Not exactly shocked at turning them away... I am a little surprised that they would claim outright that Christian and Gay were two mutually exclusive adjectives. Also surprised that the couple didn't receive a refund. That's frustrating.
However, I call the couples' motives into questions a little, also. Hmmm...
In the end, I think I'm angry at all parties involved.
[Edited for excessive elipses]
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unfamiliar with the blogger, and meant to read more, but I wasn't sure if they were only going to the Date Night in order to cause this precise reaction. If that's the case, they haven't exactly endeared themselves to me. I mean, I completely understand going if you legitimately wanted to hear relationship advice from Ken Ham, or, even, if you wanted to poke fun later at hearing relationship advice from Ken Ham. You're paying $71 to do just that.
But, I find the idea of a gay couple going just to make a statement or cause a scene annoying. Certainly well within their rights, especially given the fact they paid, but annoying to me, nonetheless.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting story: I went to the Creation Museum as part of a graduate course on the presentation of evolution/creation in museums. After going through the exhibit, me and my friends were comparing the presentation of material in this museum to that of the Fields in Chicago (more the mode of presentation rather than the actual facts themselves) and one of the museum staff starting stalking us. It was quite creepy. She was barely trying to hide the fact that she was following us and listening in on our conversation. Eventually my friend turned around and asked if he could help her and she scurried off.
I have my own opinion on the Creation Museum, but one way or another, that was pretty unsettling.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think sometimes, you have to do things like this just to show what the reaction will be (if that's what they were doing). It's a peaceful illustration of bigotry - they even paid for the privilege.
I'm totally okay with people making nonviolent statements.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if they did go with the intention of provoking this reaction, how is that any different than sit ins at segregated lunch counters in the civil rights era?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I call the couples' motives into questions a little, also. Hmmm....
If their account is honest, then exactly what about their motives is questionable? Why are you angry at them, too, and why are you surprised that they were stolen from?
I mean as to their motives being questionable, homosexuals seeking to expose homophobia doesn't seem very questionable to me (I could throw in the fact that the organization hosting the event receives government funds, and a bunch of other factors). Being angry at homosexuals for exposing the prejudice of people against their particular group, when they are so small and the prejudiced group is so large, seems strange to me.
And being surprised that they were stolen from seems really strange to me. That sort of thing isn't unheard of even when you don't throw in the 'they can't be Christians `cause they're gay' angle in there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Even if they did go with the intention of provoking this reaction, how is that any different than sit ins at segregated lunch counters in the civil rights era?
It's not. It's even worse in this case because you can do any one of a hundred things which are not falling into this obvious protest and basically handing them everything they need for a moral victory.
They could have said "We are exercising the right not to have you at this private event because it is evident to us that you are here with disruptive or malicious intent as anti-creationism bloggers."
Then give them their refund and send them on their merry way.
Oh but nooooooooooo, it's "You can't be here because you're gay and that's disruprive icky and unchristian." Followed by a lie about that being a stated fact on their site.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Being angry at homosexuals for exposing the prejudice of people against their particular group, when they are so small and the prejudiced group is so large, seems strange to me.
I'm not frustrated at all with homosexuals that expose the prejudice of people against our particular group, when we are so small.
I am, however, frustrated when exposing those prejudices comes along with claiming false ignorance. Especially when I'm sure it was quite clear that we wouldn't be welcome there (My "How should Christians respond to gay marriage" pamphlet that I got as a souvenir illustrates their position quite clearly).
They did manage to expose things that surprised me, however. That they weren't allowed a refund, that the Museum staff would intentionally lie, and that they would take such a large and public (However inadvertently public) stance against the prospect of being "gay" and "Christian".
I just think that their means of doing so is frustrating. I sympathize strongly with Christian gay couples who wish to attend a seminar taught by Ken Ham. But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG. From a social context, it's worked out. But, from my personal ideas of morality, I find their actions sketchy. That's all. I'd rather they found a much more straightforward way of gathering this information.
