Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.
I think people offend too easily nowadays.
"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.
Hard to believe that disapproval and non participation doesn't instantly mean malice and offense?
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.
Not quite as much bad PR (not very many people like neo-nazis), but they will still get some. Not sure what that actually has to do with anything though...
Hate groups are not a protected class. Arguably, neither is sexual orientation; however, there is already standing case law and federal policies in several areas that supports sexual orientation as a protected class (i.e. workforce under Title VII and in public schools by the Office of Civil Rights).
Manchu wrote: That's one of the dumber arguments you've made d-usa. The First Amendment does not protect harassment.
If you want to point me to where I defended any breaking of the law please feel free to do so. Death threats are against the law and should be prosecuted, vandalism is against the law and should be prosecuted, harassment is against the law and should be prosecuted.
Calling the business owners out online and sharing your opinion of them and their arguments isn't harassment. News papers writing stories about how they said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding isn't harassment.
"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.
To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.
Manchu wrote: Co'tor Shas, once again Ima call your post out as effed up. There is a difference between not partonizing a business on the one hand and harrassing, threatening, and vandalizing a business on the other hand.
Or is this kind of antisocial behavior okay because it suits some widely agreed upon ideology of "tolerance"?
As I have said multiple times, there is no excuse for death threats, but when on purposely offend people, you are going to get bad PR. .
Death threats is your version of bad pr? Man, and I thought I was hard core. Whats a strongly worded statement in your world - a ten ton bunkerbuster?
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?
"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.
To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.
It's offensive because it's saying "we don't think you or your kind are as good as everybody else, and we believe that to the point where we are going to treat you as inferior."
skyth wrote: That you don't understand is a problem with you.
How is it my problem that YOU don't understand that people who don't have the same religious values as you are not trying to offend you?
skyth wrote: And neo-Nazis are in no way comparable to homosexuals.
A+
Now the harder concept: I was comparing the people who refuse to serve them. But as we have exhaustively explained, the RFRA is not a license to refuse service to neo-Nazis or gay people or whoever. What RFRAs actually do is bind court's to apply the strict scrutiny test to Free Exercise challenges of laws.
But I know a lot of you are happier pretending you are standing up for ... something or other.
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?
If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.
"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.
To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.
It's offensive because it's saying "we don't think you or your kind are as good as everybody else, and we believe that to the point where we are going to treat you as inferior."
More like "we do not approve of your life choices and want nothing to do with you"
Kinda reaching for the white man superiority complex.
d-usa wrote: Calling the business owners out online and sharing your opinion of them and their arguments isn't harassment. News papers writing stories about how they said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding isn't harassment.
I didn't realize you just arrived from the 90s. Welcome to 2015. We have a lot more internet these days. I mean, seriously, you will be shocked. There's this thing called "social media" and people use it to work themselves and each other into honest-to-goodness-frothing-at-the-mouth fits of rage that can and do ruin people's lives. And it's not even illegal. I understand if you want me to re-freeze you so they can wake you up again when social media is used responsibly. Just know that you may never wake up.
"I won't serve black people."
Under stand how that will offend people? It's the same thing with black instead of gay.
To claim "offense" by it is an overstatement. I think it's wrong and that someone who said such a thing is a bad person, and I probably wouldn't give them money for services, but I have not been offended in any sort of way beyond perhaps the cognitive dissonance felt at realizing such hypothetical people still exist in the world nowadays.
It's offensive because it's saying "we don't think you or your kind are as good as everybody else, and we believe that to the point where we are going to treat you as inferior."
More like "we do not approve of your life choices and want nothing to do with you"
Kinda reaching for the white man superiority complex.
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?
If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?
If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.
The Chic-fil-a situation seems to show otherwise. The president or vp or whoever's comments were personal, and the statement of the company was something along the lines of "we will totally offer service to those of all creeds, races, and sexual orientations", and that still exploded.
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?
If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.
Again, you state death threats are bad pr.
The bad PR is them stating they won't treat gay people the same as straight people, death threats are donkey-caves on the internet. I don't think anyone is actually going to not go there because of that. I certainly wouldn't be concerned.
skyth wrote: That you don't understand is a problem with you.
How is it my problem that YOU don't understand that people who don't have the same religious values as you are not trying to offend
See...that's what we call a straw man. That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
And neo-Nazis are in no way comparable to homosexuals.
Doing my job includes taking care of neo-nazis, skinheads, racists, and any other version of bigoted person that happens to lay in one of our hospital beds.
When they are dirty I give them a bed-bath and wash the filth of their swastika covered skin, I treat the sores next to their SS and White Power tattoos, and I put lotion on their backs beneath their "F*ck N***ers" tattoo. I teach them how to take care of their disease so that they can live another decade during which they will probably continue to declare their hate and discriminate others due to the color of their skin. I medicate the terminally ill cancer patient that last week "fired" my gay coworker from taking care of him because "he doesn't want an a**hole fa**** taking care of me" and I make sure that he is not suffering from pain and able to spend his remaining life as comfortable as possible. I cut up the food and feed the paralyzed man who fired my black coworker yesterday because "no N***** is going to put their damn hands on me". I do that because it's my job even though I don't agree with their lifestyles and I think they are intolerant donkey-caves.
So I have zero sympathy for someone that can't manage to bake a fething cake or pizza for a gay wedding because "they don't agree with it".
skyth wrote: That you don't understand is a problem with you.
How is it my problem that YOU don't understand that people who don't have the same religious values as you are not trying to offend
See...that's what we call a straw man. That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Hard to believe that disapproval and non participation doesn't instantly mean malice and offense?
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
No... they did NOT go out of their way... a reporter went hunting for some news, to fan the flame.
if you are confused about the superiority complex line
its concerning the tacked on "because you are inferior" line
I'm not sure what you actually mean by superiority complex.
Im saying you are trying to color them as "racist" when that isnt what they said at all. edit: WOH OWH OWH WOH sorry i just noticed that chain of posts was for an example. my bad.
Hard to believe that disapproval and non participation doesn't instantly mean malice and offense?
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
No... they did NOT go out of their way... a reporter went hunting for some news, to fan the flame.
How exactly? Did they go door to door asking "Will you cater a gay wedding?"
Co'tor Shas wrote: How exactly? Did they go door to door asking "Will you cater a gay wedding?"
Sort of but worse. The station sent a reporter out of the city to a tiny town. She went in and just asked whether they would cater a gay wedding. They said they wouldn't. Then thousands of "tolerant" people started harassing them.
skyth wrote: That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Let's clarify this once and for all:
Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.
Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.
Quite true. Bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Those who hate or threaten anti-gay are as much bigots as those who hat or threaten pro-gay. Simply holding a belif that gay marrige is wrong is not bigotry.
donkey-caves, donkey-caves everywhere. I don't know how they get the idea that because they think someone is wrong, they get to threaten them.
And that's the part that blows my mind more than anything. I mean, if you don't agree with something, sure, call it wrong, maybe even throw a protest, but the crazies just come OUT OF THE WOODWORK on these things.
They went out of their way to put it in to the public forum. It's not disapproval and non-participation. They would do that very simply, if a gay couple asks them to cater their wedding (which they won't, but if they did), they could just say "I'm sorry, could you ask somewhere else? Were busy." Simple and non-offensive.
I just need to be clear: To be unoffensive, it would be better that they don't be honest about their identities, and form a pretense to be able to reconcile themselves with the modern world?
If they don't want bad PR, yes. In relation to their business specifically. If they voiced the opinion "I don't think gays should marry" that's not going to do squat. People who disagree with their opinion will do so, and that will be that. But if they do it in relation to their business, they can't not expect to get bad PR. You can't do anything to a person, but you can starve a business of costumers.
Again, you state death threats are bad pr.
The bad PR is them stating they won't treat gay people the same as straight people, death threats are donkey-caves on the internet. I don't think anyone is actually going to not go there because of that. I certainly wouldn't be concerned.
Tell that to the families of the two murdered NY police officers.
donkey-caves, donkey-caves everywhere. I don't know how they get the idea that because they think someone is wrong, they get to threaten them.
And that's the part that blows my mind more than anything. I mean, if you don't agree with something, sure, call it wrong, maybe even throw a protest, but the crazies just come OUT OF THE WOODWORK on these things.
It's rather depressing. I'm a staunch believer that all people are equal and should have equal rights and protections, but sometimes I despair who are apparently on my side.
skyth wrote: That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Let's clarify this once and for all:
Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.
Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.
If your religious beliefs have you seeing people as being wrong for something they have no control over then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that the beliefs come from a religion. And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.
skyth wrote: That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Let's clarify this once and for all:
Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.
Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.
If your religious beliefs have you seeing people as being wrong for something they have no control over then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that the beliefs come from a religion. And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.
It's only really bigotry if they hate or oppress them. I have a very strict Catholic friend who believes that gay marriage is wrong, and that that being gay is a corruption of nature, but he's not a bigot. He doesn't hate gay people, or allow that fact that someone is gay to colour his opinion of them. Nor does he try and force his opinion on others.
skyth wrote: wrong for something they have no control over
Are you saying gay people have no control over their actions?
skyth wrote: And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.
But back on-topic, it is bigoted to call people bigots because they have different religious beliefs than you ... which is what you are doing -- although to be fair to you, seemingly from a position of comprehensive ignorance.
skyth wrote: That they had different religious beliefs has nothing to do with it. Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Let's clarify this once and for all:
Holding a religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful is not bigotry.
Calling people who hold that religious belief bigots, however, actually is bigotry.
If your religious beliefs have you seeing people as being wrong for something they have no control over then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that the beliefs come from a religion. And it is in no way shape or form bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.
The cirminally insane often have no control over what they do. Yet they are viewed as wrong. does that make them bigots too?
And neo-Nazis are in no way comparable to homosexuals.
Doing my job includes taking care of neo-nazis, skinheads, racists, and any other version of bigoted person that happens to lay in one of our hospital beds.
