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.

That sounds like Twitty is going to tell me that having a curry is cultural appropriation and I shouldn't do it.

As a matter of fact, I'm going to go with that and get a turn on the far right talking circuit!

Religious freedom laws are such bs. Just an excuse to oppress folks.

The madness of religion. Atheism all the way.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The madness of religion. Atheism all the way.

Is there really a place for this on this forum? Didn't we spend a whole other thread discussing why this is cancerous to any type of intelligent debate?

Indeed, steering away from comments like that would be advisable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.

It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.


Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.

Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'


It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?

Exactly. It's part of the job, if you don't want to do your job then feel free to find a different one.

Personally FWIW, I think that if a doctor is morally opposed to performing abortions, regardless of his/her reasons (could be religion, could just be a personal moral belief)... I think that it's one specific task that they shouldn't be forced to perform....

HOWEVER, I think that if a doctor is one who does refuse on those grounds, they should be ethically and legally required to recommend a physician who does perform those operations.



Though I'm more in the camp of religion doesn't belong in the hospital/doctors office period. The couple who are facing legal ramifications for their "faith healing" BS, I think are rightly facing those issues. There is literally nothing scientifically sound in regards to medicine in the bible, stop trying to act like there is!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally FWIW, I think that if a doctor is morally opposed to performing abortions, regardless of his/her reasons (could be religion, could just be a personal moral belief)... I think that it's one specific task that they shouldn't be forced to perform....

HOWEVER, I think that if a doctor is one who does refuse on those grounds, they should be ethically and legally required to recommend a physician who does perform those operations.

A doctor refusing to perform abortions would be perfectly acceptable provided they're not employed in a position that would require them to perform abortions.


If you can't carry out the duties for which you were employed, whatever the reason, then you're in the wrong position.

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed, steering away from comments like that would be advisable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.

It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.


Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.

Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'


It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.

The line here however I believe is that in one instance you are preventing physical harm and death, something that is pretty universal and transcends the boundaries of religious dogma, while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.

 Vaktathi wrote:
...while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.

Which makes no difference to someone who genuinely believes it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed, steering away from comments like that would be advisable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.

It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.


Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.

Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'


It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.

The line here however I believe is that in one instance you are preventing physical harm and death, something that is pretty universal and transcends the boundaries of religious dogma, while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.

Everything is metaphysical and in the realm of the unknowable. Killing anyone, including yourself, then being unrepentant about that killing is setting yourself up for Hell, at least from what I perceive the Bible to mean and my perception only goes so far.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
...while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.

Which makes no difference to someone who genuinely believes it.

I'm sure, but society can't operate around everyone's head mythos (particularly given how...outlandish it can sometimes get), no matter how much they believe it, and that's where laws usually draw the line, particularly with regards to businesses serving the general public.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm sure, but society can't operate around everyone's head mythos (particularly given how...outlandish it can sometimes get), no matter how much they believe it, and that's where laws usually draw the line, particularly with regards to businesses serving the general public.

Which then leads to the question of whether or not it's any business of the law to determine whether someone in a shop should sell you something.

Quite frankly, I don't think it is. A private business owner should be free to deal with whomsoever he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses. Any discrimination that results from that is generally counterbalanced by the loss of revenue when word gets around that the business owner is an donkey-cave.

 insaniak wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.

It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.


Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.

Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'


It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.

No, absolutely in no way are these things related. Suicide is most often caused by mental illness brought on by emotional or physical trauma. Somebody who says they are going to go out and hang themselves is far different from two marrying because they love each other.

I do not accept this analogy.

Presumably because you don't accept that the two people marrying each other are doing themselves any harm.

And that's fine. I agree with you. But to someone who believes that said marriage is going to result in some seriously nasty consequences for those involved, there is far less difference.

 insaniak wrote:
Presumably because you don't accept that the two people marrying each other are doing themselves any harm.

And that's fine. I agree with you. But to someone who believes that said marriage is going to result in some seriously nasty consequences for those involved, there is far less difference.

But that is the problem, one of these is a judgement based in science and the other is one based in faith. The government recognizes faith but it does not pass or rather it should not pass laws based on faith. Sadly that is not the case in most places as we have seen lately.

The same person is also taught in the same book that they should turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, also a little something about not blaming the sinner or throwing the first stone? If you are going to use an argument for turning down customers based on your faith, you should be aware you are violating your own faith in doing so.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

The same person is also taught in the same book that they should turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, also a little something about not blaming the sinner or throwing the first stone? If you are going to use an argument for turning down customers based on your faith, you should be aware you are violating your own faith in doing so.

You're assuming that the person denying service is doing it out of something other than love.

If you refuse to give your child a cheese grater to play with because you think they'll hurt themselves with it, does that mean you don't love them?


Don't get me wrong, I fully realise there are a plenty of bigots out there who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their prejudices. But there are also plenty of people out there to whom their religion is every bit as real as anything that science has to say, and for whom behaving in a way that would bring harm to another would be simply unacceptable behaviour.



The way to get past that isn't (IMO) to legislate against it, but to educate and encourage people to want move past it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

The same person is also taught in the same book that they should turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, also a little something about not blaming the sinner or throwing the first stone? If you are going to use an argument for turning down customers based on your faith, you should be aware you are violating your own faith in doing so.

You're assuming that the person denying service is doing it out of something other than love.

If you refuse to give your child a cheese grater to play with because you think they'll hurt themselves with it, does that mean you don't love them?


Don't get me wrong, I fully realise there are a plenty of bigots out there who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their prejudices. But there are also plenty of people out there to whom their religion is every bit as real as anything that science has to say, and for whom behaving in a way that would bring harm to another would be simply unacceptable behaviour.