And, besides. It remains to be seen what their intentions were. Were they exposing an organization that discriminates hard-core against gays? Or were they merely satirizing it? None of it makes a different in social affect; I wouldn't say that they "shouldn't", but I know that it personally grates with me.
I suppose that I would say that they reached a good end through questionable means.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG.
Yes it is. Those beliefs ought not be respected. Freedom of religion doesn´t demand that we countenance bigotry with our understanding and patience. We should *allow* it, where it is protected as a right, but we should cast scorn upon it and those who defend it at every advantageous opportunity. The message needs to be clear. You have a right to be a small minded bigot, but you will not escape constant and loud public ridicule.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd rather they found a much more straightforward way of gathering this information.
This was the most straightforward way to find out how this bigoted and worthless group was going to react to finding that gay people were going to attend a function.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG.
Yes it is. Those beliefs ought not be respected. Freedom of religion doesn´t demand that we countenance bigotry with our understanding and patience. We should *allow* it, where it is protected as a right, but we should cast scorn upon it and those who defend it at every advantageous opportunity. The message needs to be clear. You have a right to be a small minded bigot, but you will not escape constant and loud public ridicule.
I strongly disapprove of this sentiment. While I certainly agree with fighting against intolerance, I do not believe we need to chase all small minded bigots until they can't even leave their homes (not that you said that exactly). Nor do I agree we need to make demonstrations at their places of business until they cease to exist.
Rosa Parks doing what she did was important because she was fighting against a bigotry that extended to a public service. Martin Luther King rightly established that black's were being treated like second class citizens, and fought against institutionalized racism in the form of Jim Crow laws.
These museum people with their particular brand of Christianity believe in a few things I think are just flat out wrong. If that leads them to be rude and unwelcoming to certain people, fine, I won't be visiting their museum, or joining their church. But the idea that we need to keep sending people there so that they can be turned away at the door, which every private institution has the right to do, and try to dry up their business is just ridiculous. It's a waste of time. I wouldn't go to that museum and attempt to subvert their message by gathering a bunch of youngsters around myself and teaching them evolution and the folly of creationism.
If the majority of the people in this country were prejudiced against same sex couples, would you appreciate a bunch of them crashing a beauty pageant where the contestants were all drag queens, by attempting to gain admission into the pageant? Loudly stating, "They have a right to believe as they choose, but *WE* have the right to ridicule and laugh at them for being sexual deviants, and to keep this sort of moral garbage off of the streets, and out of the sight of our sensitive women and children!"
Give me a break. These people at their weird attempt at a museum are misguided sure, but do we really *need* to teach them a lesson by forcing them to turn people away at the door, and thus have more occasions to rail against their "intolerance?" I can think of so many better battlegrounds for people looking to take a moral stand against intolerance. Schools where gay kids are physically and mentally abused, gay reformation programs, (where gay children are sent to "straighten up"), the military (which is on the cusp of major reform, but may have difficulty adjusting to it), politicians who speak out against homosexuals as not deserving of the same basic rights Americans all have.
If I wanted to seek out every single business where the proprietors held negative views about Mormonism, I'd have to spend the rest of my life picketing, and to be honest, it does not sound like a very useful way to spend my time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone tries to get into a private Republican event while wearing a bright Obama T-shirt, and the Republicans refuse to let them in, that doesn't "expose" the Republicans as being anti-Democrat. It merely shows they realize the signs of someone who is only there to disrupt their event.
This seems to be similar.
I'm not sure what this exposes. It seems mainly just designed to annoy the organizers of the event. I don't think annoying people is a particularly good method of getting them to change their mind - although it does work from time to time.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they can keep someone out of the museum, and keep their funds, because they are gay, and that is not Christian, could other non-Christians be barred as well? Could they keep their money and still not let them in?
Could they keep Jews out?
Muslims?
Mormons?
