For every winner...
...there's a giant screaming asshole.
Oh no! The gays are trying to take away my rights! They're trying to make me DO MY JOB or introducing my kids to new ways of thought! We're gonna form a rainbow coalition to stop them! How dare they try to bring their values into my life--I called dibs on that shit centuries ago!!!
I hate scare tactics like this. "The government is attacking my church!" "They're coming into my home!" Oh ghod! We're going to go on and on about these threats that TEH GAYS represent, except we're never going to actually specify anything...because, well, if it comes down to facts, we don't have any!
I'm extra pissed cause they're called NOM. Not even fair.
"Thanks" to ryuutchi for the video.
EDIT: pixelfish pointed me to the Human Rights Campaign's website where they break down the talking points of the bullshit video above (Nyah nyah elenuial. I don't have to take your dare!) However, here they are, with rebuttals.
A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
This refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief.
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need - gay or straight, Christian or Muslim - regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
This refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies--and was fined by the state for doing so.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions -concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments- but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
This one refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both the first and second example are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And the third is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
Oh no! The gays are trying to take away my rights! They're trying to make me DO MY JOB or introducing my kids to new ways of thought! We're gonna form a rainbow coalition to stop them! How dare they try to bring their values into my life--I called dibs on that shit centuries ago!!!
I hate scare tactics like this. "The government is attacking my church!" "They're coming into my home!" Oh ghod! We're going to go on and on about these threats that TEH GAYS represent, except we're never going to actually specify anything...because, well, if it comes down to facts, we don't have any!
I'm extra pissed cause they're called NOM. Not even fair.
Click to view"Thanks" to ryuutchi for the video.
EDIT: pixelfish pointed me to the Human Rights Campaign's website where they break down the talking points of the bullshit video above (Nyah nyah elenuial. I don't have to take your dare!) However, here they are, with rebuttals.
A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
This refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief.
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need - gay or straight, Christian or Muslim - regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
This refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies--and was fined by the state for doing so.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions -concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments- but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
This one refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both the first and second example are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And the third is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.