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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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

Throughout history, I think there's been a fairly consistent result whenever someone finds their faith to be at odds with the law of the land.

 insaniak wrote:

Throughout history, I think there's been a fairly consistent result whenever someone finds their faith to be at odds with the law of the land.

Well they have 3 options. Be a law abiding citizen, attempt to get the law changed or stage a coup to create, or move to, a glorious (?) biblical/sharia/spaghetti monster theocracy.

Failure to comply with the law means that they are exactly the same as everyone else who breaks a law, no special snowflake status allowed.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Well they have 3 options. Be a law abiding citizen, attempt to get the law changed or stage a coup to create, or move to, a glorious (?) biblical/sharia/spaghetti monster theocracy.

Or, in other words, the same options as the rest of us find ourselves with when our morals or personal beliefs put us at odds with the law...




To be clear, here, I'm not saying that refusing service because someone is acting at odds with your religion is the right thing to do. I'm just saying that I can understand why someone might think it's the right thing to do...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

You don't need the exact word in the Bible to know its against homosexuality. It makes its position quite clear.

The Bible also says to set a priest's daughter on fire if she has sex out of wedlock. The Bible says lots of things, and even the Christians who think it's the literal word of God don't do everything in it says (that would result in pretty much all of them going to prisons so realistically...)

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

I also have no clue what the Q stands for

I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.

Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.

The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.

When you say obnoxious, do you mean derogatory? Or is it just slightly irritating because it can be used to spell a word that has nothing to do with gender?

Obnoxious to my eyes because it's a sort of smug cuddly term to describe a group of people largely discriminated against and turns it into a fluffy bunny.
To me it'd be like turning a cause for racial equality into "JAMMYTOAST" or something else.

Pansexuality is not encompassing bisexuality. I'm not by any means a spokesman but iirc it can be broken down like this.
Bisexual: Bi = two = preference of people encompassing two genders. An attraction to men, women, and occasionally others, because of their genders and aspects that appeal. Of course personality and getting to know people is a big parts, and it runs like other relationships, be them Herero, gay, etc.

Pansexual: Pan = all = attraction to people regardless of gender. A people person. Often the slogan "hearts, not parts" is applied. A pansexual likes someone because of who they are before taking into account sex characteristics.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

The difference is that one harm can be demonstrated to exist, while the other can't. It is indisputable fact that someone who (successfully) commits suicide is dead. On the other hand there is no evidence at all for the argument that homosexuality is harmful. And the legal system is supposed to deal with facts and evidence, not personal opinions and wild speculation about mythical beings.

Demonstrate your religious claims in any way reflect reality and that your god(s) exists - then we might consider the validity of including your religious beliefs in law.

Until such time law should be secular and evidence based, providing equal protections, rights and responsibilities to all.

Ultimately religious freedom laws are a last ditch attempt by certain hardcore religious elements (or politicians pandering to these reasonably large dedicated voting blocks) to deny equality for all based on religious intollerance and bigotry.

Whilst America's obsession continues to amuse and confuse me, I do have to ask this.

Someone I know posted this on Facebook today (I hope the image works - if not let me know):




Now I can kinda see what they're saying (ie. I can follow my religion but I can't force people to abide by my beliefs), but then I thought about that first sentence:

"I can't [bake a cake for your gay wedding], it's against my religion."

Weren't people saying that that was unreasonable?

What am I missing?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now I can kinda see what they're saying (ie. I can follow my religion but I can't force people to abide by my beliefs), but then I thought about that first sentence:

"I can't [bake a cake for your gay wedding], it's against my religion."

Weren't people saying that that was unreasonable?

What am I missing?

Probably the fact that the person posting the image and the people arguing against the bakery refusing service to gay customers are not the same people, and therefore can hold different beliefs?

In the case of the bakery though there are various laws that a business has to serve all customers and can't discriminate. For example, you can't say "my religion says black people are a lesser race and should not mix with my white customers" and refuse service*. So the business owner is not merely refusing to act in a way that contradicts their religion, they're insisting that they are entitled to special treatment and that anti-discrimination laws shouldn't apply to them. A genuine case of religious freedom would be that the state can not force a person to work as a baker. If selling cakes to gay customers is against your religion then you are free to choose a job that does not involve doing so.

*Explicitly stated by the supreme court when they rejected that exact argument.

Ah, right, I get'cha. I thought I was missing a key detail.

Thanks for the explanation.

