User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 223

  1. #91
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I honestly don't believe man should make any laws that don't fall within God's Law.
    God's law is Sharia law.

  2. #92
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maybetmp View Post
    Even if God's Law were easily-definable and internally consistent, why would it be a good basis for modern law? Besides, God's Law was written at a time by a different culture that didn't have to deal with many of our modern day issues. And what about enforcing God's Law? Doesn't it require force (thou shalt not kill) and theft (thou shalt not steal) to run a government that would be capable of enforcing these ancient biblical edicts? How is that not self-refuting on its face?
    Because God's Law is all inclusive and is Divine. It is the best law that man can live by. It is created by our Creator, for us; tailor-made for us.

    Being a Christian Libertarian, I think fewer laws are better. As our forefathers said, laws should be for our Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. When government becomes such a bureaucracy that these things fall by the wayside (as they seem to be now), then that is unacceptable. God's Law is 533 statutes to live by. In those commandments, there is plenty of room to write more specific laws for modern day life, all within the realm of God's Law which is humane justice.

    The Law may be ancient but it's living and inspired and wonderful. http://songofmary.wordpress.com/2013...r-gods-people/

    Thou shalt not kill does not mean in war or justice situations. Taxing is not stealing, and fair taxation is God's Law.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  3. #93
    Member maybetmp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    iNtP
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Because God's Law is all inclusive and is Divine. It is the best law that man can live by. It is created by our Creator, for us; tailor-made for us.

    Being a Christian Libertarian, I think fewer laws are better. As our forefathers said, laws should be for our Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. When government becomes such a bureaucracy that these things fall by the wayside (as they seem to be now), then that is unacceptable. God's Law is 533 statutes to live by. In those commandments, there is plenty of room to write more specific laws for modern day life, all within the realm of God's Law which is humane justice.

    The Law may be ancient but it's living and inspired and wonderful. http://songofmary.wordpress.com/2013...r-gods-people/

    Thou shalt not kill does not mean in war or justice situations. Taxing is not stealing, and fair taxation is God's Law.
    Whether it's right or wrong, taxation is stealing when it forcefuly extracts funds with the use of fear or violence. If you had a voluntary tax system, that would be different. And "thou shalt not kill" doesn't literally apply to murder; it's just a general term for a violent transgression against another person (imprisonment for not paying taxes, for example). Even if we set this issue aside, how do we deal with the logical inconsistencies within the Bible? If it were clear-cut, we wouldn't have all of these various spin-offs of the Judeo-Christian religions. Interpretation varies drastically from one sect to the other. How would we, as imperfect humans who have been demonstrably shown as incapable of correctly interpreting God's Law establish an entire government based on it?

  4. #94

    Default

    Although the thought of religious business owners denying homosexuals services based on their moral beliefs is a bit unsettling for me, I have to agree that it is in fact not unconstitutional.

    Hopefully bigotry of this sort will continue to slowly fade and this will be a non-issue within a few lifetimes....or until the rapture comes and all the crazies can finally leave the rest of humanity alone. Go settle their new planet and deal with their thetans or whatever it is they're prophesied to do.
    Masculine presenting transgender lesbian

  5. #95
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From The Washington Post:

    Business operators’ right to choose

    Should Muslim cab drivers be entitled to refuse to carry passengers who are transporting alcohol? (Assume that the state has a legal rule that generally provides religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.) I gave this as an example of a normal controversy religious exemption controversy, but a commenter disagreed:

    The cabbie is voluntarily offering an accommodation to the general public, choosing to associate with them, knowing full well they are religiously diverse. They can’t subsequently rescind that offer of accommodation after applying a religious litmus test to the particular member of the public taking them up on their offer.

    To do that they need to limit their association to those who share their religious viewpoint; private car service with a strict [no alcohol] membership requirement or the like. But offer the general public an accommodation, can’t then rescind the offer because the member of the public doesn’t conform to a religious belief they don’t share.
    I think this analysis is unsound, but I’ve found such arguments to be common enough that I thought I’d respond to them here.

    1. To begin with, most of us, in a wide range of businesses, enjoy the freedom to choose what we allow on our property, and (within boundaries I’ll mention shortly) to choose not to do business with people who do things that we think are wrong. A lawyer may “voluntarily offer]” his services “to the general public,” but this doesn’t mean that he has to represent clients that engage in activities that he finds morally repugnant — for instance, he is free to choose not to represent bars or breweries. A plumber or a computer consultant may make the same choice. A restaurant may refuse to deliver pizza to an abortion clinic (see Part I of the opinion). A restaurant may refuse to let patrons bring alcohol to drink with dinner, even if state law doesn’t prohibit patrons from bringing alcohol this way, and even if the restaurant’s motivation is moral disapproval of alcohol rather than fear of rowdy patrons.

