Plaza Incident

[_maklelan]

That's fine. I could incorporate all those issues into my above thought bubble and my point would be unchanged.

Mormons had no more reason to be scared of how they'd be treated after a gay marriage law passed than they had to be scared of the consequences of a decriminalized marijuana law. They surely got much more blowback from being so heavily involved in the "Yes on 8" campaign than they ever would have experienced if they hadn't gotten involved and the proposition failed.

In your opinion. Their opinion is different. I have a hard time accepting that you would protect their right to believe what they want when you now tell them that what they believe is unacceptable.

If the aim of the Church's involvement in Prop. 8 was to protect Mormons, then the Church leadership must not have actually gotten any divine revelation on the subject, even though they claimed to.

Why, because you have received divine revelation? Why is the opinion that you've formed more important to this discussion than theirs?

But all of this is beside the point, if I'm to take what you're saying at face value (which I do). You're saying that the Mormons' fear of being oppressed if they didn't strike down gay marriage is enough to demand that their ridiculous campaign be treated with respect and deference. If you actually believe that, then you'd have to treat my campaign to strike down Mormons' right to marry with equal respect and deference.

Since Mormons have always had the right to marry, and your rights have never been threatened, your analogy is invalid. If you'd like to bring up a legitimate analogy we can discuss it.

[_JohnStuartMill]

That's fine. I could incorporate all those issues into my above thought bubble and my point would be unchanged.

Mormons had no more reason to be scared of how they'd be treated after a gay marriage law passed than they had to be scared of the consequences of a decriminalized marijuana law. They surely got much more blowback from being so heavily involved in the "Yes on 8" campaign than they ever would have experienced if they hadn't gotten involved and the proposition failed.

In your opinion. Their opinion is different.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of all of California's finest legal minds who came down on one side or the other in the matter. The "Yes on 8" campaign got a professor of tax law (not family law) who didn't graduate from an accredited law school to buttress their claims that allowing gay marriage would impinge on the freedoms of social conservatives. This is not a difference of "opinion"; it is a difference of reality and make-believe.

I have a hard time accepting that you would protect their right to believe what they want when you now tell them that what they believe is unacceptable.

Well, you have no reason whatsoever to believe that I'm not in favor of Mormons' civil rights. Congratulations on your revealing your prejudice toward me.

If the aim of the Church's involvement in Prop. 8 was to protect Mormons, then the Church leadership must not have actually gotten any divine revelation on the subject, even though they claimed to.

Why, because you have received divine revelation? Why is the opinion that you've formed more important to this discussion than theirs?

Instead of having "answers" on a math test, they should just call them "impressions," and if you got a different "impression," so what, can't we all be brothers?

Sorry, dude -- the Mormon Church undeniably faced backlash due to its participation in Prop. 8, whereas if gay marriage were still legal in California, there would have been no adverse consequences for the Church as a result. The reasoning of all those law deans and professors I cited is sound. Check it out for yourself.

But all of this is beside the point, if I'm to take what you're saying at face value (which I do). You're saying that the Mormons' fear of being oppressed if they didn't strike down gay marriage is enough to demand that their ridiculous campaign be treated with respect and deference. If you actually believe that, then you'd have to treat my campaign to strike down Mormons' right to marry with equal respect and deference.

Since Mormons have always had the right to marry, and your rights have never been threatened, your analogy is invalid. If you'd like to bring up a legitimate analogy we can discuss it.

The rights of the Mormons have never been threatened, either. That's my point.

I don't see what always having the right to marry has to do with it. Blacks didn't always have the right to not be slaves, but this right is no less important.

[_Daniel2]

But this conclusion tells me there's nothing the security personnel possibly could have done that would ever leave you thinking otherwise. Can you paint a scenario with these circumstances where you would be happy to conclude that the guards were wholly and completely in the right?

Actually... Since the very beginning of this incident, I've concluded that "the guards were wholly and completely within their right". On the first thread on this subject in which I reported about this incident on Friday, July 10, I stated the following:

I haven't seen this issue being discussed, yet, but having a bit of an obligation to be "the resident gay-LDS issues guy," I'm bringing it to everyone's attention...

My take...?

Given that the LDS church bought the property, it's security officers were well within their legal rights to ask the couple to leave, and to have them arrested for tresspassing when the couple refused.