Members of each of these groups may believe strongly in a "Creationist" view of how the world was created, so each may buy tickets to attend events there. Would we be any more or less upset if they were then kicked out because they were not Christian enough?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... which every private institution has the right to do, and try to dry up their business is just ridiculous.
Eh?
Don't you guys have the equivalent of one of these?
quote:Ontario adds sexual orientation to Human Rights Code Published: Wednesday, January 28, 1987, 7:20 am ... Attorney General Ian Scott, who opened the debate, downplayed the hidden implications of such legislation. The purpose of this legislation is not to exalt their status, he said, nor to alter any of the fabric of our society It does not alter the law of marriage. It does not downgrade the family as the central institution of our country. It does not alter or modify individual or societal values. The purpose of the amendment, he said is to protect homosexuals employment, accommodation and in the provision of services.
quote:If they can keep someone out of the museum, and keep their funds, because they are gay, and that is not Christian, could other non-Christians be barred as well? Could they keep their money and still not let them in?
Could they keep Jews out?
Muslims?
Mormons?
Members of each of these groups may believe strongly in a "Creationist" view of how the world was created, so each may buy tickets to attend events there. Would we be any more or less upset if they were then kicked out because they were not Christian enough?
The fairness of not allowing a person into an event for those reasons depends on the nature of the event. Am I correct in believing there are religious events that Mormons have which I could not attend because I am not Mormon?
Truthfully, if we are talking about an event that is intended to be a Christian event about relationships, I think they probably could choose not to include non-Christians. (Although ironically, that seems like a very un-Christian thing to do.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the idea that we need to keep sending people there so that they can be turned away at the door, which every private institution has the right to do...
So if I have a restaurant, I'm allowed to turn away black people?
I thought we struck that sort of thing down in the 50s.
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG.
Yes it is. Those beliefs ought not be respected. Freedom of religion doesn´t demand that we countenance bigotry with our understanding and patience. We should *allow* it, where it is protected as a right, but we should cast scorn upon it and those who defend it at every advantageous opportunity. The message needs to be clear. You have a right to be a small minded bigot, but you will not escape constant and loud public ridicule.
I strongly disapprove of this sentiment. While I certainly agree with fighting against intolerance, I do not believe we need to chase all small minded bigots until they can't even leave their homes (not that you said that exactly). Nor do I agree we need to make demonstrations at their places of business until they cease to exist.
Until they cease to spew bigotry. That you tie their existence into their bigoted "belief system" is interesting.
And no, we don't *need* to. We should. Honestly, BB, I don't want to play the racecard here because it's not exactly fair, but, well, you know what I'm going to say. If this were about race you wouldn't stand up for these creeps.
quote: If I wanted to seek out every single business where the proprietors held negative views about Mormonism, I'd have to spend the rest of my life picketing, and to be honest, it does not sound like a very useful way to spend my time.
You need to be honest here. We're talking about demonstrating against open and clear discrimination against gays. If there were businesses that didn't allow Mormons as customers, I would be right there with you for the protest, because that'd be bull****.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the idea that we need to keep sending people there so that they can be turned away at the door, which every private institution has the right to do...
So if I have a restaurant, I'm allowed to turn away black people?
I thought we stuck that sort of thing down in the 50s.
Yes, you're allowed to. Probably it would be bad for business.
quote: If someone tries to get into a private Republican event while wearing a bright Obama T-shirt, and the Republicans refuse to let them in, that doesn't "expose" the Republicans as being anti-Democrat. It merely shows they realize the signs of someone who is only there to disrupt their event.
This seems to be similar.
Uh, no, it's not similar. A private Republican event is well justified in denying people entry who are obviously there to disrupt the goings on, and aren't part of the cause. Nobody cries foul at that because it's reasonable. Museums are not justified in denying entry to people who are openly gay, because discriminating against gays is wrong.
So, discriminating against your political opposition in this scenario = okay.
Discriminating against gays in most if not all* situations = not okay.