    Likewise, businesses may generally impose dress codes on patrons. They may refuse to allow patrons who wear T-shirts containing messages that they see as repugnant. And the list could go on. As property owners, they are generally free to choose what to allow on their property.

    Now it is true that most businesses in most states are barred from discriminating based on particular attributes of their patrons — race, sex, religion, ethnicity, and the like. But such anti-discrimination laws exist precisely because, otherwise, those businesses would be free to offer their accommodations to the public and yet to exclude members of the public with whom they don’t want to do business. (If businesses generally had to offer their services equally to everybody, period, a law specifically requiring businesses to offer such services without regard to race, sex, religion, and the like would be superfluous.) And when a business isn’t discriminating based on these patron attributes, its operators are free to choose not to do business with people who do things of which they disapprove.

    2. Nor does it matter whether the business’s disapproval is based on religious beliefs, or on secular moral beliefs. Sam the secular plumber is free not to come out to fix the pipes at a butcher’s, because he believes that meat is murder, even though he otherwise offers his services to the public at large. Given this, Ron the religious plumber is equally free to do so, even if his motivation is that his religion condemns the killing of animals, or condemns the serving of pork.

    Neither secular Sam nor religious Ron is allowed to discriminate based on client’s religion (in states that apply public accommodations laws to service providers such as plumbers); neither, for instance, may refuse to do plumbing at Catholics’ houses. But both are equally allowed to discriminate based on a client’s secular line of business, whether their own motivations stem from their secular moral codes or religious moral codes. Indeed, if the law were to allow Sam the freedom to choose based on his secular moral code, but deny Ron the freedom to choose based on his religious moral code, that itself would be religious discrimination against Ron.

    3. This having been said, a minority of businesses is required to take all comers, at least unless it has a generally accepted business reason to reject someone. This has been pretty common in the transportation industry — railroads are a classic example — as well with regard to utilities, such as telephone companies. Historically, this has largely been justified by a sense that those businesses are monopolies, or close to it. (In the past, this has at times been said of inns as well, but back when the average town was much smaller and transportation much slower, an inn might well be the only one available to the typical traveler.) Licensing alone has not led to this status; lawyers, plumbers, and restaurants that serve liquor require licenses, but they aren’t treated as such “common carriers.” But taxicabs are generally treated as common carriers, by analogy to railroads, despite their lack of monopoly status. That is precisely why the cab drivers who want to not carry alcohol-carrying passengers are asking for an accommodation.

    Yet those cab drivers aren’t looking to deny broad and well-established rights of all citizens to have access to all publicly available services. As I mentioned above, there is no such right. Rather, the cab drivers are seeking the same right that we lawyers, plumbers, restaurants, and pizza delivery services have — the right to say that we don’t want to (for instance) assist, even indirectly, in the distribution of alcohol or the performing of abortions.

    To be sure, the cab drivers are looking for an exemption from a law that does apply to their specific line of business. But the whole point of religious exemption regimes, which more than half the states have (half of those by statute, and half by state courts’ interpretation of the state constitution), is that people who have religious objections to a requirement should sometimes get an exemption from that requirement.

    You might think there shouldn’t be any such religious exemption regimes. But given that there are such regimes, Muslim cab drivers should be as entitled to use them as are Amish parents who don’t want to send their children to school past age 14, or Sabbatarians who want to get unemployment compensation even though they refuse to take jobs that require them to work Saturdays.

    Under such regimes, the government must give exemptions from a law to people who believe that abiding by the law would be a sin, unless denying the exemption is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. I’m inclined to think that denying the cab drivers’ exemption is not so necessary. Even if there is a compelling government interest in preventing substantial hassles for customers, there are other ways of solving the problem — for instance, if no-alcohol cabs display “no alcohol” placards, a wine-bottle-carrying tourist can just go to the first cab in line with such a placard, rather than the first cab in line, period. Likewise, if the city is a hail-the-cab-on-the-street city (like New York, for instance, but not like Los Angeles), one could require these markers to be prominently visible, for instance using color-coded items on the cab’s roof (much as cabs already signal whether they are available or not).

    These aren’t hard accommodations to make work, I think. They may involve some administrative burden on the government, but the premise of religious exemption laws is that some such burden is acceptable, and indeed better than a more efficient system that nonetheless offers no accommodation for religious objectors.