I also think it is pretty darn foolish to try to make the case that this gay couple was treated the same as any other "affectionate" couple would have been, given all the kissing newlyweds that smooch all over that plaza while professional photographers document the practice.

The church tries to continue to paint itself as "pro-family, not anti-gay," that nothing is expected of gays that isn't expected of striaghts, or gays aren't treated any differently than straights are. This incident just further reinforces how dumb that argument sounds and how obviously false it is, in practical application.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9709&start=0

So... my position all along has been that the security guards and the church were within their rights--I just think their actions were not very intelligent, especially from a PR perspective.

Darin

[_JohnStuartMill]

Also, just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean it's actually right to do it. I have every right to deny water to a deathly-parched man who got lost in the desert and happened upon my house, but that doesn't mean it would be right for me to do so.

[Guest]

I'm well aware of the complexities of this and related situations. Keep in mind I did express my opposition to Prop 8 over on the MAD board and was called an apostate for it by several posters over there. I also criticized the reactions from many in the gay community to the vote, as well as those who question the Church's reasoning for their support of Prop 8. I understand the reductive perspective that is so common among the loudest voices in debates like these, and I don't think I can honestly be accused of being one of them. My assessment of this particular issue, however, is unrelated to my overall perspective of the conflict between gays and the Church. The facts of the case, I believe, very clearly undermine any claim to altruism and innocence on the part of the gay couple.

I understand that you originally voiced opposition to Prop 8, but my recollection is that after the vote, you changed your view and supported it due to the post-election protests. Do I have that incorrect? (I may be thinking of other post-ers).

I noted that the LDS church (among others) was within their legal right to try to persuade it's citizens to participate in the democratic process, even if I believe the position it took in this case was constitutionally and morally wrong. The fact that I don't believe it should have ever been allowed to be put on the ballot was ultimately not due to the judgement of the LDS church, despite the participation of many of it's adherents to get it there.

I, too, criticized the scattered and few acts of vandalism committed against the LDS church in the wake of Prop 8's passage. I did and do support the right of freedom of speech of citizens to peaceably assemble and protest what they perceive to be unjust voting to remove the previously recognized civil rights of a minority group.

I haven't accused you of being one of the "reductionist voices" in this debate--but I do take exception to your claim that the LDS church "isn't antagonistic" towards gays and lesbians. In my post, I wasn't commenting, specifically, about this couple during the Plaza incident, merely that particular comment.

I am personally not involved in any of that, and I did not support Prop 8, but I do stand up for the Church's right to react to the situation according to their beliefs, and all they have been doing is reacting to the actions of others.

Again, my post was not an accusation of you as a participant in the anti-gay political process, but a comment on what appeared to me to be an objection on your part to the characterization that the LDS church is, in fact, "antagonistic" towards gays and lesbians. Prop 8 is just one incident in a long history of what I believe is highly "antagonistic" behavior by both the institutional church and many of it's members.

I have taken no actions to impede anyone in any capacity in their life, and I am not responsible for the belief that homosexual relationships are contrary to God's will. I will not compromise my beliefs because others disagree, but the opposition to gay marriage stems primarily, whether others want to believe it or not, from deep concerns the church has over the future legal implications of the practice. I'm not responsible for those concerns either, but I can point to a large group of people who are.

Sometimes, all that evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

You are, of course, well within your rights and probably your capabilities to not do anything--there are many, many issues which I am not involved in due to my own limitations or choice. But claiming that the church and those members that DID participate in the process were not "antagonistic" is, in my view, indicative of an out-of-touch reality about the actual actions of the LDS community.

I don't ask you to compromise your beliefs--but I would hope that each of us not kid ourselves about or try to sugar-coat the reality of the consequences of our beliefs.

I honestly don't believe the church's anti-gay actions are motivated by concern about future legal implications--if so, they disregard the enormous wealth of information that many legal scholars have put forth explaining that gay marriage would not infringe upon the constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion (in the same way that civil mixed-religion marriages do not, or in the same way that civil interracial marriages do not, among many other examples). If your claim that the church was motivated by concerns about legal implications for religious groups, I believe the church would jump at the opportunity to pass equality-based legislation that provides specific (though redundant) verbage protecting religious clergy and organizations from lawsuits based on their refusal to participate in any gay marriages.

I disagree that this comes down to something so petty as spite or simple prejudice.

