NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this is why Murvayets and I both tried so hard to get Fass to explain exactly what the duties of the officiant were in Sweden. =)

I got the impression that they were pretty much the same as those in the US.

Ah well.
Mind you, I can't speak with a 100% certainty on how it is in Sweden. While our system is similar to theirs, there may be (and are) some differences. Like how the crazy Swedes let anyone get married in their country now, even people staying there illegaly!

But that's a completely different kettle of dried herring, irrelevant for this thread :tongue:

Why would I be concerned, when it comes to public speech, for the personal opinions of the speaker? I don't care what such people think; I don't live with or around them, and the people who do can hear their private speech. More important to me is the absence of open public bigotry. But we are getting even further afield.
I guess, but what I was asking was why "open" bigotry is necessarily worse than "closed" bigotry... only if their views are expressed can they be noted and rebutalled, and when they know that the public is aware of their views, they might not be as inclined to try to covertly discriminate...


Where is the "doubt" when he called them "nappy-headed hoes"? I give him nothing. It was a disgusting thing to say.
I don't know much about the context, but I'm just not inclined to assume that calling basketball players "hoes" is necessarily racist, because I doubt you could read his mind to know whether or not it was because they were black. Was it a disgusting thing to say? Probably, if only for how insulting it was to those individuals when they weren't insulting him... though I do think there seemed to be a bit of an over-reaction to it...


How do you expect me to know anything you don't know about a situation I only know about through your depiction? All I can tell you is what the law is.
The question was more so rhetorical than anything; it was to make a point. You claim that the law applies just as much so to discrimination against males but they got away with blatant discrimination against males on reverse-sexist grounds.

No religious leader should be forced to marry a gay couple if they feel it is against their religious principles. If a gay couple want to marry in a religious ceremony it should be up to them to find a leader who is happy to perform the ceremony. Religious leaders in the UK are not legally obliged to marry any couple it is a matter of choice for the leader. If s/he says no the couple must find another religious leader to perform the ceremony or settle for a civil union.

Well, that's me satisfied. If you want to act on behalf of the government then you're going to have to act without discriminating against anyone. Your religion tells you that you have to? Then leave your religion or leave your government position. Simple as that.

qft

i doubt you are in all cases. after all, some people think not torturing people is wrong.

I oppose torture too.. I oppose slavery.. I oppose most things like that. I support prisons, maybe that counts as doing something against your will, but I also believe that the truly guilty have given up most of their rights by violating other's.

I guess, but what I was asking was why "open" bigotry is necessarily worse than "closed" bigotry...

Because "closed" bigotry is less powerful. It does not assert itself, it does not dominate culture or public discussion.

only if their views are expressed can they be noted and rebutalled,

We are perfectly capable of rebutting bigoted views even without giving them a full public hearing.

and when they know that the public is aware of their views, they might not be as inclined to try to covertly discriminate...

If they are inclined to covertly discriminate, they will not be public about their views in the first place.

I don't know much about the context, but I'm just not inclined to assume that calling basketball players "hoes" is necessarily racist, because I doubt you could read his mind to know whether or not it was because they were black.

He didn't just call them "hos", he called them "nappy-headed hos." "Nappy-headed" is a racial insult.

You claim that the law applies just as much so to discrimination against males but they got away with blatant discrimination against males on reverse-sexist grounds.

Again, I don't know anything about the single anecdotal case you are presenting to me second-hand. I also don't think it indicates much of anything about the nature or implementation of anti-discrimination laws.

Because "closed" bigotry is less powerful. It does not assert itself, it does not dominate culture or public discussion.
Well, I figured that with open bigotry at least you know what you're getting... but it's understandable that people wouldn't want to see it one way or another.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo) video?


If they are inclined to covertly discriminate, they will not be public about their views in the first place.
Well, that's assuming that they're being intelligent about it, but I suppose...


He didn't just call them "hos", he called them "nappy-headed hos." "Nappy-headed" is a racial insult.
Hmm? I didn't know that, from what I heard of it I thought "nappy headed" meant messy hair or something like that...


Again, I don't know anything about the single anecdotal case you are presenting to me second-hand. I also don't think it indicates much of anything about the nature or implementation of anti-discrimination laws.
Maybe, but the impression I got was that it was a sign of loopholes and/or double standards in anti-discrimination laws.

Anyway, as for the topic at hand, part of the reason I even came in here was to comment that even as someone who supported gay marriage I found the idea of churches having to perform gay marriages unpermissive, but if that isn't even the case I guess I might have misinterpreted the issue to begin with.

my complaint is NOT about 'topic drift'
but rather, if a thread is not about what it says in its title, well why doesn't it say in its title what it IS about?

as far as i'm concerned, anything that can be construed as within the topic title is fair game. and unless its changed after i post this, there is nowhere anything in the title of this topic that says anything about sweeden or america or any other one place on the planet, past, present or future. (or even the same planet most of us are presumably logging on from)

i'm actually NOT objecting to cryptically titled threads either. sometimes, often those are usefull, neccessary, or even fun.

only the inconsistency of saying one thing one place, and claiming something contrary in another.

and of course i'm not claiming saintliness about this, and of course i've had to take the short end of it too.

well the silliest threads DO seem to have the greatest longevity. i suppose that's in keeping with SOMEthing.