14 Apr 2014, 6:44 am
bbauska
I think you need to insert electable in where "eligible" is... You can say whatever the hell you want and still be "eligible".
In 08 same sex marriage was not majorly accepted in the US. Now it is.
In only 5 years, the majority opinion in the US has changed. And the laws are rapidly changing to match. This is always how society has worked in increasing acceptance of minorities as protected classes in modern democracies. And I believe that the man you are quoting has "evolved" his position has he not?
Today, a politician professing the same opinion will create negative reaction to their candidacy with the majority of the electorate. And particularly among the younger demographics. Its far less likely that a successful candidate for President in the next election will make this kind of statement.
The parallel between the photographer not wanting the business of the LGBT community and the President of Mozilla would be if Mozilla adopted a policy that excluded doing business with the LGBT community.
He and Mozilla didn't do that did they?
Neither are his customers, potential customers and stakeholders guilty of discriminating against a class of people just because of who they are.... They are acting to isolate an individual who they feel has demonstrated he is a bigot or homophobe, and with whom they do not want their businesses or persons to be associated. That his past actions weren't held in the same disregard at the time of the action is also demonstrative of how far the position of society has evolved. Perhaps his major problem today, is that he has never demonstrated an "evolution" of his beliefs, nor demonstrated regret for his past actions?
There are plenty of Christians who accept that society has determined that same sex marriage is acceptable, so this isn't discrimination against Christians as a class. Only a reaction against a particular person and his specific act of discrimination.
Should the concept of religious freedom protect him? What if his religion held that marriage between races was sinful and he campaigned against that? I think he'd be in the same position of believing in a discriminatory practice that the majority of society will no longer tolerate - no matter what justification he finds in his scripture.
So someone saying this back in the middle of 08, would not be eligible for being the Chief Executive?
I think you need to insert electable in where "eligible" is... You can say whatever the hell you want and still be "eligible".
In 08 same sex marriage was not majorly accepted in the US. Now it is.
In only 5 years, the majority opinion in the US has changed. And the laws are rapidly changing to match. This is always how society has worked in increasing acceptance of minorities as protected classes in modern democracies. And I believe that the man you are quoting has "evolved" his position has he not?
Today, a politician professing the same opinion will create negative reaction to their candidacy with the majority of the electorate. And particularly among the younger demographics. Its far less likely that a successful candidate for President in the next election will make this kind of statement.
The parallel between the photographer not wanting the business of the LGBT community and the President of Mozilla would be if Mozilla adopted a policy that excluded doing business with the LGBT community.
He and Mozilla didn't do that did they?
Neither are his customers, potential customers and stakeholders guilty of discriminating against a class of people just because of who they are.... They are acting to isolate an individual who they feel has demonstrated he is a bigot or homophobe, and with whom they do not want their businesses or persons to be associated. That his past actions weren't held in the same disregard at the time of the action is also demonstrative of how far the position of society has evolved. Perhaps his major problem today, is that he has never demonstrated an "evolution" of his beliefs, nor demonstrated regret for his past actions?
There are plenty of Christians who accept that society has determined that same sex marriage is acceptable, so this isn't discrimination against Christians as a class. Only a reaction against a particular person and his specific act of discrimination.
Should the concept of religious freedom protect him? What if his religion held that marriage between races was sinful and he campaigned against that? I think he'd be in the same position of believing in a discriminatory practice that the majority of society will no longer tolerate - no matter what justification he finds in his scripture.