I don't believe that I said anything that indicates that "this comes down to something so petty as spite or simple prejudice."

Even if that were the case, prejudice is rarely "simple."

If you mean to allude to this Plaza situation then I wholeheartedly disagree. This has nothing whatsoever to blocked civil liberties. If you refer to other visible actions please let me know which ones.

No, my previous post (which you were responding to) was not referring to anything related to the Plaza incident.

I think it would be hard to imagine a perfectly analogous situation, but I agree that there would be animosity. Many Mormons would also misinterpret the intentions of whatever opposition might be imagined, but I believe there would always be cooler heads in the administration that would be able to put thing in perspective. At the same time, irrespective of whatever success such hypothetical rights-suppression might have, church leadership would vehemently oppose degradation of opposing worldviews and not support discord and unruly protests.

I am glad that you can see that "there would be animosity," in such a scenario.

Can you admit that LGBT individuals, families, and supporters understantably DO view the LDS church's actions and the actions of it's members as "antagonistic" towards gays and lesbians?

I am not so sure that LDS leaders would "not support dischord"... After all, the church makes no apologies that it will clash with more liberal worldviews. Individual members often recall the scripture in which Christ teaches that he did not come to send peace, but the sword, and to divide families in his cause of truth.

I don't know any pro-gay organizations that encourage "unruly" protests--on the contrary, many that I read (even in the wake of Prop 8) encouraged LGBT supporters to temper their understandable anger with restraint, and respond peacefully and with the purpose of encouraging respect. Can you point to any gay-supportive organizations that suggested otherwise...?

Well then hopefully it's some consolation that I don't oppose gay marriage. What I oppose is the misrepresentation of the church and its motivations.

I commend you for your stance in support of gay marriage. Again, my recollection was that in the wake of Prop 8, you'd changed your views, suggesting that the violent reactions of some individuals justified the church's support of the removal of LGBT couples' right to civil marriage.

I believe I also oppose misrepresentation of anyone (the LDS church, or the gay community), and their motivations.

Sadly, I think this is largely true. My FHE with those Soulforce Equality Riders was still educational and enjoyable, and everyone who was there was edified by the experience. We didn't become best friends, but we all learned that there are rational minds on both sides of the isle who could disagree but still respect and appreciate each other. I know i respect and appreciate your perspective, Darin, and I hope you don't totally disagree if I say I think you respect and at least partially respect mine.

I, too, believe that "rational minds on both sides of this issue can disagree, but still respect and appreciate each other." I also believe that even "rational minds" can occasionally be motivated by irrationality, even as they do so in a respectful manner. Rarely are people wholely "rational" or "irrational." And I'd even suggest that people are rarely wholely "respectful" or "disrespectful"--rather, such exist on opposite ends of a sliding spectrum, and where an individual falls on any given day could depend on a whole host of other issues, such as external events, personal history, individual provocations, fatigue, emotional and physical health, etc.

I respect your approach, Makelan. As I said, previously, my interactions with you have reflected, from my perspective, an attempt to approach the issue in a thoughful and constructive way, which I definately do respect.

My view,
Darin

[_maklelan]

In my opinion, and in the opinion of all of California's finest legal minds who came down on one side or the other in the matter.

I only see those who came down on your side of the matter.

The "Yes on 8" campaign got a professor of tax law (not family law) who didn't graduate from an accredited law school to buttress their claims that allowing gay marriage would impinge on the freedoms of social conservatives. This is not a difference of "opinion"; it is a difference of reality and make-believe.

But problems arose in Germany and Canada that were not supposed to arise either, according to the greatest legal minds. That has a way of worrying people.

Well, you have no reason whatsoever to believe that I'm not in favor of Mormons' civil rights. Congratulations on your revealing your prejudice toward me.

My intention was to point out that you didn't grasp the implication of asserting that their beliefs concerning the consequences of gay marriage are unacceptable.

Instead of having "answers" on a math test, they should just call them "impressions," and if you got a different "impression," so what, can't we all be brothers?

So your opinion is the right answer and the Mormon opinion is just an "impression."

Sorry, dude -- the Mormon Church undeniably faced backlash due to its participation in Prop. 8, whereas if gay marriage were still legal in California, there would have been no adverse consequences for the Church as a result. The reasoning of all those law deans and professors I cited is sound. Check it out for yourself.

