User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 223

  1. #81
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The protections of the first amendment do not cover all actions conducted in the name of religion.

    I suppose it hinges on what you consider participation in an activity.

    Would you allow an avowed white supremacist to refuse to provide a service in connection with a mixed-race wedding? If so, at least your position will be consistent, if no more justifiable.

    Yes, when living in a society, we trade some individual freedoms for the collective good. A large part of that good is ensuring everyone else can exercise the maximum possible freedom, too. Just as everyone should have equal justice under the law, everyone should have equal access to commercial interactions in the economy. People whose morals are that incompatible with this system are not compelled to remain in the society that values its benefits.
    Yes, we've established that, as well as the basis for any religious actions not protected.

    True, and I consider there to be a qualitative difference between different types of services. Here's a link that describes the distinctions better than I have: http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/02/ami...tography-case/

    Yes, individual rights make no allowance for the perceived morality or popularity of a person's beliefs, that's the point.

    And those who value non-discrimination for all commercial activities in the economy over First Amendment rights in the shared pursuit of maximized freedom should be required to change the legal compact of the nation through a Constitutional Amendment, not ignore it favor of rights that are not in the Constitution or for comparatively minor state interests (i.e. compelling non-discrimination in commercial activity involving creative services, as opposed to basic goods and services with far greater economic impact and less salience toward individual rights).

    I'm fine if you disagree, I just want it known what you are disagreeing with.

  2. #82
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    How about this for a hypothetical:

    Bob a doctor and Jim a florist are both gay and know one another. Bob undergoes a controversial course of conversion therapy and after two years he decides he wants to stop having relationships with males and get married to an old female friend, Sarah. Bob asks Jim to do the flowers for their wedding. Jim believes Bob is pursuing a lifestyle that is incompatible with his sexual orientation and refuses to provide flowers as a protest. Should Bob be able to sue Jim for discrimination?
    Yes. Currently though there is no law (depends on the state too) on the books allowing so, in the above example.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #83
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    it [the New Testament] was penned in Hebrew
    What ridiculous propaganda are your perpetrating here? The New Testament was originally written in Ancient Greek, the lingua franca of the Ancient World.

  4. #84
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Qwan View Post
    ...And they never verify the source?
    The Catholics tell me God is a priori and needs no verification. And the Muslims tell me that under the Islamic Caliphate, athiests will be put to death.

    So as you can see, Catholic or Muslim, there is no need to verify the source.

  5. #85
    Member maybetmp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    iNtP
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Stop trying to cloak bigotry with transparent euphamisms. This isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of individual freedom. That said, people and institutions (with the exception of governments) ought to have the right to voluntarily serve whoever they choose, for whatever reason (regardless how moronic it is) without the fear of coercion. These are private institutions that need to be treated for what they are. With the exception of taxes, voluntary agreements between people are the mark of what most would consider to be civilisation. Each infringement on this brings us incrementally closer to barbarism. So I agree with the OP in that it is an infringement on religious freedom, but more generally and more importanty, it's an infringement on the right of people to voluntarily associate (if such a thing really exists).

  6. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Ugh, this bill passed in AZ is really just a solution looking for a problem, made entirely to appease WASPy, virulent, fundamentalist extremists. The way I look at it - if, by your religious beliefs, you think that you are aiding and abetting those who live a lifestyle opposed to your own through your job, then quit. But this bill truly makes no distinction between church and state.
    So much this. If this law isn't "respecting an establishment of religion", then I don't know what is. I think it's safe to say that most Christians supporting this law would proclaim to be devout, and to say that God is the most important thing in their lives. If that's true, and this is the hill they choose to die on and their souls are at stake, then they should seek employment in a job that won't force them to serve people they find morally repellent. Because the rest of us aren't going to enter a world of gay lunch counters just to indulge these people based on religious beliefs and in defiance of the Constitution.

    On an unrelated note, there is something about this law the bugs the shit out of me that no one has mentioned and that makes it arguably WORSE than Jim Crow laws. This law allows discrimination based on the suspicion of homosexuality. Suspicion. Most of the time, a black person is easy to discern. A gay person, not so much. But how do you deny rights based on a suspicion? It reminds me of Joe McCarthy and the red scare. It's ripe for abuse and patently ridiculous.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  7. #87
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    They're operating within the confines of their legislation really. Congregations, were orginally a european community institution, where the local churches would be created via the christian organization(and early on by missionary such) political influence on the local communities. Ceremonies held by the church, such as marriages, were semi-legal and partially incorporated, in the kingdoms national body of laws, aswell as the provincial laws, both including statues and common law.

    But since the constitution of the US is entirely secular, and doesn't recognize any religious authority, organization, and lacks religious constituents(unlike medieval european legislation). Ceremonies such as marriage services that are accorded by churches and congregations are entirely informal arrangements within religious communities. And they do technically have the right to deny such a ceremony, because religion is not an institution of the US state(unlike say states like saudi-arabia). What homosexual political organizations can do, is to appeal these laws(which is difficult, because of the above), or just go for civil unions. I don't really see the difference between religious marriages and secular ones.
    This is a worthwhile historical observation, and highlights what is supposed to be a feature of democracy in the U.S., specifically the separation of church and state. Churches and other religious groups are within their rights to deny people religious sanction or services. Institutions of government and commerce, however, are to be open to all.
    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...

  8. #88
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    It isn't Christian, or of God. It's judgmental and exclusionary.

    I honestly don't believe man should make any laws that don't fall within 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


  9. #89
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    True, and I consider there to be a qualitative difference between different types of services. Here's a link that describes the distinctions better than I have: http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/02/ami...tography-case/
    An interesting example, in equating photography with speech. Seems to be more of an exercise in documenting the speech/actions of others, but no matter. The fact is, employers compel the speech of employees all the time. If you have moral qualms about it, the only choice is to find another job. You might argue that that's just what a fundamentalist Christian photographer is doing when refusing to be hired for a gay wedding. That, however, would be akin to your telling your boss that you won't present a particular marketing briefing because you consider it misleading, but you are willing to do all your other work. Your boss might be willing to accommodate, just as a gay couple might be willing to move on to a more open-minded photographer. But these would be courtesies freely offered, not rights compelled by law. If you are unwilling to serve all comers, don't hang out your shingle.

    I've noticed you didn't answer this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Would you allow an avowed white supremacist to refuse to provide a service in connection with a mixed-race wedding?
    Is everyone allowed to discriminate, as long as they can cite personal moral convictions?
    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...

  10. #90
    Member maybetmp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    iNtP
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    It isn't Christian, or of God. It's judgmental and exclusionary.

    I honestly don't believe man should make any laws that don't fall within God's Law.
    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?

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