(*I qualify this because I can imagine scenarios such as, say, hetero speed dating events, in which having gays participate would foul up the works unfairly for paying customers- which applies equally in the inverse to heterosexuals in the same situations).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: I'm not "sticking up for them." I don't need to prove my credentials by meeting some sort of quota for vitriolic rhetoric against the museum. I think what they are doing is stupid.
If these bloggers are really concerned with civil rights, I've already outlined off the cuff places that would be *much* better served. This museum since its inception has been controversial and the butt of jokes on many TV shows and publications I've read.
I seriously doubt if the museum was like, "Sure gay people can come to our date night, we hope they'll see the light and repent!" that suddenly everything would be hunky dory.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, do you know if public funding went towards the building or continued maintenance of this creation museum?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Blackblade, do you know if public funding went towards the building or continued maintenance of this creation museum?
No, but that would certainly be an important thing to know. I'd thought about it, but I haven't looked into it. If you did I'd appreciate it, I'll try to look into it while I'm at work, but no guarantees.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reference Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. McClung for turning away people on the basis of race at restaurants. The Court held it an impermissible restriction of interstate commerce. The restaurant in question (an Ollie's barbeque, I believe) was privately owned. I think this case is still good law.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hef: Reference Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. McClung for turning away people on the basis of race at restaurants. The Court held it an impermissible restriction of interstate commerce. The restaurant in question (an Ollie's barbeque, I believe) was privately owned. I think this case is still good law.
Good to know, was it because the restaurant was serving customers from out of state, or obtaining supplies for its business from out of state?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, my English teacher, (who is better than yours of course) said that one must always put a comma before quotation marks, brackets, and parentheses.
posted
Blackblade, will you accept my authority in this matter and accede to my judgement that this "rule" does not apply to scare quotes?
See what I did there? Hehe.
Oh and incidentally, you either misremember or are dead wrong according to any decent style guide I have ever read. Parentheses are not ordinarily preceded by commas. You are mistaken.The commas come after the end-parenthesis. Just look at your sentence for the reason why: the comma breaks the clauses in entirely the wrong place, attaching the parenthetical to the second clause, rather than the first. No sense in that. I wish we had had this discussion a week ago, because you may have lost points on this on the FSOT. I did presentations on abstract writing when I was in college, and I scored a 5 on AP Language, so I should know what I'm talking about.
Check into it if you don't believe me.
quote: Nope, my English teacher, (who is better than yours of course) said that one must always put a comma before quotation marks, brackets, and parantheses.
So, look, just for everybody out there who may be reading this, and not to be a dick, but this is just wrong- at least as far as it goes. I am actually surprised that BB is saying it, and I suspect he may be having a brain fart.
posted
I don't have time to address your points Orincoro, but simply put, commas before parentheses make sense to me, as we often pause before saying scare quotes, as well as quoting. When I use brackets a comma makes sense because we pause before saying the sentence within a sentence.
I don't disbelieve that you have style guides that say otherwise, I'm just certain I had a teacher that taught me to write that way. I remember asking about it, and am unclear what Jon Boy told me. I need to look that up, so as to clarify because if he did agree with you, it's simply a case of old habits dying hard. In any case, I've been using commas in that way ever since I started posting here on Hatrack.
quote:Originally posted by hef: Reference Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. McClung for turning away people on the basis of race at restaurants. The Court held it an impermissible restriction of interstate commerce. The restaurant in question (an Ollie's barbeque, I believe) was privately owned. I think this case is still good law.
Good to know, was it because the restaurant was serving customers from out of state, or obtaining supplies for its business from out of state?
Both, as it happens. The restaurant was getting a little less than half it's supplies from out of state, and it was only a few miles from the interstate, so, half their customers were from out of state as well.