When they are dirty I give them a bed-bath and wash the filth of their swastika covered skin, I treat the sores next to their SS and White Power tattoos, and I put lotion on their backs beneath their "F*ck N***ers" tattoo. I teach them how to take care of their disease so that they can live another decade during which they will probably continue to declare their hate and discriminate others due to the color of their skin. I medicate the terminally ill cancer patient that last week "fired" my gay coworker from taking care of him because "he doesn't want an a**hole fa**** taking care of me" and I make sure that he is not suffering from pain and able to spend his remaining life as comfortable as possible. I cut up the food and feed the paralyzed man who fired my black coworker yesterday because "no N***** is going to put their damn hands on me". I do that because it's my job even though I don't agree with their lifestyles and I think they are intolerant donkey-caves.
So I have zero sympathy for someone that can't manage to bake a fething cake or pizza for a gay wedding because "they don't agree with it".
Some will argue that their particular interpretation of their religion takes precedence over common decency and the literal teachings in their bible. Their argument will be that their particular religious "freedom" trumps all.
I guess I might qualify as "a very strict Catholic" insofar as I certainly believe the whole creed and assent to all the doctrines of the Catholic tradition.
That said, I am 100% in favor of states allowing gay people to get married. Where legal, such marriages are obviously fully valid for all civil purposes. What they are not, however, is sacramental marriages considered valid or licit by orthodox Catholics.
The reason I bring this up is to show that holding a religious belief, as I do, that homosexual acts are sinful does not necessarily have anything to do with discriminating against gay people or otherwise treating people poorly because they are gay. As a Catholic, I recognize that every one of us is a sinner and we are all in it together.
If I ran a wedding photography business, I would not refuse to work for gay couples. Doing so would not trouble my conscience. But I understand that it may very well trouble the conscience of some other Catholic person or an evangelical or a Muslim or whoever. And our First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States recognizes that individual conscience is the locus of religious freedom.
The pizzaria people have noone to blame for this mess but themselves. The eeeeevil liberal reporter didn't hold a gun to their heads and demand they say something bigotted on camera. The people in the pizzaria could have answered in any number of ways, not the least of which is the time-honored "no comment".
Let's try it out now:
"Would your restaurant cater to a gay wedding?"
"No comment."
See how easy that is? You don't compromise your principals by saying that you will cater a gay wedding, and you don't reveal yourself to be a bigot by saying you won't. And since you didn't take the reporter's obvious bait, she won't be putting you on TV at all.
Heck, you could even give a snarky response that doesn't answer the question. Like this:
"Would your pizza place cater a gay wedding?"
"I would hope a gay couple would have more class than to ask a hole-in-the-wall pizza joint to cater what is supposed to be one of the most important days in their lives."
See? It's pithy, and you didn't compromise your principles or out yourself as a bigot.
But if you're going to reveal your bigotry on TV, to a reporter who is clearly hoping you will do exactly that (she would'nt have tossed that grenade if she didn't want you to throw yourself on it...) you should expect some backlash.
Now, before Frazzled accuses me of equating death threats with "backlash", I want to say that bad Yelp reviews, boycotts, and mean things said about one on the internet are backlash. Death threats are illegal, and unwarranted, and should be pursued and prosecuted. While both have occurred here, only one of them (the non-death threat backlash) is acceptable and called for.
skyth wrote: So they want to treat someone worse than someone else simply because they are homosexual. That makes them a bigot.
How is that treating them worse? Thats just not doing business with them for a specific event.
If the reporter asks would they serve communists and they said no would that make them a bigot?
If they reporter asked and they said they don't serve weddings would that make them a bigot?
And lets assume they are bigots. Lets assume they hate gay people. Should they be forced to make pizzas for a gay wedding? What is the harm against which equitable remedy is being sought?
squidhills wrote: See how easy that is? You don't compromise your principals by saying that you will cater a gay wedding, and you don't reveal yourself to be a bigot by saying you won't. And since you didn't take the reporter's obvious bait, she won't be putting you on TV at all.
So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!
squidhills wrote: See how easy that is? You don't compromise your principals by saying that you will cater a gay wedding, and you don't reveal yourself to be a bigot by saying you won't. And since you didn't take the reporter's obvious bait, she won't be putting you on TV at all.
So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!
Is that where the argument lies now?
That religious people need start shutting their traps and closeting themselves? Thus, compromising their faith?
skyth wrote: So they want to treat someone worse than someone else simply because they are homosexual. That makes them a bigot.
How is that treating them worse? Thats just not doing business with them for a specific event.
If the reporter asks would they serve communists and they said no would that make them a bigot?
If they reporter asked and they said they don't serve weddings would that make them a bigot?
Not doing business with someone is treating them worse. That should be self-evident. Communists are in no way comparable to homosexuals. I'm not sure wht you have this fetish with false equivalencies.
Not serving weddings is fine. I don't have a problem with that.
squidhills wrote: See how easy that is? You don't compromise your principals by saying that you will cater a gay wedding, and you don't reveal yourself to be a bigot by saying you won't. And since you didn't take the reporter's obvious bait, she won't be putting you on TV at all.
So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!
Is that where the argument lies now?
That religious people need start shutting their traps and closeting themselves? Thus, compromising their faith?
Strange how the whole turns...eh?
Well, the bizarre thing, that I think you're alluding to, is that by doing the same thing that appears to be advocated here, gay people can eat at any establishment that wouldn't serve them otherwise.
daedalus wrote: So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!
Welcome to our new Open & Tolerant Society. Better hope you fit in!
Tolerance does not require being tolerant of intolerance...But then again, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it's the truth.
squidhills wrote: See how easy that is? You don't compromise your principals by saying that you will cater a gay wedding, and you don't reveal yourself to be a bigot by saying you won't. And since you didn't take the reporter's obvious bait, she won't be putting you on TV at all.
So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!
People do it everyday. It's like your coworker asking you what you think about a female colleague; you might be thinking, "She's got a great rack" which would be sexist and make you sound like a tool but what comes out of your mouth is, "She's a great person and I enjoy working with her."
skyth wrote: Tolerance does not require being tolerant of intolerance...But then again, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it's the truth.
That's, uh, not exactly a strong argument. Can you elaborate?
Frazzled wrote: Would you mandate that, under color of law, they be forced to make pizzas for a wedding?
It depends. What color is the gay couples' money? Is it green? Because if it's green, then yes. They are American citizens, and the pizza place is only refusing to cater their wedding because it is a gay one. You can't refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin (something they have no control over), so there is no reason you should be able to refuse service to someone because of whom they find attractive (something they have no control over), apart from the fact that the CRA hasn't caught up to the gays yet (but it will, so folks should start acclimating themselves to it now). If they refused to cater a gay wedding because they couldn't supply enough pizzas to both serve the wedding and supply their normal daily customers, and not because they think their god told them not to, then they would not be obligated to provide the service. But if the only reason the service is being refused is bigotry... well, guess they better start tossing that dough.
If someone really, really, really doesn't want to cater gay weddings, they are going to have to learn how to lie to people, so people don't know they are being refused because of bigotry. Here are some examples:
"Will you cater my gay wedding?"
"We're booked solid that weekend, sorry. Have you tried Wild Dog Pizza down the street?"
or-
"We don't have enough staff to provide you pizzas and meet the needs of our typical daily customers. Have you tried Wild Dog Pizza down the street? They are a bit bigger than we are."
See? No obvious telling signs that someone is being refused service for being gay, so they gay couple can't be all butt hurt about it! And the pizza place doesn't have to worry about boycotts and internet outrage.
daedalus wrote: So then the secret to keep from being ostracized and judged IS to conceal parts of your identity!
Welcome to our new Open & Tolerant Society. Better hope you fit in!
Japanese saying loosely translated, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered in."
All societies partake in a form of social contract; by virtue of being a member, you are expected to behave a certain way. Expectations change over time as does the unwritten social contract and some people have a more difficult time adjusting than others. Some people apparently long for days of yor when they could spit on whomever you dislike. Personally, I just wish pistols at dawn was still a thing so people would watch their freaking mouths and actually attempt to get along.
People with manners do it everyday. People with no manners (or morals) go out of their way to confront and humiliate people about, for example, their religion or sexual orientation.
People with manners do it everyday. People with no manners (or morals) go out of their way to confront and humiliate people about, for example, their religion or sexual orientation.
Very true which leads me back to my pithy statement about duels.
"Will you cater our gay wedding?"
"f*!@# you!"
"You have insulted me sirrah, I shall meet you on the field of honor."
agnosto wrote: Japanese saying loosely translated, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered in."
At one time, not even long ago, that saying was be applied somewhat literally to gay people -- remember when Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death? Now, we have harrasment and violence against people who express their religious belief. Looks like it's the same gakky mob who have been sicked on new targets, under a new rainbow-emblazoned banner.
skyth wrote: Gay people have no control over who they are atteacted to. And obviously I was referring to activities that don't harm someone else.
And again...If your religion requires you to be a bigot, that doesn't make you not a bigot. And again, it is not bigotry to call a bigot a bigot.
Being attracted to someone of the sex isn't a sin, don't bypass the languuge filter like this. Reds8n someone of same sex is, or so says some faiths. I couldn't help but be attracted to fine young lady I met in the bar last week, but I could help bumping uglies with said fine young lady, which would be a sin, as last time I saw her we were not married. The feeling isn't a sin, the action is. It's the whole 'hate the sin, not the sinner' thing.
At no point does not wanting to participate in a gay wedding make someone a bigot. Calling someone a big got because you disagree with their stance on a particular activity might be, though.
skyth wrote: That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.
So, it seems like we have two different things going on here. I think the majority of people who are accusing the "tolerance people" of being intolerant are mostly referring to how some of them are demanding coercion through the use of death and arson threats and others are 'reasonably' suggesting that those with minority opinions just don't voice their minority opinion out of the fear of having such repercussions befall them, because those sure are some intolerant views that they hold. That strikes me as pretty ironic.
That religious people need start shutting their traps and closeting themselves? Thus, compromising their faith?
Strange how the world turns...eh?
No, the argument is to not be a fething idiot when a news reporter shoves a mic in your face and asks you an obviously loaded question, hoping you'll be dumb enough to say something bigotted. It's not compromising your faith; it's being smart enough not to stick your head in a lion's mouth while someone stomps on it's tail.
agnosto wrote: Japanese saying loosely translated, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered in."
At one time, not even long ago, that saying was be applied somewhat literally to gay people -- remember when Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death? Now, we have harrasment and violence against people who express their religious belief. Looks like it's the same gakky mob who have been sicked on new targets.
