Another one of our close Arab allies are back in the news to remind us that basic freedoms are not part of our common alliance. Oman has shut down The Week newspaper after it published an article viewed as too sympathetic to homosexuality in the Gulf state. The country has a gay population but it insists that these citizens live like criminals under Islamic prohibitions of homosexuality. The Week is the largest circulation English-langauge weekly in the country.
In response to the government crackdown, the newspaper was forced to publish a full, front page apology for the story. In one repressive act, Oman was able to deny free speech, freedom of the speech, religious freedom, freedom of association, and privacy.
The action came after a member of the Shura Council, Tawfiq al-Lawati, tweeted a complaint that the article was advocating homosexuality and could be read to suggest that the country is a safe haven for gays. al-Lawati wanted to be sure that gays got the opposite message: that they are neither safe nor welcomed in Oman.
Under the laws of the Islamic government, you can be put in jail for three years for simply being gay. That is considered progressive by the standards of some of our other allies.
Anyone has a copy of The Week article that caused all this mess?
Not to mention freedom of association, raff.
Even if the scales were to fall from his eyes, you see nothing with them shut.
Gene,
you beat me to the response about the establishment clause. David only wants straight people to have full freedom of speech rights. As OS was suggesting, me thinks he doth protest too much.
Plus . . .
“Gene H wrote: ‘And yet he calls for them to be treated as second class citizens without the equal rights and equal protections of the law, Bron.’
I have never called for this. You continually repeat this dishonest characterization of my position because it is your lie that you use to keep others from giving any credence to my informed opinion.”
I call denying that homosexuals deserve equal protection and equal treatment under the law wanting to treat them as second class citizens.
Also, your opinions are indeed informed . . . ill-informed. Your understanding of the people you seek to oppress and the science behind homosexuality is not just pitiful, it’s contrary to science.
“Gene H wrote: ‘I don’t like drunks, but I’m not out saying we should bring back Prohibition.’
And I have never called to bring back anti-homosexual laws.”
Whoa there, pard. Don’t get too high up on that straw man’s shoulders. I wasn’t talking about you, dingus. I was talking about me.
“Your analogy and characterization of me is always off base.”
Since no analogy was made, that point is moot. However, my characterization of your position is accurate and based on your own words.
“You are unable to have honest dialogue.”
Let me translate that from David-speak: “You don’t agree with me therefor you must be a liar.” Eh, bite me.
“You have to keep mischaracterizing me from a distance, never once asking me how I reconcile concepts you consider to be contradictory.”
I’m not interested in the your mental contortionist routine of self-rationalization and circular logic. I’ve seen it before. I’d rather be watching a new episode of “Luther”. So I did.
“I believe homosexuals have equal rights.”
And you are wrong. They face legal discrimination every day in most jurisdictions.
“I have always said this.”
“But they are not a privileged class of citizens who gets to force their idea of sexual morality upon everyone else under the color of law.”
The term is “protected class” and if they get their equal rights and equal protection guaranteed by law, no one – I repeat no one – will force you to be a homosexual. They’ll let you crawl out of the closet yourself.
“They have cleverly framed their cause in a way that has deceived you, Jonathan Turley, and numerous other people.”
Really. So the vast homosexual conspiracy has fooled me about the nature of the law, a world renowned Constitutional law scholar, every other lawyer posting on this blog and the judges of the Federal Courts? That’s some trick.
“On one side we have people against sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual,”
Morality is a matter for church, not government.
“and on the other side we have homosexuals who claim their sexual freedom is being discriminated against unfairly and unjustly,”
Because it’s true. In many states, they cannot wed, leave property to by intestate succession, or get insurance for/visit in hospital/speak for ill loved ones simply because they are homosexuals.
“and that all their personal problems are caused by those in society who force their sexual morality upon everyone else.”
I’ve yet to hear any homosexual make that claim. Most of them attribute their problems to others being stupid moralizing busy bodies trying to run their lives by forcing a morality on them they don’t share, but the main problem is they don’t have equal rights and equal protection under the law.
“You believe them.”
As I framed it, yes, I do. I’ve seen it. I’m seeing it right now.
“I don’t.”
Like I said.
What OS said.
In one ear and out the other, eh, David? Authoritarian with no insight. For someone who finds the private bedroom activities of LGBT people he doesn’t even know unappealing, you sure spend a lot of time obsessing about their sex lives.