Many disagree with your conclusion that there would be no adverse effects if Prop 8 had failed, and your lack of due diligence doesn't change the facts. Quite sound arguments have been logged by many competent law professors and lawyers (not just one single guy without a degree, as if that's really all that could be drudged up).

The rights of the Mormons have never been threatened, either. That's my point.

They're not worried about the past.

I don't see what always having the right to marry has to do with it. Blacks didn't always have the right to not be slaves, but this right is no less important.

Yeah, we get, outlawing gay marriage is comparable to slavery.

[_maklelan]

You originally voiced opposition to Prop 8, but my recollection is that after the vote, you changed your view and supported it due to the post-election protests. Do I have that incorrect? (I may be thinking of other post-ers).

Close. I said I refused to align myself with those that were responsible for such hateful and bigoted responses. I remained (and still remain) unconvinced that gay marriage is at all a threat to me, although I did see a disturbing side of the gay community that I had never seen before after Prop 8.

I noted that the LDS church (among others) was within their legal right to try to persuade it's citizens to participate in the democratic process, even if I believe the position it took in this case was constitutionally and morally wrong. The fact that I don't believe it should have ever been allowed to be put on the ballot was ultimately not due to the judgement of the LDS church, despite the participation of many of it's adherents to get it there.

I, too, criticized the scattered and few acts of vandalism committed against the LDS church in the wake of Prop 8's passage. I did and do support the right of freedom of speech of citizens to peaceably assemble and protest what they perceive to be unjust voting to remove the previously recognized civil rights of a minority group.

I also support freedom of speech, but I didn't see much of it that wasn't accompanied with profane, misleading, and uninformed rhetoric. Even the new Miss California explained that the former one shouldn't be allowed to keep the crown because her beliefs precluded her representing the people of California. Evidently she was unaware that a recent vote established the majority opinion.

I haven't accused you of being one of the "reductionist voices" in this debate--but I do take exception to your claim that the LDS church "isn't antagonistic" towards gays and lesbians. In my post, I wasn't commenting, specifically, about this couple during the Plaza incident, merely that particular comment.

Understood. I still think opposition and antagonism are two different things, though.

Again, my post was not an accusation of you as a participant in the anti-gay political process, but a comment on what appeared to me to be an objection on your part to the characterization that the LDS church is, in fact, "antagonistic" towards gays and lesbians. Prop 8 is just one incident in a long history of what I believe is highly "antagonistic" behavior by both the institutional church and many of it's members.

See above.

Sometimes, all that evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

I don't support it, but I also don't see it as particularly evil.

You are, of course, well within your rights and probably your capabilities to not do anything--there are many, many issues which I am not involved in due to my own limitations or choice. But claiming that the church and those members that DID participate in the process were not "antagonistic" is, in my view, indicative of an out-of-touch reality about the actual actions of the LDS community.

I don't ask you to compromise your beliefs--but I would hope that each of us not kid ourselves about or try to sugar-coat the reality of the consequences of our beliefs.

I honestly don't believe the church's anti-gay actions are motivated by concern about future legal implications--if so, they disregard the enormous wealth of information that many legal scholars have put forth explaining that gay marriage would not infringe upon the constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion (in the same way that civil mixed-religion marriages do not, or in the same way that civil interracial marriages do not, among many other examples). If your claim that the church was motivated by concerns about legal implications for religious groups, I believe the church would jump at the opportunity to pass equality-based legislation that provides specific (though redundant) verbage protecting religious clergy and organizations from lawsuits based on their refusal to participate in any gay marriages.

I don't feel like we're going to get this particular question resolved tonight, so I'm going to smile and wave.

I don't believe that I said anything that indicates that "this comes down to something so petty as spite or simple prejudice."

I know you didn't, but in my mind, presuming it is a "mere trifle" demands it be understood as something inspired by little more than simply prejudice. It's a trifle because no thought or consideration goes into it, just a visceral knee-jerk reaction, which, in situations like this, would generally be governed by simple prejudice. I think that's a logical extension of your statement.

Even if that were the case, prejudice is rarely "simple."

Touche.

No, my previous post (which you were responding to) was not referring to anything related to the Plaza incident.

Gotcha.

I am glad that you can see that "there would be animosity," in such a scenario.

Can you admit that LGBT individuals, families, and supporters understantably DO view the LDS church's actions and the actions of it's members as "antagonistic" towards gays and lesbians?