Been awhile since I've read the decision, but the impression I got was that no matter who had brought the suit, SCOTUS was waiting and ready to use the Commerce Clause as a reason to uphold the Civil Rights Act. Just interesting that the suit was actually brought by the restaurant owner rather than a customer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Orincoro is right on this according to every style guide I've ever read, grammar/punctuation book I've taught from, grammar/punctuation book I've been taught from, and English teacher who I've had that covered this sort of material. To the extent that proscriptive punctuation rules are valid, any teacher who taught you the punctuation rules you're talking about here was simply wrong.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of what the style guides say, 'the, "museum"' is jarring. That can't possibly right.
In any case the Wikipedia article on scare quotes shows an example from the Chicago Manual of Style that disagrees with BB's usage.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope, my English teacher, (who is better than yours of course) said that one must always put a comma before quotation marks, brackets, and parantheses.
Nope. Both Orincoro and Noemon are right about this; there is no comma needed before a scare-quoted "Museum."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as an occasional copy-editor, you use a comma before dialogue in quotes, but you shouldn't use a comma before single words or phrases that are in quotes.
He leaned over and said, "Do you believe this 'museum' is for real?"
He leaned over and asked me if I thought this "museum" was for real.
The scare quotes imply the emphasis, no additional pause is needed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be sure to let Janitor Blade know your feelings on the matter! Since, you know, he lets me photograph him for the paper.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can tell, the museum does not, but the people behind it are trying to open a Noah's Ark theme park that currently is being supported by state money.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I've heard as well, that there's indirect government money behind the organization.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't have time to address your points Orincoro, but simply put, commas before parentheses make sense to me, as we often pause before saying scare quotes, as well as quoting. When I use brackets a comma makes sense because we pause before saying the sentence within a sentence.
The problem is that commas don't always indicate pauses, and pauses aren't always indicated by commas. You could say that a pause before a parenthesis or a bracket is indicated by the parenthesis or bracket itself. And if there is a pause before scare quoted material, it's probably rather small. And I think a verbal scare quote is signaled more by stress, pitch, and volume than by a preceding pause.
quote:I don't disbelieve that you have style guides that say otherwise, I'm just certain I had a teacher that taught me to write that way. I remember asking about it, and am unclear what Jon Boy told me. I need to look that up, so as to clarify because if he did agree with you, it's simply a case of old habits dying hard. In any case, I've been using commas in that way ever since I started posting here on Hatrack.
I'm not at all surprised that a teacher taught you that. Heck, I heard it on an episode of Word Girl that my boys were watching the other day. I wanted to throw something at the TV.
I don't remember if we discussed this before, but the general rule is that you use commas before quotations that are syntactically removed from the rest of the sentence and not before quotations or material in quotation marks that are part of the syntax of the sentence.
Examples:
quote:He said, "This is the worst pizza ever." He said that "this is the worst pizza ever." He said that this is the worst "pizza" ever.
In the first sentence, the quotation doesn't really have any connection to the rest of the sentence, but in the second, it's run in to the sentence and is an integral part of its syntax.
quote:He said that "this is the worst pizza ever."
Since this is an indirect statement, the quotations shouldn't be in there at all. If you are going to quote a full sentence, then set it up as a quote, but if you are going to use an indirect statement, don't use quotation marks.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word "bigotry" keeps being tossed around here, as if Christian fundamentalists could not have arrived at an intelligent, well-considered decision not to approve of homosexual behavior, since it is explicitly condemned in the Bible. This is not bigotry, it is belief. Saying they are bigoted is judgmental and intolerant in itself. It is like a Democrat being said to be "bigoted" because he is opposed to the views of Republicans, and vice-versa.
Personally, I don't see why they had to be refused admittance. Just admitting them would not endorse their lifestyle. And of course their admission fee should have been refunded.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if we take an explicit condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible as a given (although I expect kmboots or someone similar to dispute this), but if we take this as a given for the sake of argument, this is still no defence against a charge of bigotry.
Bigotry explicitly recorded in text and then transmitted to other people is still bigotry. It is not like the written word has a special cleansing power to neutralize bigotry.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
