Mississippi & Louisiana Join Refusal to Honor Same Sex "Marriage"

[PaintMyHouse]

Is this the same supreme court that ruled as recently as 1986 that sex between gay and lesbian couples was illegal?

No. All the justices serving now were appointed after that wrongly decided case. Moreover, it was overturned by a later Supreme Court Case,

I'm very glad that lesbian sex isn't illegal. That's the best porn...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They're claiming delay but may also be testing the waters have picked up momentum in Texas, Kentucky and Alabama

Texas, Kentucky and Alabama already conceded that they will honor the USSC ruling.

You're in the bargaining and denial phase of your loss. Where you are trying to convince yourself of elaborate comforting lies. The reality is far simpler and colder:

You lost.

AG Paxton State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples News - Home

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They're claiming delay but may also be testing the waters have picked up momentum in Texas, Kentucky and Alabama

JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's attorney general directed circuit court clerks in the state to delay granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court said gay couples have a right to marry in all 50 states....In Louisiana, Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision had nothing requiring it to be effective immediately. Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal, who announced Wednesday that he is running for president, also said that the issue trampled on states' rights and vowed that he would never stop fighting for religious liberty... La. Miss. officials drag feet on issuing same-sex licenses

We'll see if they roll over and piss on themselves over Friday's unconstitutional/overreach legislative "ruling"..

No wonder they number among the states with the highest poverty rates.

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

 

[paddymurphy]

Texas, Kentucky and Alabama already conceded that they will honor the USSC ruling.

You're in the bargaining and denial phase of your loss. Where you are trying to convince yourself of elaborate comforting lies. The reality is far simpler and colder:

You lost.

AG Paxton State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples News - Home

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

AG Paxton State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples News - Home

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

Just more time in court, and they are personally liable...

 

[Seawytch]

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

The Heritage Foundation thinks so. You've heard of them, yes?

Reducing Poverty by Promoting Healthy Marriage

 

[Lonestar_logic]

AG Paxton State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples News - Home

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

The Heritage Foundation thinks so. You've heard of them, yes?

Reducing Poverty by Promoting Healthy Marriage

Key word is "healthy".

 

[Seawytch]

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

The Heritage Foundation thinks so. You've heard of them, yes?

Reducing Poverty by Promoting Healthy Marriage

Key word is "healthy".

And you have evidence that our marriages aren't?

 

[Seawytch]

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

So the laws requiring clerks to marry interracial couples was unconstitutional? Weird....

 

[Asclepias]

They're claiming delay but may also be testing the waters have picked up momentum in Texas, Kentucky and Alabama

JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's attorney general directed circuit court clerks in the state to delay granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court said gay couples have a right to marry in all 50 states....In Louisiana, Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision had nothing requiring it to be effective immediately. Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal, who announced Wednesday that he is running for president, also said that the issue trampled on states' rights and vowed that he would never stop fighting for religious liberty... La. Miss. officials drag feet on issuing same-sex licenses

We'll see if they roll over and piss on themselves over Friday's unconstitutional/overreach legislative "ruling"..

No wonder they number among the states with the highest poverty rates.

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

Never thought of that but it makes sense. 2 incomes are better than one.

 

[paddymurphy]

seem the right doesn't know the difference between can and will or do.

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

Did not say that in his "opinion." And the part of the law that was unconstitutional is the part that denied a license to gay couples The Supreme Court took care of that and Texas law now recognizes the right of gay couples to marry. And, yes, Texas did. The law in Texas, as in the entire US is that gay people can marry. Telling a clerk that he personally can refuse to issue a license, depending upon the facts, does not change the fact that, in Texas, gay marriage is lawful. In his opinion he pointed out that whether a clerk can refuse to issue a license depends on whether that refusal creates an undue impediment to a gay couple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the majority of clerks gave the Texas AG the finger and are issuing marriage licenses to everyone in Texas.

