Quote from: suzifrommd on August 08, 2015, 05:22:49 AM
I'm not sure I understand this. Someone out to denigrate the civil rights movement could describe it as "blacks complaining to mommy government to force someone to serve them lunch". Why is discriminating by refusing someone service in a bakery any less evil than discriminating by refusing someone service at a whites-only lunch counter?

The lunch counter protests were part of a multi-prong protest dealing ultimately with jim crow laws, because it was the law that required segregated establishments. Risking arrest and beating to oppose a discriminatory policy from the government is heroic; getting the government  involved over a dispute about a baked good looks like bullying.

One thing that some conservatives claim, is that we're(lgbt)a bunch of fascists not happy with just being tolerated but also demanding people be forced to accept and celebrate us, and the bakery case feeds right into that narrative and certainly looks like that unless you actually research it, which normal Americans never do lol.  That's why I keep harping on picking your battles and paying attention to the optics, because this case had more downsides than upsides from the beginning.

Quote from: Serverlan on August 08, 2015, 04:37:04 AM
Yes, it's all about dignity. Dignity to vote and dignity to expect not to be discriminated against just living your life. It's not an either or thing; both the big and the small issues are worth fighting for. It is really possible to walk and chew gum.

But they're not the same, and have to be fought differently, with the smaller ones chosen more wisely and best handled indirectly without beaucrats getting involved. It's about the optics and narrative, and doing things in a way where you unequivocally appear to be the morally superior party. This requires one to think strategically, and consider 2nd and 3rd order effects.

Also, this is what real discrimination looks like:

"the Citizens' Councils used economic tactics against African Americans whom they considered as supportive of desegregation and voting rights, or for belonging to the NAACP, or even suspected of being activists; the tactics included "calling in" the mortgages of blacks, denying loans and business credit, pressing employers to fire them, and boycotting black-owned businesses.[10] In some cities, the Councils published lists of names of NAACP supporters and signers of anti-segregation petitions in local newspapers in order to encourage economic retaliation.[11] For instance, in Yazoo City, Mississippi in 1955, the Citizens' Council published in the local paper the names of 53 signers of a petition for school integration. Soon afterward, the petitioners lost their jobs and had their credit cut off.[12] As Charles Payne puts it, the Councils operated by "unleashing a wave of economic reprisals against anyone, Black or white, seen as a threat to the status quo."[7] Their targets included black professionals such as teachers."

If trans people can hate other trans people simply because they are conservative, it seems plausible that conservatives could hate lgbt because they are overwhelmingly liberal. Just a thought.

This is getting way derailed here.  No mention of Caitlyn since page 1.  Can we get this back on track?

Caitlyn is history, Jazz is in.

Quote from: Jill F on August 08, 2015, 09:10:39 PM
This is getting way derailed here.  No mention of Caitlyn since page 1.  Can we get this back on track?

I think this is very much related because it's not about Caitlyn per se but about conflicting views between conservative and liberal transgender people. Caitlyn just happens to be the one that brought it in to light.