Don't delude yourself and think that somehow all of the "mob" violence in the country has just refocused onto people "expressing their religious beliefs"; gay people are still beaten or killed on a daily basis (happened to a family friend and neighbor when I was in high school, great man who was killed for being gay, his killer even stated such in court) as are black people, white people and any other group that you care to mention. Christians being targeted for hate crimes doesn't make them special, it makes them normal.
skyth wrote: That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.
So, it seems like we have two different things going on here. I think the majority of people who are accusing the "tolerance people" of being intolerant are mostly referring to how some of them are demanding coercion through the use of death and arson threats and others are 'reasonably' suggesting that those with minority opinions just don't voice their minority opinion out of the fear of having such repercussions befall them, because those sure are some intolerant views that they hold. That strikes me as pretty ironic.
That's not what is really going on. It's more the intoleramt people are throwing a temper tantrum for being called on their behavior...
squidhills wrote: hoping you'll be dumb enough to say something bigotted
Or rather hoping you'll be dumb enough to freely disclose your religious values because the national audience is certainly dumb enough to conflate that with bigotry.
skyth wrote: That people keep on shouting that someone is being intolerant for calling them out on their intolerance...That's not intolerance.
So, it seems like we have two different things going on here. I think the majority of people who are accusing the "tolerance people" of being intolerant are mostly referring to how some of them are demanding coercion through the use of death and arson threats and others are 'reasonably' suggesting that those with minority opinions just don't voice their minority opinion out of the fear of having such repercussions befall them, because those sure are some intolerant views that they hold. That strikes me as pretty ironic.
That's not what is really going on. It's more the intoleramt people are throwing a temper tantrum for being called on their behavior...
squidhills wrote: hoping you'll be dumb enough to say something bigotted
Or rather hoping you'll be dumb enough to freely disclose your religious values because the national audience is certainly dumb enough to conflate that with bigotry.
That's a whole lot of inference there Tex considering about 80% of the country professes to be Christian.
skyth wrote: It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.
Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.
The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.
Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.
skyth wrote: It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.
Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.
The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.
Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.
The argument is that the 1st amendment allows you to hold and maintain and practice bigoted beliefs as long as you truly believe your religion teaches/professes those beliefs.
skyth wrote: It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.
Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.
The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.
Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.
Still wouldn't be bigotted. Disagreeing with the moral validity of an action is in no way bigotted.
agnosto wrote: Christians being targeted for hate crimes doesn't make them special, it makes them normal.
Dude don't lecture Christians about being hate crime targets ...
In all seriousness, what I am really pointing out is that the problem in this country (and in fact all over the world) is consistently that the majority bullies the minority.
A bunch of British guys realized as much two hundred years and some change ago and decided that needed to stop. Yes -- they were too ambitious. Yes -- they were hypocrites. But the hugeness of their goal and the fact that it was not even totally commensurate with their own way of life -- even the fact that they probably could not even imagine what a world where their goal was achieved would be like -- none of this stopped them. So they made a start: the Bill of Rights.
And although we, the successors of those British guys, have made a lot of mistakes, including a constant parade of hypocrisies, we have never given up either. Legalizing gay marriage is one of the victories in that long struggle. Protecting the religious freedom of those who cannot in good conscience participate in the celebration of gay relationships is the issue facing us now.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There's no excuse for death threats, but I think blaming bad PR on "thought police" is a bit silly. They brought the bad PR on themselves by saying things meant to offend people.
They shouldn't have worn those short skirts. They brought it on themselves!
Since you bring it up, why are death threats against female gamers always dismissed or even hinted to be fraud perpetrated by the victims, but when this pizza place gets death threats, it's okay or even encouraged to take them seriously?
Co'tor Shas wrote: There's no excuse for death threats, but I think blaming bad PR on "thought police" is a bit silly. They brought the bad PR on themselves by saying things meant to offend people.
They shouldn't have worn those short skirts. They brought it on themselves!
Since you bring it up, why are death threats against female gamers always dismissed or even hinted to be fraud perpetrated by the victims, but when this pizza place gets death threats, it's okay or even encouraged to take them seriously?
Co'tor Shas wrote: That I agree, but I don't think the pizza place has or will have, anything actually bad happen to it. Closing because of threats on the internet is probebly one of the more stupid things I've heard. Death threats are practically the normal conversation equivalent of "feth you" on the internet nowadays, especially in the cespit that is social media.
While I agree in principle, I'm not sure that's something you can always reasonably take so lightheartedly, particularly when you have a family to worry about and the like.
Someone anonymously telling me "IMA KILL YOU MORAN!" on the internet in response to a comment I make is one thing.
Someone being able to look at a map and know when I'm going to be at work and get precise directions to said location who's saying it is a different caliber of creepy.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There's no excuse for death threats, but I think blaming bad PR on "thought police" is a bit silly. They brought the bad PR on themselves by saying things meant to offend people.
They shouldn't have worn those short skirts. They brought it on themselves!
Since you bring it up, why are death threats against female gamers always dismissed or even hinted to be fraud perpetrated by the victims, but when this pizza place gets death threats, it's okay or even encouraged to take them seriously?
agnosto wrote: Christians being targeted for hate crimes doesn't make them special, it makes them normal.
Dude don't lecture Christians about being hate crime targets ...
In all seriousness, what I am really pointing out is that the problem in this country (and in fact all over the world) is consistently that the majority bullies the minority.
A bunch of British guys realized as much two hundred years and some change ago and decided that needed to stop. Yes -- they were too ambitious. Yes -- they were hypocrites. But the hugeness of their goal and the fact that it was not even totally commensurate with their own way of life -- even the fact that they probably could not even imagine what a world where their goal was achieved would be like -- none of this stopped them. So they made a start: the Bill of Rights.
And although we successors to those British guys have made a lot of mistakes, including a constant parade of hypocrisies, we have never given up either. Legalizing gay marriage is one of the victories in that long struggle. Protecting the religious freedom of those who cannot in good conscience participate in the celebration of gay relationships is the issue facing us now.
lol. Forgot you were Catholic. A bit off-topic but I'll get to a point, I promise...
My first degree is in ancient history and I remember reading about the Cult of Mithras, a deity commonly worshipped by Roman soldiers. Temples to Mithras were commonly underground and were called a Mithraeum. Archaeologists in Italy found evidence of an early Christian temple located next to a Mithraeum (in hiding); at one point a door had been constructed between the two indicating amicable relations between the worshippers (Tolerance!) then later the door was walled-up from the Christian side, then the wall was later torn down and the Mithraeum defaced (intolerance) after Christianity became the dominant religion in Rome.
The moral? The dominate school of thought will always bully the minority, it's unfortunately human nature.
Interestingly enough, the majority of the founding fathers were deists, not technically Christians.
skyth wrote: It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.
Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.
The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.
Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.
Still wouldn't be bigotted. Disagreeing with the moral validity of an action is in no way bigotted.
If it is considered less moral because it's a homosexual doing it then it is bigoted.
skyth wrote: It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.
Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.
The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.
Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.
The argument is that the 1st amendment allows you to hold and maintain and practice bigoted beliefs as long as you truly believe your religion teaches/professes those beliefs.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from other people realizing you're a bigot though.
Uh, guys. Since Indiana revised their law and the Gov signed it yesterday, does that prevent GenCon from moving?
Because, more than anything else in this thread, that's the heart of this debate, correct? How far Kronk has to drive to attend GenCon? If it stays in Indiana, it's only about a 3 hour drive. So, we're all good here?
kronk wrote: Uh, guys. Since Indiana revised their law and the Gov signed it yesterday, does that prevent GenCon from moving?
Because, more than anything else in this thread, that's the heart of this debate, correct? How far Kronk has to drive to attend GenCon? If it stays in Indiana, it's only about a 3 hour drive. So, we're all good here?
The latest official comment on the Gencon site is that they're still going to be in Indy this year.
skyth wrote: It's not for expressing their beliefs...It's for being a bigot. There is a difference.
Which, according to you, expressing said beliefs makes them a bigot. I seem to be missing the distinction.
The difference is you claim it's because of their beliefs. In reality it's because their beliefs are bigoted. Expressing the same beliefs without the religion attached to them would get the same results.
Of course, that fact doesn't play into the martry complex.
Still wouldn't be bigotted. Disagreeing with the moral validity of an action is in no way bigotted.
If it is considered less moral because it's a homosexual doing it then it is bigoted.
Yes, it would be, and believing that anything a homosexual does is wrong because they are homosexuals would be, but that isn't the case, so happy days!
Edit: Just realized I've been spelling bigoted with two t's. gak.
In all seriousness, what I am really pointing out is that the problem in this country (and in fact all over the world) is consistently that the majority bullies the minority.
And then the minority gets angry, summons the similarly angry, and becomes the majority through a great deal of waling and gnashing of teeth....sometimes; it really depends on the case of minority.
In all seriousness, what I am really pointing out is that the problem in this country (and in fact all over the world) is consistently that the majority bullies the minority.
And then the minority gets angry, summons the similarly angry, and becomes the majority through a great deal of waling and gnashing of teeth....sometimes; it really depends on the case of minority.
Which really shows the number of angry people there are, apparently.
In all seriousness, what I am really pointing out is that the problem in this country (and in fact all over the world) is consistently that the majority bullies the minority.
And then the minority gets angry, summons the similarly angry, and becomes the majority through a great deal of waling and gnashing of teeth....sometimes; it really depends on the case of minority.
Who is the Houthi family going to summon in support?
Example of angry minority. Though, you could say that they summoned Iran in support since they adopted the Iranian Revolutionary credo, "God is great, Death to America!" and evidence supports that they were armed by Iran.
agnosto wrote: Though, you could say that they summoned Iran in support since they adopted the Iranian Revolutionary credo, "God is great, Death to America!" and evidence supports that they were armed by Iran.
Let me put it another way. I am a Hellenic Pagan that primarily follows Hermes and Athena. Playing games, especially on a computer, has religous significance to me.
If someone were to say something derogative about the fact that I game, I would not take it as an attack on my religion. That is why I say that the pizza owners were not attacked for their religous beliefs.
As for the question if it would be bigotry for hating people for their beliefs, no I don't think so. It would be wrong unless those beliefs are focused around hurting other people, but it doesn't match my definition of bigotry.
