week off in California, the place might as well just grind to a halt -- 10% of your population is *nothing* to sneeze at.
And *that*, my friends, is *why* I don't like the arguments that start with "they are doing it wrong, they should let the population 'x'..." where "x" is "vote", "lobby their legislators" etc etc etc. When the legislators were lobbied in Massachusetts and their nasty "ban gay marriage" amendment flopped, the anti-gay marriage folks cried and sobbed that they "didn't get a chance to *vote*" on it. Heck, if they had won, they wouldn't be saying that, they'd just be dancing on the streets that they won, screw the vote. If a judge had said that gay marriage was not to be, they would *not* be crying that it was legislating from the benches, they'd be ecstatic with their victory.
Maybe the only fair way to get to their heart, if they have one, is to have a 10% surcharge on everything if the client is straight. Or, if that violates some anti-discrimination law in CA, not that they seem all serious about them, give all the non-straight folks a 10% discount. Maybe a 20% discount. How low do we have to go, as I think Lea DeLaria used to say -- "25% discount! Can't you be a lesbian for 30 seconds to get the 25% off?"... ;-)
They have a thread named "Waiting on the Prop. 8 decision" if you need any context. This is mostly in response to a, let's call him a "person", who said the decision doesn't say that gay marriage is bad, it just says that the proper protocol was met to put the thing to a vote and make the election happen. Riiiiiiight...
Anyway, here's what I posted.
It's not the fact that it supposedly followed some protocol. That is a very minimal standard.
It's the fact that we can now laugh at the supposedly anti-discrimination law(s) and "equal" protection they have.
Why stop there? Why not lump everyone else with it? "You can't discriminate against employees/tenants/clients/pupils/etc... unless they (or their relatives) are telemarketers/used-car salespeople/pick-your-own-class-of-people-you-don't-like-here." -- if everyone were being treated equally, they would not *need* any laws for anti-discrimination, fair lending, equal opportunity employment etc.
Screaming at the poor judges for "legislating from the bench" is missing the point: the main reason the entire question ended up with the judges is that the population in general was not being fair, when asked to vote about it they voted to oppress the minority in question, when the legislators were asked to create legislation about it they either failed to deal and/or were overridden by the other legislators. If it were easy to pass the laws, maybe the population at large would be nice enough that you wouldn't *need* anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
And, if we're allowing people to discriminate and be nasty against the homosexuals, well, it kinda peeves me just a teensy weensy tiny little bit that a lot of them are talking nasty talk and plotting against the homos *while* dining at nice restaurants, getting their hair and nails done, getting elegantly dressed, living in a nice decorated house (just to pick on a few stereotypes), or, more seriously, using the web, the internet, software, computers, cars, television, mobil phones, any number of high-tech things, or have water, electricity, gas etc pumped to their homes and workplaces, their supermarkets are stocked and run by non-straight people too. If all the non-straight folks just took the next week off in California, the place might as well just grind to a halt -- 10% of your population is *nothing* to sneeze at.
And *that*, my friends, is *why* I don't like the arguments that start with "they are doing it wrong, they should let the population 'x'..." where "x" is "vote", "lobby their legislators" etc etc etc. When the legislators were lobbied in Massachusetts and their nasty "ban gay marriage" amendment flopped, the anti-gay marriage folks cried and sobbed that they "didn't get a chance to *vote*" on it. Heck, if they had won, they wouldn't be saying that, they'd just be dancing on the streets that they won, screw the vote. If a judge had said that gay marriage was not to be, they would *not* be crying that it was legislating from the benches, they'd be ecstatic with their victory.
Maybe the only fair way to get to their heart, if they have one, is to have a 10% surcharge on everything if the client is straight. Or, if that violates some anti-discrimination law in CA, not that they seem all serious about them, give all the non-straight folks a 10% discount. Maybe a 20% discount. How low do we have to go, as I think Lea DeLaria used to say -- "25% discount! Can't you be a lesbian for 30 seconds to get the 25% off?"... ;-)