I still have a hard time with this. I can definitely see that in some members of the church, but I get the feeling the Church could not possibly maintain their belief in any capacity without being accused of antagonism, and I don't think that's necessarily accurate. Antagonism, for me, is deliberate provocation and bating, and I don't see that in anything the church is saying or doing. They're trying to be as ameliorating as possible.

I am not so sure that LDS leaders would "not support dischord"... After all, the church makes no apologies that it will clash with more liberal worldviews. Individual members often recall the scripture in which Christ teaches that he did not come to send peace, but the sword, and to divide families in his cause of truth.

I don't think that's a respectable use of that scripture.

I don't know any pro-gay organizations that encourage "unruly" protests--on the contrary, many that I read (even in the wake of Prop 8) encouraged LGBT supporters to temper their understandable anger with restraint, and respond peacefully and with the purpose of encouraging respect. Can you point to any gay-supportive organizations that suggested otherwise...?

Of course not, but when it says to temper their anger it is always anger at "hatred," and "bigotry," and "lies." I have yet to see an organization treat the LDS (and otherwise conservative) opinion with anything other than vituperative reprehension and disgust. I have also never seen the church accuse the gay community of being the reprobate the church is accused of being.

I commend you for your stance in support of gay marriage. Again, my recollection was that in the wake of Prop 8, you'd changed your views, suggesting that the violent reactions of some individuals justified the church's support of the removal of LGBT couples' right to civil marriage.

I taken aback by the comportment of the gay community in general, and defended the Church's right to stand up for their concerns, but I still don't feel threatened by gay marriage.

I believe I also oppose misrepresentation of anyone (the LDS church, or the gay community), and their motivations.

I would agree.

I, too, believe that "rational minds on both sides of this issue can disagree, but still respect and appreciate each other." I also believe that even "rational minds" can occasionally be motivated by irrationality, even as they do so in a respectful manner. Rarely are people wholely "rational" or "irrational." And I'd even suggest that people are rarely "respectful" or "disrespectful."

I respect your approach, Makelan. As I said, previously, my interactions with you have reflected, from my perspective, an attempt to approach the issue in a thoughful and constructive way, which I definately do respect.

My view,
Darin

Thanks for your time, and keep up the good work.

[Guest]

That's a lie. It was made very clear who you believe to be lying.

Uh, no. You know, you I've been giving the benefit of the doubt here, but not anymore.

The officer said the one he spoke to had slurred speech. That's sloppy drunk.

No it's not. One can have slightly slurred speech after a few glasses of wine and be pretty sound control of one's faculties. The term "sloppy drunk" tends to refer to having a significant loss of control over one's faculties - lots of stumbling, complete emotional disinhibition, etc. It's like you know nothing about drinking at all and harbor poorly informed prejudices towards those who drink. You keep calling them drunks in a move to paint them in a certain light over and over because they supposedly had some slurred speech. In your mind, that apparently discredits them. Once one has drunk to the point their speech is slurred they probably will lie through their teeth. I'm sorry if that's not persuasive to those who don't hold cartoonish views about alcohol and intoxication.

No, we should know that they're lying because when it's the word of security personnel against belligerent drunks (and the security personnel go easy on them in the police report), the belligerent drunks are lying, even if the security personnel are filthy Mormons.

That's an incredibly poor rule to take that fortunately our criminal justice system has fundamentally rejected in principle if not always in practice. Police, much less private security forces lie often enough to make themselves look good that no one accusation of it is implausible on the face of it. I wouldn't take their word by default over some people simply because they drank alcohol and acted rudely when confronted. We should withhold judgment until other facts are available.

Fun story: I know someone who was at a bar. He had a few drinks. He got pulled into a fight occurring there, literally. According to him, as the police arrived he was being tossed out by a bouncer outside where a small crowd was gathering. The police told him to turn around as he was being tossed out. As he was turning around to orient himself, they shot him with a tazer gun. They told him to put his hands in a cuffing position while still tazing him. Obviously, this isn't easy to do in this kind of circumstance, so they tazed him again. Then they roughed him up a fair amount in the detaining process. Oddly, in the police report, that's not how the facts were mentioned. Apparently, he came after the police and they were forced to taz him. They stopped, but after a cool down period he again lunged at them, hence the second tazing. Oddly, this contradicts the ample witness testimony of everyone else who saw the event. Chances are he's going to get a decent settlement from the city. Maybe they'll attempt to argue, in a last ditch effort, that he had some drinks and was involved in aggression, so obviously he's lying. It just has to be that way.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that the police in question are friends with the owner of the bar they responded to. That probably explains why they got taz happy, but that's neither here nor there to the point.