I think you'd have to pull off some impressive mental gymnastics to not call it bigotry. A more interesting approach would be to stop assuming that all bigotry is equal, or that it has to be wrong at all. Self-defence, while regrettable, is generally not frowned upon, so why should someone that is bigoted against bigots (meta-bigotry, if you will) be reviled? It is regrettable that it should come to such, to be sure, but why would it per definition have to be immoral?
Note that this post is not meant to take either side in the argument. I'll happily admit that I'm partial to the "this is discrimination for no good reason"-side as evidenced by this thread, but the above philosophical assumption intrigued me.
skyth wrote: Let me put it another way. I am a Hellenic Pagan that primarily follows Hermes and Athena. Playing games, especially on a computer, has religous significance to me.
No, but one of the things Hermes is in charge of is communication. Computers would be right up his alley and are appropriate things to honor him with.
Besides, I never said I was a Reconstructionist...Just a regular Hellenic Pagan. Intent is more important than form.
Of course, I'm sure you would never think to question a Christian priest about why they are using a microphone as part of a sermon when those weren't around in Jesus's day...
Of course, I'm sure you would never think to question a Christian priest about why they are using a microphone as part of a sermon when those weren't around in Jesus's day...
Show me the Christian priest who claimed that the microphone held "religious significance" to him.
Peregrine wrote: So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?
This... seems like a good time to get back to work.
My assertion that there is no Christian priest who believes his microphone to be a item of religious significance still stands, but I have no dog in this fight.
Peregrine wrote: So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?
Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?
I have a long history of asserting that religious beliefs are ridiculous nonsense, and I stand by that history. That's entirely separate from the question of what religious beliefs are legitimate in a legal sense. My personal dislike of religion and desire to see it disappear is not relevant to whether or not a given belief is (or should be) given a particular protection in court.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Also it has nothing to do with the law.
It has a lot to do with the law because a key element of it is whether or not something is a "substantial burden". How do you decide if something is a substantial burden or not? For example, is the court allowed to decide that "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to this sinful government" isn't really a sincere belief and therefore being forced to pay taxes isn't a substantial burden on religious freedom?
And it certainly has a lot to do with the previous few posts, which seem to be heading in the direction of a debate over whether a particular religious belief (starting with the "playing games has religious significance for me" post).
Legitimacy and sincerity are not synonymous in everyday speech much less as legal terms. The Establishment Clause precludes American courts from considering the legitimacy of a religious belief. Fortunately, whether a person sincerely holds a religious belief or whether law imposes a substantial burden on religious liberty have nothing to do with any determination of legitimacy, whatever that might mean.
Manchu wrote: Legitimacy and sincerity are not synonymous in everyday speech much less as legal terms.
And I'm not talking about it just in the context of this particular case so the exact terms are not necessarily accurate. Remember, this is a response to the previous discussion here:
Other people: "belief X is/isn't legitimate".
Me: "define legitimate".
Fortunately, whether a person sincerely holds a religious belief or whether law imposes a substantial burden on religious liberty have nothing to do with any determination of legitimacy, whatever that might mean.
Except that's exactly the argument that was made previous in this thread: "refusing service to gay people isn't something your religion requires, so it isn't a substantial burden". The whole premise of that argument is that there is some kind of test for whether or not a religious belief is "legitimate" enough to be protected.
Peregrine wrote: Other people: "belief X is/isn't legitimate". Me: "define legitimate".
In that matter, the wisdom of American jurisprudence ought to be applied.
Peregrine wrote: The whole premise of that argument is that there is some kind of test for whether or not a religious belief is "legitimate" enough to be protected.
As I explained, that is legally incorrect. The legitimacy of the religious belief is immaterial because it is beyond the capacity of the courts to consider.
Manchu wrote: As I explained, that is legally incorrect. The legitimacy of the religious belief is immaterial because it is beyond the capacity of the courts to consider.
And it being legally incorrect in your opinion doesn't stop people from making the argument in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?
Peregrine wrote: doesn't stop people from making the argument in this thread
Well of course not. How insane would I have to be to make it my goal to stop people from being ignorant on the internet? If someone posts about finding spiritual insight in playing video games in homage to ancient Greek gods, so be it. If someone else posts to scoff at that, that's the way things go. And if someone else makes a post asserting said exchange has any relevance to the law ... well, here we are. The best I can do is inform you that (1) no it doesn't and (2) why. But will you go on as if it's not the case? That ball is out of my court.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?
I have a long history of asserting that religious beliefs are ridiculous nonsense, and I stand by that history. That's entirely separate from the question of what religious beliefs are legitimate in a legal sense. My personal dislike of religion and desire to see it disappear is not relevant to whether or not a given belief is (or should be) given a particular protection in court.
.
Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.
Peregrine wrote: Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?
"No other solution is acceptable because God said so" is not a legal argument and could not be validly considered by any American court.
I think the easiest way forward here is for you to explain to me why you think it is necessary to determine whether a belief is legitimate before you can determine whether someone's religious liberty is burdened by some law.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.
Also incorrect. Again, the legitimacy of a religious belief cannot be at issue thanks to the First Amendment.
Manchu wrote: I think the easiest way forward here is for you to explain to me why you think it is necessary to determine whether a belief is legitimate before you can determine whether someone's religious liberty is burdened by some law.
How else do you separate out "this is honestly a burden on my ability to follow my religion" from "I'm just using religion as an excuse"? For example, the rich guy who says "god told me not to pay taxes" is pretty obviously just trying to cheat the IRS and forcing him to pay taxes wouldn't be any meaningful burden on his ability to follow his religion. Why? Because nobody believes that "god told me not to pay taxes" is a legitimate belief. But if the court can't say "we know you don't actually believe that" then how do you argue that being forced to pay taxes isn't a substantial burden?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.
And that's the problem: there's no objective standard, and in the real world we know what that really means is that beliefs that align with mainstream religion (especially mainstream Christianity) will get favorable treatment while minority beliefs are more likely to be rejected.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.
And that's the problem: there's no objective standard, and in the real world we know what that really means is that beliefs that align with mainstream religion (especially mainstream Christianity) will get favorable treatment while minority beliefs are more likely to be rejected.
But isn't anything in American jurisprudence that is in question solely dependent on what you can convince the judge/jury of? I mean, I made a throw away statement and you jumped on it because you have a bone to pick with religion.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: But isn't anything in American jurisprudence that is in question solely dependent on what you can convince the judge/jury of?
Sure, but there's a big difference between convincing a judge/jury that enough evidence exists to prove a factual argument and having to argue subjective opinions about what a "substantial burden" is.
I mean, I made a throw away statement and you jumped on it because you have a bone to pick with religion.
This is pretty funny coming from someone who jumped onto my random "could you guys clarify what you're talking about before continuing this argument" post because you have a bone to pick with my dislike of religion.
Peregrine wrote: How else do you separate out "this is honestly a burden on my ability to follow my religion" from "I'm just using religion as an excuse"?
That is a question of sincerity rather than legitimacy. But the tension remains. And TBH a court can never know if any given individual is being sincere or insincere as to their religious beliefs -- considering this is ultimately a matter of conscience. A court can only decide if the evidence shows that the belief is sincerely held or that the belief is a sham.
But here's the brilliant part: it is not the only relevant factor in the legal analysis. Even if the evidence shows that the belief is sincerely held, the court still must find that there is no less intrusive means than the law or regulation in question for the government to pursue its compelling interest.
So as to your example of the man who believes paying taxes is sinful, it effectively does not matter whether that belief is a sham or sincerely held. Assuming the court finds that the belief is sincerely held, there is certainly no question that being taxed places a substantial burden on the belief. But the government indisputably has a compelling interest in obtaining funding and there is no less intrusive way to accomplish this than assessing and collecting taxes. Therefore, collecting taxes does not unconstitutionally violate the man's right to religious liberty.
It is crucial to remeber that our legal rights are not absolute. With that in mind, it easy to see how so many of the outrageous hypotheticals we chew over are beyond irrelevant.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: But isn't anything in American jurisprudence that is in question solely dependent on what you can convince the judge/jury of?
Sure, but there's a big difference between convincing a judge/jury that enough evidence exists to prove a factual argument and having to argue subjective opinions about what a "substantial burden" is.
I mean, I made a throw away statement and you jumped on it because you have a bone to pick with religion.
This is pretty funny coming from someone who jumped onto my random "could you guys clarify what you're talking about before continuing this argument" post because you have a bone to pick with my dislike of religion.
You know what, you're right. That was a personal attack and I should not have made it. I apologize.
In order to implicate religious liberty, yes. But there is case law regarding beliefs that while not explicitly religious were deemed by courts to be analogous to religious beliefs (e.g., humanist values).
Manchu wrote: In order to implicate religious liberty, yes. But there is case law regarding beliefs that while not explicitly religious were deemed by courts to be analogous to religious beliefs (e.g., humanist values).
I was thinking specifically of United States v. Seeger, which resolved a few cases -- including that of Forest Britt Peter, who claimed to be an conscientious objector to the draft but at the same time expressed skepticism in the existence of God as traditionally conceived of by the Judeo-Christian tradition. The relevant draft law concerning conscientious objection referred to beliefs "in relation to a Supreme Being." The Court summarized Peter's argument thus: "his opposition to war derives from his acceptance of the existence of a universal power beyond that of man, and that this acceptance, in fact, constitutes belief in a Supreme Being." The decision quotes Peter explaining that his beliefs arose from "our democratic American culture, with its values derived from the western religious and philosophical tradition" and furthermore "you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. These just do not happen to be the words I use."
This is one reason I posted about my personal beliefs. They are sincere but whethet they are legitimate has been questioned. Mine is a minority religion and is partially based on a personal revelation.
However a Christian whi has a religpus problem with gay marriage wouldn't have the legitimacy of the claims questioned even though gay marriage is mentioned 0 times in the Bible.
Laws like this do nothing to protect my religous freedom.
I haven't read all 45 pages of this, just the first ten and the last five, but did it get confirmed that there was a requirement for businesses using this law to put up a sign acknowledging that fact?
Because that seems like a great solution to me. If I lived there, I could make a point of avoiding businesses who practiced discrimination that I disagree with. Let them lose money.
On the legitimacy thing, pretty snobbish from some of the Christians here about Skyth's beliefs.
Da Boss wrote: I haven't read all 45 pages of this, just the first ten and the last five, but did it get confirmed that there was a requirement for businesses using this law to put up a sign acknowledging that fact?
If you are referring to the Indiana law, it was swiftly amended in response to public outcry to explicitly state that it cannot be used by a business as a legal defense for discriminatory actions on the basis of many categories , including sexual orientation and sexual identity.
In effect, Indiana has now become one of the most progressive and inclusive states in the Union when it comes to anti-discrimination.
I'm not sure what the law is meant to do anymore, or if any suc signs would be necessary any longer.
One of the versions in Oklahoma was amended to require public signage (both in store and on websites) if a business plans on refusing to participate in weddings due to religious reasons:
Peregrine wrote: So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?
Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?
His point is rather on topic. How do we determine the legitimacy? Do you have to be born into the religion to be legit? Or at least practicing for over a few years? Do you have to go to church? Do you have to swear an oath to a judge, to god?? Show proof that you are a devout follower? Give examples of your faith? Do you have to believe in a divine being - does the flying spaghetti monster not count? Does it just have to be one of the mainstream religions? Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Shall we also include satanism? Maybe even Naturalism? Maybe even Secular Humanist? Do those not count cause they are not religions - but just ways of life?
These are basically all rhetorical statements. We all know what the answers to them are. Flying spaghetti monster is "illegitimate". Satanism is not protected because Satan is bad for Christians. Secularism and naturalism don't count because they aren't "sky god religions". Which brings us to a simple conclusion - this law was not created to protect peoples beliefs - it was created to "protect" the religious from the non-religious. This is explicitly illegal. As the state is not allowed to respect any establishment of religion - which also includes showing favoritism for religion over non religion. It's not worded exactly that way - but it leaves it open to a "subjective" opinion which quite literally could allow any number of discriminatory acts to occur. Furthermore the law is unnecessary - nothing prevents you from denying service to people for any number of reasons - you just can't do it out of prejudiced. A simple "I don't serve rude people" or whatever would suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: This is one reason I posted about my personal beliefs. They are sincere but whethet they are legitimate has been questioned. Mine is a minority religion and is partially based on a personal revelation.
However a Christian whi has a religpus problem with gay marriage wouldn't have the legitimacy of the claims questioned even though gay marriage is mentioned 0 times in the Bible.
Laws like this do nothing to protect my religous freedom.
Of course they don't protect your religious freedom - all they have to do is claim your "religion" is "illegitimate" and now you aren't protected by the law.
skyth wrote: This is one reason I posted about my personal beliefs. They are sincere but whethet they are legitimate has been questioned. Mine is a minority religion and is partially based on a personal revelation.
However a Christian whi has a religpus problem with gay marriage wouldn't have the legitimacy of the claims questioned even though gay marriage is mentioned 0 times in the Bible.
Laws like this do nothing to protect my religous freedom.
I don't think many in this thread realized that you were bring serious sbout that.
And that's part of the problem. I have to jump through hoops to 'prove' my religous beliefs.
However, a Christian can think 'I think gays are icky so my god does too' and it isn't questioned. And really, that is the real reason for the conservative Christian fetish with homosexuality.
Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?
Just a crazy hypothetical here...
Let's say that Jose follows the ancient religion of his people, and as such, he follows the ancient religions of the Aztecs. This calls for him to make sacrifices to the Sun God in order to continue enjoying his existence. Being a somewhat reasonable man, he knows that he cannot sacrifice people, so he goes to the local pet store and buys around 1 cat per week and then sacrifices them when he gets home.
Bob owns "Bob's Pet Emporium" and has heard rumors of Jose's religious practices, and being a Christian decides that it's against his beliefs to allow this "sin" to continue, and so when Jose comes into his shop, he denies Jose service.
Who here would have the more "substantial burden?" Would the State find a ruling to suggest that Jose's religious practice isn't legitimate? As far as Jose believes, his practices and beliefs are legitimate.
Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?
Just a crazy hypothetical here...
Let's say that Jose follows the ancient religion of his people, and as such, he follows the ancient religions of the Aztecs. This calls for him to make sacrifices to the Sun God in order to continue enjoying his existence. Being a somewhat reasonable man, he knows that he cannot sacrifice people, so he goes to the local pet store and buys around 1 cat per week and then sacrifices them when he gets home.
Bob owns "Bob's Pet Emporium" and has heard rumors of Jose's religious practices, and being a Christian decides that it's against his beliefs to allow this "sin" to continue, and so when Jose comes into his shop, he denies Jose service.
Who here would have the more "substantial burden?" Would the State find a ruling to suggest that Jose's religious practice isn't legitimate? As far as Jose believes, his practices and beliefs are legitimate.
Pretty sure there are probably precedents with this in regards to the practice of Santeria.
Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?
Just a crazy hypothetical here...
Let's say that Jose follows the ancient religion of his people, and as such, he follows the ancient religions of the Aztecs. This calls for him to make sacrifices to the Sun God in order to continue enjoying his existence. Being a somewhat reasonable man, he knows that he cannot sacrifice people, so he goes to the local pet store and buys around 1 cat per week and then sacrifices them when he gets home.
Bob owns "Bob's Pet Emporium" and has heard rumors of Jose's religious practices, and being a Christian decides that it's against his beliefs to allow this "sin" to continue, and so when Jose comes into his shop, he denies Jose service.
Who here would have the more "substantial burden?" Would the State find a ruling to suggest that Jose's religious practice isn't legitimate? As far as Jose believes, his practices and beliefs are legitimate.
The court supports the Christian. You know it, I know it, the sacrificial cats know it.
The thing that I don't get about the pizza place is that if they hold to their convictions, they shouldn't sale food to fat people (gluttony) which would actually be materially aiding someone in the commission of one of the actual deadly sins vs tacit approval of the civil union of two homosexuals which isn't a deadly sin. Maybe that's what bothers me most about the food vendors' potential refusal, they either lack the true convictions of their espoused religion or are just hiding bigotry behind a veneer of religious adherence.
daedalus wrote: Honestly, I enjoy seeing 'social media expert' journalists show that they don't really seem to get social media or journalism.
Yep, she's quite the social justice warrior, in search of a libel suit for her news agency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: The thing that I don't get about the pizza place is that if they hold to their convictions, they shouldn't sale food to fat people (gluttony) which would actually be materially aiding someone in the commission of one of the actual deadly sins vs tacit approval of the civil union of two homosexuals which isn't a deadly sin. Maybe that's what bothers me most about the food vendors' potential refusal, they either lack the true convictions of their espoused religion or are just hiding bigotry behind a veneer of religious adherence.
Edit: Amusingly enough, I found this cartoon..
It's actually coming to that in the secular world. The insurance where I work costs $600 more per year for over weight people. I think it makes sense for most of the cases.
agnosto wrote: The thing that I don't get about the pizza place is that if they hold to their convictions, they shouldn't sale food to fat people (gluttony) which would actually be materially aiding someone in the commission of one of the actual deadly sins vs tacit approval of the civil union of two homosexuals which isn't a deadly sin. Maybe that's what bothers me most about the food vendors' potential refusal, they either lack the true convictions of their espoused religion or are just hiding bigotry behind a veneer of religious adherence.
Well, I think those are more of a Catholic thing specifically, but how do you know they don't?
The act of feeding someone isn't really necessarily directly contributing to gluttony anyway. That would be more a question of the portions and their personal habits. I know a rail thin guy that I might describe as a glutton the 4000 or so calories he eats daily; an outlier, obviously, but it proves my point. Conversely, I know a guy who weighs 300-something, and doesn't really overeat, but has health problems and doesn't get off his fat ass nearly often enough.
Besides, even fat people HAVE to eat, whereas gay people only NEED attention to survive, amirite?
That's sort of the point though. If someone is so concerned about participating in, condoning, enabling the sins of others, wouldn't they be more discerning about their clientele than "you're gay, no pizza for you."? Maybe they should post a list of the types of patrons they aren't willing to serve outside their business so those loathesome sinners know to stay away.
I would be more apt to support them if they actually exhibited the strength of their convictions consistently. Maybe prescreen customers at the door before seating them so you know what type of sinner they are and adjust services accordingly.
As to your overweight colleague, daedulus, laziness is a sin too. So in that case maybe they should make him cook his own pizza and fill his own drink. For the thin guy who eats too much, limit his portion size. Then they'd safely not be contributing to the sins of others.
agnosto wrote: The thing that I don't get about the pizza place is that if they hold to their convictions, they shouldn't sale food to fat people (gluttony) which would actually be materially aiding someone in the commission of one of the actual deadly sins vs tacit approval of the civil union of two homosexuals which isn't a deadly sin. Maybe that's what bothers me most about the food vendors' potential refusal, they either lack the true convictions of their espoused religion or are just hiding bigotry behind a veneer of religious adherence.
Well, I think those are more of a Catholic thing specifically, but how do you know they don't?
The act of feeding someone isn't really necessarily directly contributing to gluttony anyway.
But it somehow contributes to homosexuality. Interesting.
agnosto wrote: That's sort of the point though. If someone is so concerned about participating in, condoning, enabling the sins of others, wouldn't they be more discerning about their clientele than "you're gay, no pizza for you."? Maybe they should post a list of the types of patrons they aren't willing to serve outside their business so those loathesome sinners know to stay away.
I would be more apt to support them if they actually exhibited the strength of their convictions consistently. Maybe prescreen customers at the door before seating them so you know what type of sinner they are and adjust services accordingly.
As to your overweight colleague, daedulus, laziness is a sin too. So in that case maybe they should make him cook his own pizza and fill his own drink. For the thin guy who eats too much, limit his portion size. Then they'd safely not be contributing to the sins of others.
Sure. I'm just trying to offer some sort of devil's advocate here.
agnosto wrote: The thing that I don't get about the pizza place is that if they hold to their convictions, they shouldn't sale food to fat people (gluttony) which would actually be materially aiding someone in the commission of one of the actual deadly sins vs tacit approval of the civil union of two homosexuals which isn't a deadly sin. Maybe that's what bothers me most about the food vendors' potential refusal, they either lack the true convictions of their espoused religion or are just hiding bigotry behind a veneer of religious adherence.
Well, I think those are more of a Catholic thing specifically, but how do you know they don't?
The act of feeding someone isn't really necessarily directly contributing to gluttony anyway.
But it somehow contributes to homosexuality. Interesting.
Well, I'm not sure how that one works out. Going back to the original catering of the wedding, I can see how it facilitates it, or at least more directly pertains to the religious fervor, than, say, gay people eating in the store.
I'd really rather that both sides just not be dicks to each other, if I had my way.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, "I have firm beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman only. This is a perversion of that and I'm choosing not to participate." is a lot different from "You two are standing a little too close together in line and are ordering a pizza together. NO PIZZA FOR YOU." At least, to me it is.
You and me both. If I had anything close to a credo it would be, "don't be a dick.". It's amazing how people seem completely incapable of simply being nice to each other and treating each other with mutual respect.
whembly wrote: @agnosto It's been said multiple times ITT... serving gays <> serving a wedding of SSM. For some folks, they're distinct from one another.
But serving a glutton would be OK? So not all sins are equal or just picking a "sin of the day" type thing.
If the concern is truly about enabling or condoning the sins of others, as has been expressed, then it should be applied universally or they're just being dicks and hiding behind religion. If it doesn't bother them to serve beer to the town drunk or pizza to the guy who comes in every Friday for a large and eats it himself (hypothetically), then the hypothetical request to cater a gay wedding shouldn't be an issue. Note that since none of these things has actually happened, we're just dealing with hypothetical scenarios here.
But serving a glutton would be OK? So not all sins are equal or just picking a "sin of the day" type thing.
If the concern is truly about enabling or condoning the sins of others, as has been expressed, then it should be applied universally or they're just being dicks and hiding behind religion. If it doesn't bother them to serve beer to the town drunk or pizza to the guy who comes in every Friday for a large and eats it himself (hypothetically), then the hypothetical request to cater a gay wedding shouldn't be an issue. Note that since none of these things has actually happened, we're just dealing with hypothetical scenarios here.
Homosexual weddings are a boolean. One either is or isn't. How do you measure gluttony?
But serving a glutton would be OK? So not all sins are equal or just picking a "sin of the day" type thing.
If the concern is truly about enabling or condoning the sins of others, as has been expressed, then it should be applied universally or they're just being dicks and hiding behind religion. If it doesn't bother them to serve beer to the town drunk or pizza to the guy who comes in every Friday for a large and eats it himself (hypothetically), then the hypothetical request to cater a gay wedding shouldn't be an issue. Note that since none of these things has actually happened, we're just dealing with hypothetical scenarios here.
Homosexual weddings are a boolean. One either is or isn't. How do you measure gluttony?
(Deut. 21:20), Heb. zolel, from a word meaning "to shake out," "to squander;" and hence one who is prodigal, who wastes his means by indulgence. In Prov. 23:21, the word means debauchees or wasters of their own body. In Prov. 28:7, the word (pl.) is rendered Authorized Version "riotous men;" Revised Version, "gluttonous." Matt. 11:19, Luke 7:34, Greek phagos, given to eating, gluttonous.
Believe me, in a town of 2200 people, they know who the gluttons, fornicators, etc are.
Bob owns "Bob's Pet Emporium" and has heard rumors of Jose's religious practices, and being a Christian decides that it's against his beliefs to allow this "sin" to continue, and so when Jose comes into his shop, he denies Jose service.
Bob owns "Bob's Pet Emporium" and has heard rumors of Jose's religious practices, and being a Christian decides that it's against his beliefs to allow this "sin" to continue, and so when Jose comes into his shop, he denies Jose service.
It's actually coming to that in the secular world. The insurance where I work costs $600 more per year for over weight people. I think it makes sense for most of the cases.
Yep, the company I used to work for would charge more for being overweight than being a smoker, and it got disgustingly nasty if you were overweight AND a smoker.. Some of the life insurance policies would straight up deny coverage if a person was a certain amount "overweight" (but, since it's a life policy this is based on the doctor/medical review not just a BMI chart)
I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
I love the gluttony argument too, it's just fantastic. Bravo.
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
I love the gluttony argument too, it's just fantastic. Bravo.
Apples and oranges comparison. The pizza shop never said it wouldn't serve gay people. It said it wouldn't serve a gay wedding. I would support a Muslim pizza shop's decision not to serve a Christian or atheist or Buddhist wedding. It's not the serving of someone whose conduct you disagree with that is at issue, it is being forced to participate in the conduct yourself that is at issue.
A better comparison would be the Muslim business owner's wife being forced to uncover her hair while serving the woman or women who are out and about with their hair showing.
For the Pizza thing, yeah, sure. But plenty of the arguments here have been about serving people generally, and not specific to participating in a gay wedding.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
Where are all the social justice warriors to rail against and sue the Muslim bakeries that won't cater to gay weddings is what I believe the point was.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
And you have every right to be annoyed and to be against it. You don't, however, have the right to use the courts to enforce your world view on other people.
EDIT: Or at least you shouldn't. There a certain grey area, but the glenmorangie 18 has since rendered me incapable of caring about nuance for the time being.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
Where are all the social justice warriors to rail against and sue the Muslim bakeries that won't cater to gay weddings is what I believe the point was.
This bakery is already covered by all the people already arguing that religion should not be used to discriminate against gays. It's assinine to pretend that the anti-discrimination argument somehow doesn't cover the Muslim bakery and that they require a completely separate revised line of outrage.
Da Boss wrote: I'm exactly as annoyed by this as I am by the Christian bakery doing the same thing.
What was your argument? I'm against homophobic discrimination, I don't care what your denomination is.
Where are all the social justice warriors to rail against and sue the Muslim bakeries that won't cater to gay weddings is what I believe the point was.
This bakery is already covered by all the people already arguing that religion should not be used to discriminate against gays. It's assinine to pretend that the anti-discrimination argument somehow doesn't cover the Muslim bakery and that they require a completely separate revised line of outrage.
But whatever makes you guys feel better.
How come we don't see any of them having the state dropping the hammer on them or getting hauled into court the way Christian bakeries are? Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
I dont think a muslim refusing service to a woman due to her hair being uncovered, or being out without an escort is anywhere near refusing service on the grounds of homosexuality.
On the one hand, there are already laws against discriminating a woman for her hair under two instances: a, she is not Muslim and does not ascribe to that religion (so she's facing discrimination on religious grounds) and b, being a woman (gender) is one of the protected classes.
Now, if your situation was a Muslim bakery refusing to deliver a wedding cake to a wedding due to the bride and other people's heads not being covered, it may be a different story.
Not only that, but by far one of the most biased people ever. When he was on YouTube I said on his comments that you have to work with the liberals create what you want.
his response was that "I agree, we have to work, but conservative is the only right viewpoint"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand, there are already laws against discriminating a woman for her hair under two instances: a, she is not Muslim and does not ascribe to that religion (so she's facing discrimination on religious grounds) and b, being a woman (gender) is one of the protected classes.
I don't think this is really accurate. It isn't religious discrimination because you don't have to be Muslim to cover your hair, and isn't sex/gender discrimination because women who follow the rules are served without complaint. It's discrimination against a person for not following the rules of the business owner's religion, just like the anti-gay bakeries. The only reason why one would be protected and the other wouldn't is that opposition to gay marriage is part of mainstream Christianity, while requiring women to cover their hair isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: How come we don't see any of them having the state dropping the hammer on them or getting hauled into court the way Christian bakeries are? Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
They're probably in the same place as the missing outrage over all of the anti-gay Christian business owners that didn't get national attention. The most likely explanation is that it's simply a matter of statistics. Christians outnumber Muslims in the US by a huge margin, so if you pick a small random sample of anti-gay business owneres to give national attention to it's pretty likely that most of them will be Christians. The fact that a particular business owner didn't get national attention doesn't mean that everyone approves of their actions, it just means that there's a finite amount of national attention to go around and they weren't lucky enough to get it.
If you want to provide evidence of this supposed double standard then you need to provide some examples of people supporting the anti-gay Muslim business owners while simultaneously opposing the anti-gay Christian business owners, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
You're a bit of a social justice warrior yourself.
Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
You're a bit of a social justice warrior yourself.
BrotherGecko wrote: Wait so people are supposed to get outraged by a video heavily edited by a proven lier?
nobody fired in rolling stone story about frat rape so why should cro dee hold to different standard? Or do we stop reading rolling stone now?
Sure? I don't read magazines and never an issue of rolling stone but if they write BS instead of whatever their focus is, then yes I would recommend people stop reading it.
Or should we just buy things because reasons? Or have no standards because of that one thing?
For better or worse, Rolling Stone articles get attention. People take note when they publish an incendiary piece, like the one about UVA. I don't think Rolling Stone published that article in bad faith but there was a major fact-checking break down and no transparency on the part of the magazine in terms of explaining why except to blame the source.
The issue is -- news is for-profit, which means there is always a conflict of interest: what happens when the facts are too boring to sell? In the case of Memories Pizza, a local news channel went trawling for scandal. The resulting manufactured scandal was relayed and magnified by editorial commentary incredibly quickly thanks to the internet.
The former story started at the top (major national magazine) while the latter story starter at the bottom (local news station) -- but both stories became national talking points nearly instantly. And if a famous magazine like Rolling Stone does little to nothing in response to a major breach of journalistic integrity (and even tries to cover one breach with another) then what can be expected of the local news channel? Or the multitudinous blog-like "news" outlets (e.g., HuffPo) that spread and warp the signal?Any ethical duty to objectively report, if it was ever practiced by professional journalists, is certainly no more in this era of digitally-diluted responsibility.
What makes something "news"? How many people click.
What makes something "true"? Whether you want to believe it.
Where are all the angry protestors and news organizations out front along with calls to boycott and threats to the owners by the social justice brigade?
You're a bit of a social justice warrior yourself.
Let's say then, a bakery run by Christians.
Find me a Kosher Bakery who refuses to sell me bread because I plan to make a ham sandwich with it and you might have a valid comparison.
Preparing the food in a way which is kosher to meet some customer's requirements isn't the same as requiring all customers to use the prepared food for kosher-only ways. What if a store refused to sell Kosher food to non-Jews, or only to people who kept the food kosher till consumption. What if they believed how their product was used post-sale was 'practicing their beliefs' and taking a kosher product and using it in a non-kosher way forced the bakers to break their religion?
That is why you don't see Halal and Kosher bakeries swept up into this. They make a product which meets specific preparation guidelines for those who follow those traditions and they make it available to *EVERYONE* regardless how the customer plans to use it. They realize that how the customer uses the product doesn't impact how the creator practices their religion.
Hold up -- let's get back to the actual example: (presumably) Muslim bakery owners/operators were asked to make wedding cake for gay marriage (not to cater a gay wedding) and they refused.
Manchu wrote: Hold up -- let's get back to the actual example: (presumably) Muslim bakery owners/operators were asked to make wedding cake for gay marriage (not to cater a gay wedding) and they refused.
That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
I might be wrong, but I don't think that anyone in this thread made the claim that Christians had the monopoly on bigotry in the US,
PhantomViper wrote: That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
My point is, there is no reason to talk about halal or kosher anything. Relapse's point was, if I understood him correctly, that a lot of news sources gives Christians gak for discrimination against gays while Muslims apparently get a pass. I think this was at least partly in response to Da Boss's point:
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
which I took to mean, people defending the O'Connors ITT would not defend Muslims. So, Relapse might ask: defend them from what? the absence of a media gak storm?
PhantomViper wrote: That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
My point is, there is no reason to talk about halal or kosher anything. Relapse's point was, if I understood him correctly, that a lot of news sources gives Christians gak for discrimination against gays while Muslims apparently get a pass. I think this was at least partly in response to Da Boss's point:
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
which I took to mean, people defending the O'Connors ITT would not defend Muslims. So, Relapse might ask: defend them from what? the absence of a media gak storm?
Except that that example wasn't what Da Boss pointed out.
In this case both Christian and Muslim bigots are united in their mutual hatred for the gays.
In the hypothetical scenario that Da Boss mentioned, the Muslim bigots would be discriminating against something that the Christian bigots wouldn't be opposed to as well, and thus they wouldn't be united in this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fashion.
As for Relapse, he should ask those news outlets why they aren't generating the same type of gakstorm over that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Think about it this way, it's finally something that Christians and Muslims agree on.
That is not exactly fair to the vast majority of Christians.
While I'm an equal opportunity type of guy that basically dislikes all religions, if someone is a true Christian that just follows his teachings, then they don't really see themselves in these people! Because Christ was a pretty cool type of guy that just preached love and understanding for EVERYONE (unless you happened to be selling stuff in Church or lending money, apparently ). You need to go way back to the Old Testament in the Bible to even find the beginning of a reason to dislike homosexuals!
But Mohammed was basically the exact opposite of Christ and he did preach hatred and intolerance for homosexuals.
What does it matter if some Muslims and some Christians are both bigoted against homosexuals? The point stands that sites like HuffPo apparently only care as long as Christians (and I would bet white Christians) are doing the discriminating. (Check out HuffPo's current headline -- a cluster of stories about Being Muslim in America absent any mention of homophobia ... contrast with HuffPo coverage of Memories Pizza.) The uncovered hair point is purely hypothetical while the refusing service to gays is happening in the real world. Now, further to Da Boss's point, is anyone here going to defend the Muslim's "right" to discriminate against gays?
I will ... or I will at least reiterate that any law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation could unconstitutionally violate a Muslim's right to religious liberty.
PhantomViper wrote: That makes them just as big a bigots as those Christian Pizzeria owners, what's your point?
My point is, there is no reason to talk about halal or kosher anything. Relapse's point was, if I understood him correctly, that a lot of news sources gives Christians gak for discrimination against gays while Muslims apparently get a pass. I think this was at least partly in response to Da Boss's point:
Da Boss wrote: I'm willing to bet the attitudes in here would be a little different if a Muslim business refused to serve someone's girlfriend or wife because she was out in public alone with her hair showing.
which I took to mean, people defending the O'Connors ITT would not defend Muslims. So, Relapse might ask: defend them from what? the absence of a media gak storm?
That was indeed my point, in response to stories about bakeries owned by Muslims refusing to cater gay weddings. There are no angry protests or threats or lawsuits or government action against the owners of these places and I found it interesting.
Likely because there isn't an angry very vocal group of Muslims that try to speak for all Islam and try to mandate on others their religion through force of law.
I really think a lot of the outrage over Christians is because of the vocal ones asserting that the US is a Christian country and Biblical laws should apply to everyone.
skyth wrote: Likely because there isn't an angry very vocal group of Muslims that try to speak for all Islam and try to mandate on others their religion through force of law.
CAIR
also ISIL, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram. you must have not been keeping up on current events.
I really think a lot of the outrage over Christians is because of the vocal ones asserting that the US is a Christian country and Biblical laws should apply to everyone.
Relapse wrote: That was indeed my point, in response to stories about bakeries owned by Muslims refusing to cater gay weddings. There are no angry protests or threats or lawsuits or government action against the owners of these places and I found it interesting.
But then again, your government isn't made up of conservative Muslims trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone while powerful conservative muslim lobby groups work behind the scenes to make sure their candidates keep getting in and the right noises keep getting made at every level of government...
And there is not a large lobby of progressive Muslims and others shining the light on religion in politics and daily life trying to stop them to generate all the interest in businesses which are engaging in these kinds of things.
Not like Christuans have never executed people for not agreeing with them.
But Christianity is the dominant religion and there is a subset of that group that both holds considerable political power and is determinef to shove their version of religion down everyone's throats through force of law. This is going to create a backlash...
It took me awhile to stop being pissed off and scared of all Christians and come to terms with the fact that it's only a minority of extremists that call themselves Christian even though they aren't really that give all of Christianity a bad name.
In other news, the Final Four was apparently another rousing success in Indianapolis, so much so that I've heard/read a few sports journalists question why it isn't held there every year.
Other than the horrible officiating in the 2nd half.
skyth wrote: Not like Christuans have never executed people for not agreeing with them.
But Christianity is the dominant religion and there is a subset of that group that both holds considerable political power and is determinef to shove their version of religion down everyone's throats through force of law. This is going to create a backlash...
It took me awhile to stop being pissed off and scared of all Christians and come to terms with the fact that it's only a minority of extremists that call themselves Christian even though they aren't really that give all of Christianity a bad name.
No you really should be afraid of all of them. Its the only way to be sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: In other news, the Final Four was apparently another rousing success in Indianapolis, so much so that I've heard/read a few sports journalists question why it isn't held there every year.
Other than the horrible officiating in the 2nd half.
But yeah, big success.
This is that game they put on to distract us in between football seasons right?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Think about it this way, it's finally something that Christians and Muslims agree on.
That is not exactly fair to the vast majority of Christians.
While I'm an equal opportunity type of guy that basically dislikes all religions, if someone is a true Christian that just follows his teachings, then they don't really see themselves in these people! Because Christ was a pretty cool type of guy that just preached love and understanding for EVERYONE (unless you happened to be selling stuff in Church or lending money, apparently ). You need to go way back to the Old Testament in the Bible to even find the beginning of a reason to dislike homosexuals!
But Mohammed was basically the exact opposite of Christ and he did preach hatred and intolerance for homosexuals.
you can find Paul preaching against homosexuals in one of his letters (maybe more than one) that's why Paul is a witch who never met Jesus.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Think about it this way, it's finally something that Christians and Muslims agree on.
That is not exactly fair to the vast majority of Christians.
While I'm an equal opportunity type of guy that basically dislikes all religions, if someone is a true Christian that just follows his teachings, then they don't really see themselves in these people! Because Christ was a pretty cool type of guy that just preached love and understanding for EVERYONE (unless you happened to be selling stuff in Church or lending money, apparently ). You need to go way back to the Old Testament in the Bible to even find the beginning of a reason to dislike homosexuals!
But Mohammed was basically the exact opposite of Christ and he did preach hatred and intolerance for homosexuals.
you can find Paul preaching against homosexuals in one of his letters (maybe more than one) that's why Paul is a witch who never met Jesus.
Actually thats not the case. At the time it wasn't homosexuals Paul was after. He was actually railing against pederasts.
skyth wrote: Likely because there isn't an angry very vocal group of Muslims that try to speak for all Islam and try to mandate on others their religion through force of law.
CAIR
also ISIL, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram. you must have not been keeping up on current events.
Actually, those groups aren't trying to force their religious views through by force of law, but by force of, well, force.
And last I checked few people, even in the regions these groups operate in, like them very much.
You actually believe a Muslim group has significant political power in the US? Especially comparef to Christianity that has almost 100% of elected politicians belonging to it and half of them belonging to the extremist right wing version?
skyth wrote: You actually believe a Muslim group has significant political power in the US? Especially comparef to Christianity that has almost 100% of elected politicians belonging to it and half of them belonging to the extremist right wing version?
THE extremist right wing version? Clarify, please.
Frazzled wrote: You said significant power. You act like Christians are this monolithic group-its impressively ignorant of you.
This is what is called a straw man. I never clained anything close to that. It takes willful ignorance to get that from what I said since I actually said something to the contrary.
skyth wrote: You actually believe a Muslim group has significant political power in the US? Especially comparef to Christianity that has almost 100% of elected politicians belonging to it and half of them belonging to the extremist right wing version?
THE extremist right wing version? Clarify, please.
The Republucans are quite attached to the extremist right wing Christian minority.
skyth wrote: You actually believe a Muslim group has significant political power in the US? Especially comparef to Christianity that has almost 100% of elected politicians belonging to it and half of them belonging to the extremist right wing version?
THE extremist right wing version? Clarify, please.
The Republucans are quite attached to the extremist right wing Christian minority.
skyth wrote: You actually believe a Muslim group has significant political power in the US? Especially comparef to Christianity that has almost 100% of elected politicians belonging to it and half of them belonging to the extremist right wing version?
THE extremist right wing version? Clarify, please.
The Republucans are quite attached to the extremist right wing Christian minority.
That clarifies nothing. Try again. What exactly is 'the extremist right wing version' that approximately 50% of elected officials belong to and what exactly classifies that group as 'extremist right wing'?
Example: Do you mean that they are Baptists? Catholics? Mormons (though there's an argument to be made that they aren't strictly Christian, but that's a different topic)? Are they 'extremist right wing' because they want to burn babies at the stake for gaking in their diapers during mass, or are they 'extremist right wing' because they don't feel that they should be forcing individuals to participate in rituals that said individuals view as sacrilegious?
As soon as you try to force your religious views on other people, you start to become right wing...You have to be living with your head in the sand if you don't see how the Republicans are attached to the religious right. And the loudest ones that they are most attached to are the extremists.
Things have shifted so far to the right in the last decade, that 'mainstream' conservatives are extremists and moderates are the new liberals...
skyth wrote: As soon as you try to force your religious views on other people, you start to become right wing...You have to be living with your head in the sand if you don't see how the Republicans are attached to the religious right. And the loudest ones that they are most attached to are the extremists.
Things have shifted so far to the right in the last decade, that 'mainstream' conservatives are extremists and moderates are the new liberals...
So all the militant atheists out there attacking others religious views, trying to assert their own, are right wing?
Frazzled wrote: You said significant power. You act like Christians are this monolithic group-its impressively ignorant of you.
This is what is called a straw man. I never clained anything close to that. It takes willful ignorance to get that from what I said since I actually said something to the contrary.
I notice you didn't disagree that you think Christians are some sort of epic monobloc. But you're right. We all have secret meetings where we burn atheists and plot to put the Ten Commandments in courthouse bathrooms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: As soon as you try to force your religious views on other people, you start to become right wing...You have to be living with your head in the sand if you don't see how the Republicans are attached to the religious right. And the loudest ones that they are most attached to are the extremists.
Things have shifted so far to the right in the last decade, that 'mainstream' conservatives are extremists and moderates are the new liberals...
I noticed you didn't answer the question. If I were you, I'd start looking over your shoulder. You're on our list now. No matter where you go, we'll be watching, watching, watching....
So all the militant atheists out there attacking others religious views, trying to assert their own, are right wing?
Atheism isn't a religion, but there are plenty of liberal religious people trying to push their views on the conservative ones; Unitarian Universalists come to mind.
So all the militant atheists out there attacking others religious views, trying to assert their own, are right wing?
Atheism isn't a religion, but there are plenty of liberal religious people trying to push their views on the conservative ones; Unitarian Universalists come to mind.
I know right! because an abortion doctor was killed all Christians are evil murderers out to impose their beliefs right?
Unabomber-atheist left wing ranter.
shoe bomber-Islam
earth first-all hippy tree huggers
McVeigh-all right wingers
Giffords shooter-all left wingers
Dice Clay-all men
Twilight-all self respecting vampires
Dick Cheney-all criminals named the Penguin.
Ma Barker-all women
skyth wrote: As soon as you try to force your religious views on other people, you start to become right wing...You have to be living with your head in the sand if you don't see how the Republicans are attached to the religious right. And the loudest ones that they are most attached to are the extremists.
Things have shifted so far to the right in the last decade, that 'mainstream' conservatives are extremists and moderates are the new liberals...
Show me where the aforementioned 50% are attempting to enforce polices that mandate all citizens must adhere to Christian religious beliefs. Also, are you saying that volume correlates to level of extremism? Rather than degree of action or belief.
You also skirted around the first question, again. What group do 50% of American elected officials belong to, which is 'extremist right wing'?
Xenomancers wrote: To clarify what he was saying...even moderate republicans protect the extremist right wingers ideals such as "the US is a Christian nation" and such.
1) From an historical context, that's largely true.
2) He is a grown man and can make his own arguments.
Frazzled wrote: I know right! because an abortion doctor was killed all Christians are evil murderers out to impose their beliefs right?
Unabomber-atheist left wing ranter.
shoe bomber-Islam
earth first-all hippy tree huggers
McVeigh-all right wingers
Giffords shooter-all left wingers
Dice Clay-all men
Twilight-all self respecting vampires
Dick Cheney-all criminals named the Penguin.
Ma Barker-all women
Frazzled wrote: You said significant power. You act like Christians are this monolithic group-its impressively ignorant of you.
This is what is called a straw man. I never clained anything close to that. It takes willful ignorance to get that from what I said since I actually said something to the contrary.
I notice you didn't disagree that you think Christians are some sort of epic monobloc.
So all the militant atheists out there attacking others religious views, trying to assert their own, are right wing?
Atheism isn't a religion, but there are plenty of liberal religious people trying to push their views on the conservative ones; Unitarian Universalists come to mind.
There is a huge difference between 'my religion thinks gays are sinners so let's pass laws to discriminate against them' and 'discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong'.
And while there are extremist atheists, they don't have an entire political party that 'worships' at their altar...
You guys are arguing with someone who says 50% of Christians in the USA are extremists. This same guy posted ITT that hating someone because of their beliefs is NOT bigotry. I have to wonder, are you guys just bored?
Manchu wrote: You guys are arguing with someone who says 50% of Christians in the USA are extremists. This same guy posted ITT that hating someone because of their beliefs is NOT bigotry. I have to wonder, are you guys just bored?
Biochem discussion section doesn't start till 11:00 AM.
EDIT: And, honestly, I would like to read the answer.
Manchu wrote: You guys are arguing with someone who says 50% of Christians in the USA are extremists. This same guy posted ITT that hating someone because of their beliefs is NOT bigotry. I have to wonder, are you guys just bored?
I dunno. I think we can all feel pretty extreme about stuff sometimes.
Edit: and Soladrin, I don't care where it came from, gack was funny.
Xenomancers wrote: To clarify what he was saying...even moderate republicans protect the extremist right wingers ideals such as "the US is a Christian nation" and such.
Huh. I did not know that our current President was such a supporter of right wing extremism.
Xenomancers wrote: To clarify what he was saying...even moderate republicans protect the extremist right wingers ideals such as "the US is a Christian nation" and such.
Huh. I did not know that our current President was such a supporter of right wing extremism.
95% sure Obama's a closeted atheist. Closeted due to career choice.
Xenomancers wrote: To clarify what he was saying...even moderate republicans protect the extremist right wingers ideals such as "the US is a Christian nation" and such.
Huh. I did not know that our current President was such a supporter of right wing extremism.
95% sure Obama's a closeted atheist. Closeted due to career choice.
Xenomancers wrote: To clarify what he was saying...even moderate republicans protect the extremist right wingers ideals such as "the US is a Christian nation" and such.
Huh. I did not know that our current President was such a supporter of right wing extremism.
95% sure Obama's a closeted atheist. Closeted due to career choice.
Obama is whatever is politically expedient.
Sure. And since in poll after poll, atheists are shown to be least trusted minority in the country, it's more politically expedient to pretend to be a Christian.
Xenomancers wrote: To clarify what he was saying...even moderate republicans protect the extremist right wingers ideals such as "the US is a Christian nation" and such.
Huh. I did not know that our current President was such a supporter of right wing extremism.
95% sure Obama's a closeted atheist. Closeted due to career choice.
Primarily, all of his proclamations regarding religion seem forced and insincere. And as an atheist who for a period of time was closeted, the type of answers he gives, and his demeanor while giving them, seem very very familiar.
I'm not claiming certainty about Obama and atheism, but rather a strong suspicion.
Manchu wrote: You guys are arguing with someone who says 50% of Christians in the USA are extremists.
So you feel the need to lie about what I said as well? What I said is that the extremists are a vocal minority that have control over 50% of the politicians. (ie the Republicans).
Manchu wrote: You guys are arguing with someone who says 50% of Christians in the USA are extremists.
So you feel the need to lie about what I said as well? What I said is that the extremists are a vocal minority that have control over 50% of the politicians. (ie the Republicans).
You said this:
skyth wrote:You actually believe a Muslim group has significant political power in the US? Especially comparef to Christianity that has almost 100% of elected politicians belonging to it and half of them belonging to the extremist right wing version?
Which most would interpret as you saying that 50% of American politicians are members of an 'extremist right wing' group of Christianity. Considering that to be the case, it isn't at all unthinkable to interpret that as you saying that 50% of Christians in the US are extremists, considering nearly the entirety of the Christians holding political stations are members of main line Christian denominations.
Skyth -- I apologize for misquoting you as saying 50% of Christians are extremist when what you actually said is 50% of American elected officials are extremist right-wing Christians.
So, now that it's cleared up, I return to my original point: why is anyone interested in the opinions of someone who posts this kind of nonsense? (Remember, if we're keeping score, I already guessed entertainment.)
Hardly nonsense. I'm not sure what is debatable. The extreme right 'Christians' hold considerable political power and try to use force of law to give their version of religion special privledges.
It was asked why an allegedly Christian establishment bore the brunt of the ire over the Indiana law as opposed to another religion. The obvious answer is it's backlash from the abuse of power.
skyth wrote: Hardly nonsense. I'm not sure what is debatable. The extreme right 'Christians' hold considerable political power and try to use force of law to give their version of religion special privledges.
skyth wrote: Hardly nonsense. I'm not sure what is debatable. The extreme right 'Christians' hold considerable political power and try to use force of law to give their version of religion special privledges.
Again, I would ask who these people are and how one would delineate an 'extreme right wing' Christian, particulary with respect to 'standard' Christians. Additionally, I would like to ask how the Indiana law favored Christian buisness owners over any buisness owners belonging to any other religion.
skyth wrote: Hardly nonsense. I'm not sure what is debatable. The extreme right 'Christians' hold considerable political power and try to use force of law to give their version of religion special privledges.
like what exactly?
"extreme right christians" in this case, simply being people who believe that what is in the womb is a human being, and does not want it killed. Completely comparable to other manners of religious extremism, as seen below.
He's using those words, trying to invoke images like this.
Well now we are compounding one lie with another. Fifty percent elected officials is not accurate at all, but pretending that being anti-abortion alone is simply what one is pretending defines religious extremism is just as naive. Believing that the only comparison is ISIS or that there isn't such a thing as extremist Christians one would have to be willfully ignorant.
Ahtman wrote: Well now we are compounding one lie with another. Fifty percent elected officials is not accurate at all, but pretending that being anti-abortion alone is simply what one is pretending defines religious extremism is just as naive. Believing that the only comparison is ISIS or that there isn't such a thing as extremist Christians one would have to be willfully ignorant.
Again it would to define what laws or actions he's talking about.