The way to get past that isn't (IMO) to legislate against it, but to educate and encourage people to want move past it.

Not really, I am assuming the person denying service is doing it out of a major misunderstanding of their own religion. If you love something, you support it. You are not held accountable for other peoples actions according to the bible. If your neighbor is homosexual and married, just because you are nearby and allowing it to happen does not mean you are also going to hell. You may pray for their souls to go to heaven, but you do not get to deny them the same treatment as you expect for yourself just because you believe they are immoral.

Here is the key point.

The RC Church confirms it is a sin to have an abortion or if you are a doctor to give an abortion, except if the purpose is to save the mother's life (e.g. an already dead foetus, to give a clear example.)

The RC Church confirms it is a sin to have a gay wedding, but it does not confirm that it is a sin to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Therefore the anti-gay baker is not committing a sin, he does not have valid religious grounds for refusing service, and he is governed by the general law of society. This in its current state holds that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

There are religious authorities to whom the civil authorities can refer for expert judgements in these matters as they may affect their celebrants.

The theoretical case involving selling rope to someone who wants to hang himself is not a specific religious thing. Practically all of society religious and secular believes suicide to be a bad thing, whether it is a sin or not.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If your neighbor is homosexual and married, just because you are nearby and allowing it to happen does not mean you are also going to hell.

Some might disagree.

However, there is a difference between being aware that something is happening, and actively participating in making it happen. The fact that, somewhere in the world, a child is playing with a cheesegrater is sad, but knowing that fact doesn't make you at all responsible for it happening.

Handing the child a cheesegrater (arguably) does.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The theoretical case involving selling rope to someone who wants to hang himself is not a specific religious thing. Practically all of society religious and secular believes suicide to be a bad thing, whether it is a sin or not.

I feel that I should also point out that some places have criminalized suicide. As such, especially in those places, an individual who can prevent it (ie, not selling rope, or bullets, or whatever) without risking themselves is kind of obligated to do so.

This is kind of the same idea as a gun shop is supposed to deny sale of ammunition if they have cause to believe a crime will be committed with said purchase (ie, the customer is talking about knocking over a bank, shooting his/her Ex, etc)

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If your neighbor is homosexual and married, just because you are nearby and allowing it to happen does not mean you are also going to hell.

Some might disagree.

However, there is a difference between being aware that something is happening, and actively participating in making it happen. The fact that, somewhere in the world, a child is playing with a cheesegrater is sad, but knowing that fact doesn't make you at all responsible for it happening.

Handing the child a cheesegrater (arguably) does.

But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless. The cake is not the cornerstone to the marriage. Nothing the baker does is going to determine whether or not they get married.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The theoretical case involving selling rope to someone who wants to hang himself is not a specific religious thing. Practically all of society religious and secular believes suicide to be a bad thing, whether it is a sin or not.

That's exactly why I used it as an example.

Most of us would at the very least refuse to help someone commit suicide, or to otherwise harm themselves, if we were in the position to do so.

The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.

 insaniak wrote:

The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.

Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless.

There are people out there in the world doing all sorts of things that I think are wrong. They're going to do those things regardless of whether or not I help them... but that doesn't make it ok for me to help them.

Not supplying the cake doesn't stop a gay couple from getting married, no. But it stops the baker from being involved in something that they feel is wrong and/or harmful to those involved.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are all sorts of common English words that weren't originally in the bible.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless.

There are people out there in the world doing all sorts of things that I think are wrong. They're going to do those things regardless of whether or not I help them... but that doesn't make it ok for me to help them.

Not supplying the cake doesn't stop a gay couple from getting married, no. But it stops the baker from being involved in something that they feel is wrong and/or harmful to those involved.

Which again, is not a determination they should be making. They do not really have the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of the bible they wish.

As Christians, their own religion tells them this is not okay. So it is not a valid argument.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are all sorts of common English words that weren't originally in the bible.

It is actually a hotly debated topic by religious scholars. The word translated to mean homosexual is not considered 100% accurate. It is a tossup between homosexual and pedophile, depending on who you ask.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are all sorts of common English words that weren't originally in the bible.

It is relevant precisely for that reason... These religious bigots claim to base their bigotry on things that are "in the bible."

And yet, they are basing some of these things on both modern language, as well as semi-modern science. And even then, a number of these translations are quite shoddy, the original hebrew and greek languages use words that, until translated in the particular way for the bible... had never been translated to mean "homosexual" and in fact had much more in relation to the priesthood and religious practices than to anything remotely LGBTQ.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Atheism all the way.

Certainly when it comes to legislature. Faith based law are very likely to be discriminatory, as in the cake example, in some way towards people of a different/no faith and quite possibly members of the dominant faith as well.

Laws should always be completely secular in any country that thinks of itself as a democracy and who espouse personal freedom.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Which again, is not a determination they should be making.

Of course it is. If they believe that doing something is wrong, then it's up to them to not do that thing.

As Christians, their own religion tells them this is not okay. So it is not a valid argument.

Where does the bible say that it is not ok to refuse to help someone to harm themselves?

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Which again, is not a determination they should be making.

Of course it is. If they believe that doing something is wrong, then it's up to them to not do that thing.

As Christians, their own religion tells them this is not okay. So it is not a valid argument.

Where does the bible say that it is not ok to refuse to help someone to harm themselves?

Christianity doesn't tell us it is wrong to bake gay wedding cakes.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Which again, is not a determination they should be making.

Of course it is. If they believe that doing something is wrong, then it's up to them to not do that thing.

As Christians, their own religion tells them this is not okay. So it is not a valid argument.

Where does the bible say that it is not ok to refuse to help someone to harm themselves?

The part where it says to abide the law of the land and respect governments.

Nvmnd