Freud would have had a field day with your neuroses.
Also, I think you meant “I know people of a good many races”. People can be racists. Races can’t be racist. It’s an individual learned behavior. Unlike homosexuality.
Bron,
It’s not about thought. It’s about discriminatory action.
Gene H:
it really isnt anyone’s business.
I know a good many races who wouldnt want their daughter marrying a caucasian. In fact I have heard it with my own ears.
You cant force people to think a certain way.
Let me put it to you this way, Bron.
“Miscegenation is a disgustin’ behavior. I don’t have anything against the nee-gros personally, but I wouldn’t want one a marryin’ mah daughter.”
“Homosexuality is a disgusting behavior. I don’t have anything against homosexuals as people, but I wouldn’t want one marrying my daughter.”
“David has repeatedly said he has nothing against homosexuals as human beings.”
And yet he calls for them to be treated as second class citizens without the equal rights and equal protections of the law, Bron.
That’s called a contradiction at best and hypocrisy at worst and being both is perfectly possible as the terms are not mutually exclusive.
Since he’s admitted that what homosexuals do doesn’t affect him and he can’t name a specific harm created by recognizing their equal rights as equally protected under the law, his approval of their behavior is irrelevant. I don’t like drunks, but I’m not out saying we should bring back Prohibition. Homosexuals having equal rights does not steal David’s property, break his leg or make him literally insane. It’s none of his damn business.
Gene H wrote: “And yet he calls for them to be treated as second class citizens without the equal rights and equal protections of the law, Bron.”
I have never called for this. You continually repeat this dishonest characterization of my position because it is your lie that you use to keep others from giving any credence to my informed opinion.
Gene H wrote: ” I don’t like drunks, but I’m not out saying we should bring back Prohibition.”
And I have never called to bring back anti-homosexual laws. Your analogy and characterization of me is always off base. You are unable to have honest dialogue. You have to keep mischaracterizing me from a distance, never once asking me how I reconcile concepts you consider to be contradictory.
I believe homosexuals have equal rights. I have always said this. But they are not a privileged class of citizens who gets to force their idea of sexual morality upon everyone else under the color of law. They have cleverly framed their cause in a way that has deceived you, Jonathan Turley, and numerous other people. On one side we have people against sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, and on the other side we have homosexuals who claim their sexual freedom is being discriminated against unfairly and unjustly, and that all their personal problems are caused by those in society who force their sexual morality upon everyone else. You believe them. I don’t.
gENE h:
I dont think he is, he objects to a particular behavior. Cuccinelli objects to oral sex, is he a bigot? He would be if he objected to the person.
David has repeatedly said he has nothing against homosexuals as human beings. He just doesnt like the way they have sex which is behavior.
I still think the best way to handle it is to just politely say you are too busy. And most people would do so even without the threat of government just to be polite and not cause any undue emotional harm to an individual.
Maybe DavidM could expound on why it is so important for Christians to make this statement? It seems very militant to me, especially if the gay couple has done nothing to offend you except engage in behavior you disagree with.
Bron wrote: “Maybe DavidM could expound on why it is so important for Christians to make this statement? It seems very militant to me, especially if the gay couple has done nothing to offend you except engage in behavior you disagree with.”
I can’t speak for Christians because I am not one. However, I think there are very logical and rational reasons for defining sexual morality in a way that is less hedonistic than the way homosexuals define it. Homosexuals die younger, suffer from murder and disease more often, have more psychological problems resulting in depression and suicide, etc. The list of harms go on and on. Children raised in such homes are demonstrated to have more involvement with crime and to suffer more arrest by police, to be more involved with alcohol and drugs. It is just good public policy to discourage sexual hedonism.
I am not for bringing back laws that make homosexuality illegal. I think the privacy issues trump that way of thinking and would not be good for the way our society has been set up. However, I think creating a protected class of people through anti-discrimination laws is insane. They are not an economically depressed group of people, and their classification is based upon a criteria that nobody discriminates against. There has never been a law against sexual orientation, ever. They deceive everyone by creating that class, and then protecting sexually deviant behavior by extending the idea that at the root is discrimination against sexual orientation when the truth is that nobody is discriminating against sexual orientation. They discriminate against sexual behavior because they see it as harmful to the people committing it and harmful to society. The fact is that they also discriminate against heterosexuals who engage in exactly the same kind of sexual immorality. It is not restricted to homosexuality, so how can it possibly be discrimination based upon sexual orientation? It can’t be, but stupid lawyers never argue the cases properly and so a lot of people are going to suffer as a result.