Of course they felt discriminated against. After all, the church was antagonizing them.

If they felt that they were being asked to leave specifically because their PDA was gay, they might be angry about that situation. They probably should be if that were the case. Or they might've just felt entitled and were unhappy about being asked to leave period. That doesn't make liars out of them, not even probably.

You must not be reading this thread. The evidence is pretty clear, and the only reason you don't agree is because your mouth is watering over the thought of a chance to denigrate the church. I find that rather petty and bigoted.

The irony here is that your baseless assumption that my mouth is watering over the thought to denigrate the LDS Church is what is petty and bigoted. It's not the first time a person has accused others of their own blatant faults, though.

What can you provide that at all supports their claim that it was just an innocent arm around the back and peck on the cheek? (Besides the fact that Mormons are lying reprobates.)

That's their testimony? Which is only opposed by the counter-testimony when I wrote my comment? I'm not sure if you want me to address your circumstantial argument, but I think it's collectively weak.

If you had said, "Maybe the Church's official report here isn't necessarily accurate," then I would have no problem, but your response was clearly patronizing and horrendously biased. That you've since lied about what you said also supports that you're just expressing your prejudices against the church and not making an altruistic plea for objectivity.

I wrote, "When then that's clearly what happened. I mean, who would believe a couple of queers over an official Church position on what happened that is favorable to itself?" By this I am implying that we can't simply take the Church position at face value and assume it is true and we certainly cannot, as I'm sure some are inclined to, side with the Church because it is the Church and against the gays because they are gay.

Apparently, you have interpreted this to mean I was saying the Church is lying and that anything else is a dirty lie. You do this because you are such a hateful bigot towards people you think are critical of your Church that you can't think straight when reading comments from them. Then you have the temerity to accuse others of hateful bigotry.

[_gramps]

Maklelan wrote:

But problems arose in Germany and Canada that were not supposed to arise either, according to the greatest legal minds. That has a way of worrying people.

When did Germany start allowing gay marriage? That is a new one for me. Of course, I am willing to be wrong, but....

[Guest]

Totally ludicrous. The Church does not favor those laws just to spite gay people or to try to make them angry.

You must be operating under a different definition of "antagonistic" than I am. It's a rather fundamental, sustained opposition to homosexuals specifically (even if you argue the target is same-sex behavior). It doesn't matter that they aren't intended to spite or make them angry, as neither of those are necessary conditions of antagonistic. But even if we defined the term in that narrow way, it's really a hollow semantic victory, as the opposition you are defending as "not antagonistic" does not become positive merely for lacking spite or intent to anger.

They do it because of their own concerns for the outcomes of laws that might arise as a rseult As I state quited clearly before, there's an enormous difference between disagreement and antagonism. I'm genuinely surprise that someone actually thought anyone here was stupid enough to buy your comment.

Favoring laws that systematically discriminate against a class of people goes beyond "disagreement." So would encouraging homosexuals to undergo (shock-aversion) therapy to avoid homosexual behavior/attitudes, etc. Dumb indeed.

And since you don't have the first clue how much the church has spent on anything, your statement means slightly less than jack.

Yes, it's an open question whether the Church has spent much more effort on the subject of gay rights than on any other issue it takes a moral stance on. Good point.

What a joke. If you think that's antagonism you need to find a new dictionary.

I got my definition from the same place I did "causal" captain English.

To be antagonistic is to be actively opposed, contentious towards something; to treat with emnity.

By the way, your comment that I was responding to was little different from the ever popular defense against racism that goes, "I'm not a racist. I have friends who are [insert ethnic group]. We get along fine." No, getting along with members of a class of people does not preclude holding bigoted views towards that class of people, and bigots are always saying this as a preemptive tepid defense of their bigotry.

If it were me, I probably would've shied away from it because of the mere association. It's not a good argument either way. Getting along with the opposition doesn't mean their isn't some nasty stuff below the surface. Mind you, there doesn't have to be. But it doesn't preclude it either.