Those reporting to the DMN are issuing licenses. The fact is this: the great majority of Texans are within easy drive of a courthouse giving out licenses.

Interactive maps How Texas counties are handling same-sex marriage licenses Dallas Morning News

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, if we just had more married homos the poverty rate would drop?

The Heritage Foundation thinks so. You've heard of them, yes?

Reducing Poverty by Promoting Healthy Marriage

Key word is "healthy".

And you have evidence that our marriages aren't?

Common sense would tell you that two guys sticking their dicks into fecal matter, probably isn't healthy.

But........here's more.

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals study finds News LifeSite

On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle

Facts About Youth Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle

The Facts on the Gay Movement

Shigella Infections among Gay & Bisexual Men (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - April 9, 2015) - Shigella germs are present in the feces (poop) of people with shigellosis while they have diarrhea and up to a few weeks after the diarrhea has gone away. Shigella is very contagious; exposure to even a tiny amount of fecal matter with Shigella in it can cause infection. Symptoms usually start 1-2 days after exposure, but may range from 12-96 hours. Transmission of Shigella infection occurs in the following ways:
- Person-to-person contact. Shigella passes from stools or soiled fingers of one person to the mouth of another person, which can happen during sexual activity. Oral-anal sex, or oral stimulation (i.e., sucking or licking) of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.
- Eating food contaminated by someone who has shigellosis.
- Swallowing recreational or drinking water that was contaminated by infected fecal matter.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

Did not say that in his "opinion." And the part of the law that was unconstitutional is the part that denied a license to gay couples The Supreme Court took care of that and Texas law now recognizes the right of gay couples to marry. And, yes, Texas did. The law in Texas, as in the entire US is that gay people can marry. Telling a clerk that he personally can refuse to issue a license, depending upon the facts, does not change the fact that, in Texas, gay marriage is lawful. In his opinion he pointed out that whether a clerk can refuse to issue a license depends on whether that refusal creates an undue impediment to a gay couple.

Ken Paxton, in his nonbinding legal opinion, went on to add that “numerous lawyers” would be made available to defend public officials refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to The Associated Press.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/texas-attorney-general-gay-marriage-119518.html#ixzz3ea1rhAb0

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lonestar, myob, this has been decided.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Figures I'd have to explain this to you.

Your dumbass friend stated Texas has conceded and will honor the SCOTUS ruling. I just showed that not to be true.

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

So the laws requiring clerks to marry interracial couples was unconstitutional? Weird....

Did it go against a persons religious belief? No.

Apples and oranges.

Stop comparing yourselves to black Americans, it makes you look desperate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The desperation is all on the side of the far weird right.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, myob, this has been decided.

You should take your own advice.

 

[The Rabbi]

Try reading your link. All that asshole general Paxton did was tell clerks that they might have the right to refuse to issue a license personally, but that they could still be sued if no one else in the office did. He did not tell them to ignore the Court ruling and did not state that it was not binding on the state. Most clerks are doing their jobs. Apparently, they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state than their AG

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday stated that county clerks, judges and justices of peace can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons, arguing that the Supreme Court did not abolish religious liberty.

No, he said they might be able to claim that issuing one violates their right to religious freedom, but that whether or not it did so depends.
He wrote, "Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer. In short, county clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide for certain accommodations of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses--or issuing licenses at all, but the strength of any particular accommodation claim depends upon the facts." In other words, "it depends."

He also said he had a team of lawyers to help defend the clerks if they are threatened with legal action for refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law.

Texas as a whole did not concede. Which was my point

So the laws requiring clerks to marry interracial couples was unconstitutional? Weird....

Did it go against a persons religious belief? No.

Apples and oranges.

Stop comparing yourselves to black Americans, it makes you look desperate.

This is as calculated as it is absurd. If the fagghadis can convince everyone that opposition to homosexuals is the new racism then they can marginalize and demonize those who oppose them.