Tennessee Democrats Disavow Senate Nominee

How has this went unmentioned, thus far?

Apparently, the Democrats aren't willing to accept (D) Mark Clayton's winning their nomination to challenge (R) Senator Corker in the upcoming general election.

From the state Democratic party:

"Mark Clayton is associated with a known hate group in Washington, D.C., and the Tennessee Democratic Party disavows his candidacy, will not do anything to promote or support him in any way, and urges Democrats to write-in a candidate of their choice in November."

Here's the website for the, "known hate group": About Us - Public Advocate of the United States, Eugene Delgaudio, President

And here is Mark Clayton's webpage (think Sab's blog....but with less substance and polish): Mark Clayton for Senate

So....is this a hate group, or not?

On a sidenote, those who follow local / state politics will appreciate this: Clayton has enlisted the help of (equally crazy, but conservative) Stacy Campfield to force the Dems to recognize him, or something or other. I was laughing too hard to read it all, really.

 

From what I have gathered it goes against the democratic party guidelines so they would consider it hate.

 

Could of sworn we had touched on this somewhere.

 

I figured Corker would get 80 percent of the vote, now he might get 90.

 

We did, just can't remember which thread.

 

This is the problem with a two-party system. In the regions where one party is impossibly behind the other, there really is only one party with credible chances of election. Kind of slackens the sails of a democratic republic. This is also why we get garbage congress members.

 

Dunno if it could be considered a hate group, but I would like to know what they mean by "gay rights" since they are apparently opposed to them. If they are legitimately against equal rights (not just marriage) for homosexuals, then yes, it is a hate group. However, I doubt that is the case.

 

Also, there is no way in hell I am voting for Bob Corker or Mark Clayton.

Although, I would love to be given time in a voting booth with either of the Corker daughters.

 

I'm not nearly so conciliatory. If it is a group that actively funds and campaigns for efforts to enforce marriage inequality based on their personal religious views, they ARE a hate group. Sorry, haters.

 

Is any group opposed to gay rights a "hate group"?

 

And why didn't the Democratic Party not field a candidate for US Senate?

Couldn't find one?

 

Probably depends on which side of the issue a person stands. I know hate is a strong term, but if a group is actively working against equal federal/state rights for homosexuals then from my perspective it is certainly something close to hate. What is the motivation? For whatever reason they have strong enough feelings toward gays to actively work at keeping them a lower class of citizen. I would say in many, if not most cases it is fair to say these groups don't like gay people very much.

 

Why the distinction of hatred based on active funding and mobilization?

Absent these two elements, would it then fail to qualify as a hate group? If so, what then does it become, instead? If not, isn't a group of people who hate anything, regardless as to either the object of their hatred or how much they spend or campaign, still a hate group?

This line of thought - where spending money toward something or championing a particular side of a cause - somehow solidified or made the opposition somehow and accountably worse - and I'm not sure how they correlate, at the end of the day.

Whether you're spewing hatred with your buddies at work, or writing a check to a "hate group" - isn't "hate", well, "hate" in either case?

 

Semantics are becoming a refuge for bigots. If one does not believe individuals should all be the same- that some individuals should be treated with higher standing by our government, one is bigoted. If one then organizes with like-minded individuals to actively create or maintain a social inequality based solely on their religious beliefs, then they are by definition a hate group.

To anticipate the comments to come about being "intolerant of others" by not accepting their personal beliefs: being tolerant of intolerance is cowardice. I am not advocating the rights of heterosexuals or those who find homosexuals/homosexual marriage to be against their religious beliefs to be infringed. I am advocating they quit applying their personal beliefs about their fellow Americans into government policy.

Arguing that legalizing homosexual marriage DOES infringe the rights of anti-gay marriage folks is a tacit admission that they are in fact actively infringing homosexuals by their very own (mis)understanding of the word.

 

Brilliantly stated.

 

Is it bad that this is the first thing that comes to my mind when reading this?

 

Do you mean to insinuate that I am using semantics to hide my bigotry? I hope not.

But, when a party disavows its candidate in a US Senate race for being associated with a "hate group", I think it warrants a question as to what exactly they mean.

And if the Tennessee Democratic Party considers any group who opposes "gay rights" as to be a "hate group", the ramifications couldn't possibly be overstated.

So, its both a valid question and an important distinguishment to make, I think. Don't you agree? Don't you feel like the people of Tennessee would appreciate knowing that, or would find some significance in it? You know, as opposed to what they're doing now, which seems to be little more than hiding behind the semantics of calling something a "hate group" when they really only mean, "opposes gay rights"?

And so, I'm left with three easy questions:
1. Are you saying that all groups and individuals should be treated the exact same, and in all cases, regardless of any distinguishable or known factor or qualifier? I should be certain as to your meaning, here, because if true, then what should you call someone who falls beyond those self-described bounds of bigotry, and what should be done to correct it, if anything?

2. Is any group which opposes "gay rights" a hate group, or not?

3. Why are the gays more deserving of tolerance of their beliefs - and those who oppose it, are not? Exactly, please.

 

Question 3 is utter nonsense. Nobody gives the first shit what the God Squadders do or don't believe. It's only when they attempt to turn their "beliefs" into discriminatory public policy that people get riled.

 

I could just repost what I did earlier, if you missed it. Actively opposing gay rights (i.e. ACTING to make sure they do not get equal legal position) IS a bigoted activity and does make one a "hate group." There is no "if," but," or "then" about what the Democratic party is saying. They aren't insinuating anti-gay rights groups are hate groups-- they're SAYING it.

1. Everyone is "created", or enters this world, equal; they should have equal standing with the law. If you're going to go in the sex offender direction, I'd like to point that anyone convicted of being such would find themselves in the same position- it's still equal.

2. The Democratic party clearly feels that yet, any group that actively organizes and campaigns to discriminate fellow Americans because of their orientation is a hate group. I agree with that stance. I know that is a broad brush, but I am prepared to own it.

3. Please read my posts. I anticipated this very question.

 

Someone is going to have to break down for me why this isn't the exact same thing as "Shariah Law."