Often times, people who have an alternative sexuality become.. how to put this without being offensive?.... "Demanding?".. One big place this happens, is vis-a-vis, people with regressive religious faiths and practices. Demanding that a religious institution host a gay wedding is not a victory. It is the forced imposition of compelled service against another party's will-- as an example. Demanding the loss of somebody's agency, to satisfy a want, is improper, and an over-reach. Every Time.
The LGBT community tends to have this notion that "You cannot go too far!" when dealing with people who hold regressive views-- religious people especially. This leads to situations where you cause serious offense, and circumstances brew to cataclysmic levels, and shit gets real, like Tenn.
Asking churches to stop reinforcing prejudices is actually the half-measure. The true solution would be removing their tax-exempt status and reducing our systemic reliance on their "good works", which are very often prejudicial and always some degree of proselytizing. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes not.
The important part of that is just lobbying for a civilized social safety net, which I do. I expect spirituality and religion to survive and even *thrive* once people have the universal freedom not to rely on their local churches in order to eat.
That's what I want eventually, but it's very far away for now. The proposal you mentioned is more "Given you have special tax status, please stop being openly bigoted. It makes us (the government) complicit." So I guess I can cynically support that half-measure for now.
But honestly I don't think many people expect or want bigoted churches to have to
bake them cakes host their weddings. The real conversation is far right of that - it's "Sure we'll reconsider whether gay marriage should be a thing, thanks for explicitly telling your parishioners to vote for me." (Illegal, but unenforced). And that's *their* half measure. What they actually call for is conversion therapy and sodomy laws. They don't believe we exist and also desperately want to stop us from existing.
There's no true middle-ground with the ideas they proudly state. The ultimate goal of minority rights is that everyone be free from persecution. The reality is that means laws (
enforced laws) protecting minorities from persecution. People will scream bloody murder about those "special protections" but they're necessary. We know that in the absence of those protections, people will be excluded from society - even passively, through hiring/housing discrimination.
Refusing to marry a couple is relatively unimportant compared to hiring and housing, and I hadn't really thought about the issue until you brought it up, but it's part of the same rot. Churches have very protected status, though, and that's not likely to change anytime soon, so I'd rather focus on more realistic battles. Currently that means playing defense against the Supreme Court, which is likely to give the states a lot of license for bigotry in the near future. As if anybody can just move... imagine asking for asylum from a state.
I think that got away from me a bit - also I feel like your post changed a lot, but maybe I failed to read it all! I'll try to briefly address the rest to be fair.
Another constructive question!
The amount they should ask for, is simply equal treatment. (as opposed to 'protected' treatment.)
That is to say, "We do not want to be disadvantaged", vs "I want a special exception to existing rules."
For a personal example-- in my state, you have to have a dependent child in order to claim being a head of household. This is not only a direct lockout against people who are sterile and want children, or against gay people that are in some other way excluded from adoption services (due to other bullshit), but also fundementally affects asex people like myself, who only have the single income, and will only ever have the single income, and have all the bills other people have.
Rather than say "I want an asex exemption to this rule!!!", you should instead go "I want this rule to be re-evaluated, because it is exclusionary. I want the same treatment that people with kids get."
Ooh, this is good! Yeah I absolutely agree. I guess I'm a bit biased though
In fact... as much as I'm disinterested in making children (I do want to adopt, someday) I can theoretically understand a government subsidizing childbirth. I think it's the wrong decision in our current world, given issues of immigration and resources, but I don't know whether it's... bigoted? Maybe. I'm certainly more comfortable with it rewarding people for having kids rather than making kids, despite my having none.
Much like it would be completely improper for a black family run bakery to be compelled to make cakes for a KKK kegger party-- it is improper to compel a religious family run bakery to make your wedding cake.
That is demanding a special exemption, not equity, and is using the court system to compel somebody to service they do not wish to provide, which is a violation of agency.
Asking a black family to make a cake for the KKK is different from asking them to make a cake for a white family. Bigots aren't and shouldn't be a protected class, it's a behavior people can choose not to engage in (subconscious bigotry aside - we're talking the KKK here).