    Cab drivers, then, would be free to stay in business while abiding by their religious beliefs. Passengers would still be able to get cabs. No compelling government interest would be substantially undermined. The point of religious exemption regimes is precisely to allow people to abide by their religious beliefs without going to jail or losing their livelihoods, so long as such exemptions aren’t too costly for society or for others.

    Now if access to any business that “voluntarily offer[ed] an accommodation to the general public” — without regard to the business’s preferences about what to allow on its property — were seen as a sort of basic legal right, one might argue that there is indeed a compelling interest in preserving this right. This is indeed an argument often given for denying religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

    But, as I note in points 1 and 2 above, no such basic legal right has generally been recognized. Indeed, the dominant approach in our legal system is to leave businesspeople free to accommodate those people and behaviors that they want to accommodate, and not accommodate others (again, subject to anti-discrimination laws). The different treatment of taxicabs is a matter of convenience, and analogy to transportation monopolies.

    Giving cab drivers a religious exemption that would put us in the same position with respect to cabs as we are with respect to plumbers, restaurants, or lawyers. Most of the time, the drivers will be glad to take our money, but there are some things some driver won’t do, so we have to turn to other drivers to do them. That’s a tolerable regime as to most service providers. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be tolerable for cab drivers.

    * * *

    (Note for the sake of completeness: Historically, judges often ordered lawyers to represent any indigent criminal defendant, and lawyers were required to comply with such orders, even if they would rather not represent that defendant, or would rather not represent criminal defendants at all. But this is rare nowadays, stems from the special role of lawyers as “officers of the court,” and in any event would not have applied in the civil case examples that I give in the post.)

  6. #96
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Let the free market sort it out, not the government. Let business owners run their business as they see fit. If the business owner is a bigot, that will come out and patrons can decide whether or not to spend their money there. If a business decides not to hire a minority of some sort, then he's at a competitive disadvantage and such businesses will not last long. The best weapon against bigotry is a vibrant economy. If you have a million choices and one of those choices hates your guts and doesn't want your business, you still have plenty of options in a vibrant economy. It's kind of ridiculous that people get so butt-hurt and want to sue businesses that won't attend their wedding or bake them a cake. There are a thousand other places that want your business, so quit whining.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  7. #97
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    From The Washington Post:

    Business operators’ right to choose
    The issues the present here with a businesses right to choose are fair, however not comparable to the issue presented with them being able to deny someone who is gay.

    They often use alcohol as the example here. Carrying alcohol is something at a person can consciously decide to do, or not do. Same thing with the clothing example. You can dress as they deem and get in, or refuse and get kicked out. That's fine.

    You can't compare gay to that though. Gay is how someone is, and you can't magically turn that off. It is something that can't be avoided.

    Even then though I strongly strongly am against using religion to bolster pretty much anything. Everyone can have their beliefs. However, if your beliefs require someone else to behave in some way, then it should not be legal to use it as a cover. The reason being is that it unfairly imposes belief on someone else. Religion is something that is hotly debated, and wildly disagreed upon by so many people. It's completely illogical to have people need to conform to yours, as no one can even back up the reasoning behind it logically.

    Religion beliefs are "fine", but the second it requires another individual to conform to it, it's not.

    I also came across this early and thought it to be a good illustration of this.

    As for the original proposed question? I say they can have the right, if they have sound reasoning beyond just their religious convictions.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  8. #98
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Religion beliefs are "fine", but the second it requires another individual to conform to it, it's not.
    Homosexuality is fine but the second it requires another individual to conform to it, it's not.

  9. #99
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Homosexuality is fine but the second it requires another individual to conform to it, it's not.
    There is a difference between the two. Religion is a belief, and something someone chooses to have. Since it is a belief and nothing more, it can't be proven and backed as any sort of fact. Homosexuality is how someone is. The two are not the same.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  10. #100
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    There is a difference between the two. Religion is a belief, and something someone chooses to have. Since it is a belief and nothing more, it can't be proven and backed as any sort of fact. Homosexuality is how someone is. The two are not the same.
    Indeed one has been the foundation of western civilization and the other has come into mainstream vogue in about the last 10 years.

Similar Threads

  1. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  2. Reconciling Evolution to Religious Beliefs
    By Mort Belfry in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-30-2009, 11:41 PM
  3. As if I needed another forum to check every day...
    By Cogwheel in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 07:09 AM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:49 PM
  5. Add another INFP to the list...
    By Cindyrella in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 01:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO