Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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?

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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?

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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?

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.

Animal cruelty laws play a part. Does the government have a right to prevent cruelty to animals? I would say it does.

However, is sacrificing animals actually cruelty any more than the animals we kill for food? Would depend on how they are sacrificed I would say.

Like I said, there are precedents with santeria:

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
And
Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless

Both found on behalf of the Santeria practitioners.

Ah cincy, don't let facts get in the way!

But did those invoke the RFA and they were both involving a government regulation.

What do you think we have been talking about ITT?

 skyth wrote:
But did those invoke the RFA and they were both involving a government regulation.

Yes.

Sorry...two seperate thoughts. I was questioning about the RFA and stating that they involved government...which the example given does not.

 whembly wrote:
Dayum!

That pizza joint gofundme is over a half a million!

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

Looks like the thought-police mob's attempt to destroy this person/business has backfired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Besides it being rude, petty, and immoral, there's also Ilya Shapiro's question:

Doesn’t that strike you as reactionary and illiberal?

It does to me.

That fact has horribly offended many, and outrageous crap like this is pulled in an attempt to shut down the donations:


http://twitchy.com/2015/04/03/thats-messed-up-va-cbs-employee-reports-memoriespizza-gofundme-for-fraud-just-in-case/

Honestly, I enjoy seeing 'social media expert' journalists show that they don't really seem to get social media or journalism.

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..

EDIT: Meh, not hugely relevant.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 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.

@agnosto It's been said multiple times ITT... serving gays <> serving a wedding of SSM. For some folks, they're distinct from one another.

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.

 daedalus wrote:

I'd really rather that both sides just not be dicks to each other, if I had my way.

This is the answer... don't be dicks guys.

 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.

 agnosto wrote:

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?

 daedalus wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

Then euthanizes the cats.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

Then euthanizes the cats.

You're thinking of PETA.

 cincydooley wrote:

You're thinking of PETA.

Oh yeah, PETA is horrible, but pet stores are also quite bad.

46 pages looks to be the end then?

Relapse wrote:


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)