User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 223

  1. #201
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I don't think anybody is being forced to violate their conscience. They chose the job, they need to do the job. If a job includes doing things that violate their conscience, don't choose that job. If I'm a Muslim man, and I go to med school and decide I want to become a gynecologist but because of my religious beliefs I don't want to see any vaginas, it would be ridiculous to claim religious persecution if I lost my job for refusing to do pelvic exams.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I don't think anybody is being forced to violate their conscience. They chose the job, they need to do the job. If a job includes doing things that violate their conscience, don't choose that job. If I'm a Muslim man, and I go to med school and decide I want to become a gynecologist but because of my religious beliefs I don't want to see any vaginas, it would be ridiculous to claim religious persecution if I lost my job for refusing to do pelvic exams.
    /end thread

    Instead, they'd rather shift the heavy lifting of observing their religion onto disinterested parties who just want to go to the doctor. It's great being Christian when other people have to do the work for you.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  3. #203
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I would think that the State would have a compelling interest in getting children out of foster homes and into permanent homes by allowing married gay couples to adopt, but I guess that's just not compelling enough for you, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
    The only state I remember hearing about that doesn't allow gay couples to adopt is Florida (to their shame), are there others? Also, I thought that foster care was run by the state?

    Anyway, I assume you are referring to forcing private adoption agencies run by churches or religious organizations not to discriminate against couples based on their dogma, in which case your argument faces two hurdles:

    The strict scrutiny standard is more difficult to meet than simply demonstrating that its a good utilitarian idea that facilitates a praiseworthy state goal, that would make the entire distinction rather pointless-the state interests has to be more vital than that.

    If the state interests passed Judicial muster, you would then have to demonstrate that the same goals could not reasonably be reached through less intrusive policies.

    And no, I don't think forcing non-discrimination on private adoption agencies passes the required thresholds, though that's certainly open to debate. And from my understanding, there is no shortage of options for gay couples wishing to adopt domestically, the problems arise from the same problems affecting adoption in general; not enough couples wish to adopt older children (non-babies), disabled children, or black children (this last problem is affected to some indeterminate extent by the ridiculous belief of many people with the power to facilitate or hinder adoption that it is somehow damaging to the psyche of black children to be raised by non-black families).

  4. #204
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Just forcing people to violate beliefs as important as sexual identity.
    First, sexual identity is no more a belief than one's cultural heritage. It is part of one's makeup, and one that is even harder to deny without significant psychological harm. Second, it is gays who historically have been forced to violate their sexual identity, not straights. Straights have been the majority, the "norm", and have been allowed to remain so.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And to clarify, it's not baking a cake for or taking a photograph of a gay person that the religious are objecting to, it's being forced to participate in a gay marriage (in whatever slight capacity) that they object to.

    Basically, all they want is to be exempted from lending services to a gay marriage ceremony.
    Baking a cake and taking photographs are "lending services". Participating in the ceremony would involve attending as a guest, making a toast, taking an active role in the prayers/vows/readings/etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Economics is always more important than religion, though. Always. Even when a war is supposedly religious, it's really about economics.
    Yes. It's all about economics, but religion makes a very convenient pretext. People who can't be persuaded by economic argument or manipulation will readily acquiesce when their eternal salvation is called into question.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Religion and Economics were tightly intertwined for quite sometime.

    Economics didn't really come into its own until the industrial revolution and the birth of Nation States and companies.

    Even then religion played a more important role in shaping the face of civilization until probably the 20th century.
    Religion has been the tool of the wealthy and powerful, not their inspiration. And economics has been with us ever since the first lucky cave man realized he couldn't use the entire mammoth, but might profitably trade some with his neighbor for berries and herbs. Economics as a modern academic discipline, of course, is much newer.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Protection of religious liberty falls squarely within gov't jurisdiction, hell its what this country was founded on.
    I'm still not understanding how photographing a gay wedding makes a photographer opposed to gay marriage violate his beliefs. He can still believe it is wrong. He is not being forced to take part in the ceremony (any more than reporters covering a KKK rally are taking part in it). He is not being forced to approve, or befriend the couple, or socialize with guests, or anything else. He is not even enabling the marriage, since it will surely take place, photos or no. It is a business transaction for him, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    But you probably think allowing mosques to be built infringes on Christians constitutional right to oppress Muslims.
    Doesn't prohibiting polygamy infringe on Muslims' constitutional right to practice their religion? I don't see how a Muslim having two wives harms anyone else. Why not?
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #205
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    I'm going to put a question in my post in the other thread here to stand on its own.

    Is it okay for a person or business to deny someone service because they are religious?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #206
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Thinking back of what @Jennifer said - isn't it an option for a commercial place to factor this stuff in and protect both group rights and individual rights? I mean, the mission of an enterprise is to make money, right? If you have several photographers employed, just send the one that has no issues with the situation. That way the customer is still king, the business gets his money and the individual can do their job without feeling 'violated'.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  7. #207
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Baking a cake and taking photographs are "lending services". Participating in the ceremony would involve attending as a guest, making a toast, taking an active role in the prayers/vows/readings/etc.
    The courts disagree.

  8. #208
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The courts disagree.
    Which court, based on what ruling?

    Did you know courts overturn rulings? Responses like these are useless.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #209
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    A friend posted this on facebook -

    Fiedorek: Setting the record straight on SB 1062


    Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas? Do you believe a Jewish printer should be threatened for declining to promote a conference criticizing Israel? Do you believe a pacifist should be coerced to paint pro-war posters for a rally? If you believe all these are wrong, you should support Arizona’s SB 1062—because that’s what the bill’s about rather than the things you may have heard.

    Distortion has been out in full force regarding the bill, a simple adjustment the Arizona Legislature made to the state’s existing religious freedom law to make clear what it has always protected and to bring it into conformity with federal law.

    From what you see on TV, however, you might think every person in Arizona wants to stop serving sandwiches to those who aren’t heterosexual. In truth, this bill would not allow anything so ridiculous. It hasn’t happened since the law went on the books in 1999, nor would this new bill allow it to happen.

    On the contrary, the bill was created to prevent discrimination—the kind that has become common in incidents around the country involving people who simply don’t want the government to single them out and force them to act contrary to their own convictions.

    SB 1062 merely clarifies Arizona’s existing law to protect Arizonans from any attempt by the government to force them to speak or act in ways that violate their religious beliefs. It safeguards freedom by closing loopholes that have allowed other state governments to punish private citizens for living and working according to their convictions.

    In doing this, the law helps protect every Arizona citizen from unjust fines and other punishments for refusing to promote messages or participate in events the government demands he or she advance. And it brings Arizona law into conformity with the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton and supported by groups like the ACLU.

    Despite the simple, commonsense purpose of the bill, its opponents have turned it into something it is not. It would not allow a business owner to refuse someone a meal or a taxi ride. There’s a key distinction between selling someone paint and allowing the government to force you to paint a mural with a message that violates your deepest beliefs. This bill prevents the government from violating people’s dignity by forcing them to act or speak contrary to their religious convictions. It does not grant license for just anything at all.

    For example, a Jewish caterer shouldn’t be forced to serve pork sandwiches at a Christian wedding on Saturday just because the couple asks for them. And a religious photographer shouldn’t be required to use her creative talents to promote the message of an atheist group.

    In fact, we at Alliance Defending Freedom supported the right of a California photographer to refuse to photograph our own staff because she disagrees with our views. We supported the right of New Mexico hairstylist Antonio Darden to refuse to cut Gov. Susana Martinez’s hair because she supports marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We simply want the same for Arizona businesses who don’t want to be forced to violate their beliefs either. That’s a far cry from what the bill’s detractors are telling you.

    It’s a shame we even need a bill like this in America. But the increasing use of government coercion to threaten and punish its own citizens has made it necessary. Without this bill, attacks on freedom like we’ve seen in New Mexico, Washington, Colorado, Vermont, Kentucky, Hawaii, and other states become real possibilities in Arizona.

    While numerous states have had the wisdom to adopt such laws, other states have not had the foresight of Arizona’s legislators and have suffered the consequences. That’s why SB 1062 is good law. If you believe in freedom…oppose discrimination…and you don’t want the government to be able to force you to participate in events or express ideas that violate your beliefs, you should support this bill.



    Thoughts?

  10. #210
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Why ‘religious freedom’ laws are doomed

    Conservatives felt blindsided by that same response, and betrayed by what they felt was misleading coverage of what their proposals actually did.

    “I think there were a lot of well intentioned people who were acting on misinformation,” says Walsh. “When the torches and pitchforks come out in a seeemingly endless procession it makes it difficult for people to find out what the truth is.”

    The truth is, though, that as far as sexual orientation is concerned, the attempt to carve out a broad religious exception to non-discrimination laws (in many cases, a preemptive one) was probably doomed from the start. Though conservatives insisted that the religious freedom bills were maligned as the reincarnation of Jim Crow, they were written so broadly that they could easily have been construed as a license to discriminate. Persuading Americans that you should be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians is a harder sell than telling them same-sex couples shouldn’t be able to get married.

    A majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, in every region of the country except for the South. But non-discrimination is not just a majority position. It’s practically a foregone conclusion. According to a recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, 75% of Americans already think it is illegal under federal law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in employment. They’re wrong – there is no federal law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Most states don’t ban it, including Arizona. People simply take for granted that it’s the case because an overwhelming majority – 72% – think it should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Despite the simple, commonsense purpose of the bill, its opponents have turned it into something it is not. It would not allow a business owner to refuse someone a meal or a taxi ride. There’s a key distinction between selling someone paint and allowing the government to force you to paint a mural with a message that violates your deepest beliefs. This bill prevents the government from violating people’s dignity by forcing them to act or speak contrary to their religious convictions. It does not grant license for just anything at all.
    Article I just posted says different.

    Had conservatives focused narrowly on the issue of services for same-sex weddings, they might have had an easier time. But only in Oregon was the language of their proposal that narrow. In every other state, they pursued a religious exception that would be broad enough to cover the caterer who does not want to provide food for a same-sex wedding and the shop owner who objects to paying for insurance that covers his women employees’ birth control. The result was a set of proposals so broad as to justify everything from a cop refusing to respond to a domestic violence call from a same-sex couple to a restauranteur telling a same-sex couple that their kind aren’t served here.
    There are links on those claims that I suppose can be followed.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

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