If a religious person doesn’t understand all the science and logic involved, I don’t have a problem with him just saying that his religion teaches him it is bad, and so in his heart he also thinks of it as bad. They might call that bigotry, but it is just the facts that some people learn at that level. They just don’t have the intellectual capacity to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanics involved. They trust that others have worked it out, or that their God is wise in revealing this truth. Lots of people operate this way who are not religious at all, many in this forum as well. They rely upon authority rather than being able to engage at an intellectual level.
There is no deception here, David. No matter how hard you try to fool people, it’s obvious you’re a bigot.
Bron,
Sexual orientation is not a religious belief any more than skin color is. The two relevant amendments here are the 14th and the 1st.
Gene H wrote: “Sexual orientation is not a religious belief any more than skin color is.”
This is where the deception lurks. NOBODY cares about the sexual orientation of this gay couple. What they don’t want to do is be forced to encourage them to make decisions that further hedonism through sexual relations that have no reproductive purpose. Or, in this particular case, they don’t want to encourage behavior that is contrary to their religious beliefs. The problem is that they pass a law using the phrase “sexual orientation” to which nobody really has much objection about, but then extend that to sexual behavior when it suits their purpose.
Gene H:
“Actually, we do have laws to protect us from other people’s beliefs and their attempts to force compliance with their beliefs via governmental action.”
So you are saying that the gay couple doesnt have a right to use government to make the baker comply?
David sez, “…When people are instructed to lie in order to stay clear of legal problems, then something is wrong with that law….”
***************************************
There is an alternative way. Be less intolerant. Practice the Golden Rule:
“Laws define for everyone what is moral and what is immoral.”
No. We have laws to define what is legal and illegal. You cannot legislate morality and do so successfully. Prohibition. ‘Nuff said.
“We need the same law for everybody, not one law for the gays, another law for the evil heterosexual white man, and yet another law for the blacks.”
Said the guy who wants homosexuals to have to abide by different laws than heterosexuals.
“I personally have no problem serving gay people. Their money is as good as the next person’s. I address this subject based upon principle.”
Your belief which rests, despite your continued protestations to the contrary, on a religious definition of marriage.
As explained many times in great detail.
“No, we do not have laws in order to protect us from other people’s ideas.”
Actually, we do have laws to protect us from other people’s beliefs and their attempts to force compliance with their beliefs via governmental action.
That is the core principle of the Establishment Clause.
im having a problem with all lgbts being blamed for the actions of a few. and in reality being blamed for the actions of government minions who are paid to aggravate situations that the corporation uses for its own nefarious reasons. the corporation is growing more and more desperate as every day passes because many of the plans for the one world government are falling apart big time. and they’ve gotten very very sloppy with it. just as with ows there were agents sent out who instigated fights, provoked the cops etc all for the purpose of distractions. if we’re all so busy discussing the lgbt and their doings we’re not paying attention to what the ceo and his cohorts themselves are doing behind our backs
DavidM:
I have a small business and I refuse to do business with people all the time. But I tell them I am really busy, or the work is beyond my ability or I give them a really hefty fee, especially if they want it yesterday. Most of them are white heterosexual males [contractors], I dont tell them I cant do business with them because they are married to women and are Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
The simple thing to do is just to say “I am really busy but if you want to pay an extra $5,000, I can work you in.” Or just refer them to a buddy who doesnt have a problem with gay people.
I understand why you object but you are talking about a free society, which we really dont have anymore. People should have a right to refuse service for any reason in a private business. And I should have the right to refuse to patronize that establishment if I disagree with their reason for refusing service.
You dont have to be Christian to have ethics. Read Normative Ethics by Tara Smith.
Here is a link to a review of the book:
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/30/rp_30_5.pdf
Bron wrote: “The simple thing to do is just to say “I am really busy but if you want to pay an extra $5,000, I can work you in.” Or just refer them to a buddy who doesnt have a problem with gay people.”
Bron, I personally have no problem serving gay people. Their money is as good as the next person’s. I address this subject based upon principle.
When people are instructed to lie in order to stay clear of legal problems, then something is wrong with that law. Do you agree?