We cannot factually disprove all gods, although the burden of evidence in on the ones claiming a god. However, we can probably disprove your specific god. If you assume Jesus died around 33 AD, then the first gospels would have been recorded about 50 years after his death. The average lifespan was around 35 years in israel at that time, so the apostles would have been dead for about 35 years before the first book was written, and about 75 years for the 4th.
-King Herod died at around 4 BC. He was known by contemporary scholars for his construction projects, the murder of rabbis, and killing 2 members of his family, not for murdering a city's children. So unless mary took 4 or so years to give birth...
-The bible explicitly states that the wounds were in his hands, when romans used the wrists for crucifixion. Hands were never used, because they would eventually not be able to support the weight and the nails would be ripped out.
-Jesus is a descendant through his father, and his father's father, in multiple books. Unfortunately, in jewish culture descendants are traced through the mother's family. In greek culture(mark, for example) descent is traced through the father's family. In addition, the apostles disagree on the lineage, to the point where only 3 names match up out of around 70. Not to mention, since joseph wasn't yet married, and had no part in the conception, he was in no way related to jesus.
-Pontius pilate was known for his cruelty and bloodlust. Why did he suddenly decide to prevent a petty criminals punishment?
-There are no historical documents for the existence of jesus. Some reference christian cult members in the first century.
-Why didn't any of the romans, including historians, write down the fact that thousands of the dead were walking in jerusalem?

[u]Not to mention the central premise, that a talking snake convinced a clay man and rib woman to eat a fruit that was forbidden, even though since god is all knowing, he would know they would eat the fruit in the first place, meaning that god had to kill himself for a few days so he wouldn't have to send us to a place he created specifically to torture us for all eternity, as long as we believe that he is capable of being a magical lich to save us from himselt.
(yes, the syntax was intentionally nonsensical for effect)

Not to mention the parts of the story borrowed from local mythology, such as;
virgin birth
resurrection
walking on water
messiah
etc


I will just leave this here... because you have to obey your holy book, right?
Forced abortion by priests
Numbers 5:11-31
slavery approved in New Testament
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
Jesus saying things(supposedly)
Obey the laws of the old testament
Matthew 5:17-read the old testament and realize why this is horrible, unless you enjoy a good stoning
Thought Crime
Matthew 5:28
Encourages mutilation
matthew 5:28-29
[b]Keep your religion to yourself
Matthew 6:6

Honestly I could go on, but I haven't gotten sleep in 20 hours. My point is, if you want to believe in something absurd and transparently false, and use it as an excuse to do horrible things, don't try to get the government to respect your decision.

It's irrelevant whether we can prove religion or not. We can't prove humanism and civil rights either. What's important is that people do have these strong feelings and society has to take them into account in forming a general code of conduct and law.

The average life span was 35 because the massive infant mortality rate skewed the average.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

You don't need the exact word in the Bible to know its against homosexuality. It makes its position quite clear.

Actually, it doesn't. There are some verses that are against it, and some that don't care. For example

Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve.
The special relationship between Jonathan and David. 20:3-14
Jonathan has a secret meeting with David in the forest. David will be king, he says, and he will be right beside him. "And they two made a covenant before the LORD." 23:16-18
David loved Jonathan more than women. (And he loved a lot of women!) 1:26

If you wish I can give more explicit examples, there are several examples of erotica in the bible

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's irrelevant whether we can prove religion or not. We can't prove humanism and civil rights either. What's important is that people do have these strong feelings and society has to take them into account in forming a general code of conduct and law.

Humanism and civil rights don't make assertions that are not in line with our scientific understanding. Therefore, they are valid perspectives. Disagreement is a matter of opinion, not rationality.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The average life span was 35 because the massive infant mortality rate skewed the average.

My apologies, median lifespan. I also forgot to mention all of the apostles are described as having professional lives, so they might be older

It's not a matter of rationality.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a matter of rationality.

How so? The positions of humanism and civil rights can both be thought through in a rational order, and the postulates, such as it is evolutionarily advantageous to cooperate, or that people are not less equal based on race, can be tested empirically.

It's not a matter of rationality because however much you say to religious people that their ideas are impossible they won't go, Oh! You're right! Hang on five minutes while I change my complete worldview."

At the same time there are billions of religious people and they can't be ignored. Society is made of everyone, not just a few self-selecting groups that approve of themselves and not everyone else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a matter of rationality because however much you say to religious people that their ideas are impossible they won't go, Oh! You're right! Hang on five minutes while I change my complete worldview."

At the same time there are billions of religious people and they can't be ignored. Society is made of everyone, not just a few self-selecting groups that approve of themselves and not everyone else.

You mean like religious organizations? And I honestly think we should try to ignore horrible ideas. Like, for example, we probably shouldn't teach religiously motivated sex ed. Now a lot of people want it, but I think we should ignore them and do what doesn't harm children.

They are free to have their views. However, they shouldn't be allowed to act on them all the time, just as I cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. When their or my rights start to infringe on others rights, they end, we don't write a law that extends them.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
What's the Q stand for?

Omnipotent beings in the Star Trek universe of course...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

like refusing same-sex couples a meal) surely has nothing to do with religion?

Not necessarily. If a religion proscribes the Chosen from any interaction with sinners, or alternatively the unclean, and group X falls in that category, then it could actually.

Having said that, a lot of this doesn't appear to be driven by that, at all.

Alternatively there may be activities group X does that the religious specifically could not support under the same grounds. For a real world example of the argument-
Baker Bob can bakes cakes for group X. However if group X marries it is against the beliefs of his religion which only recognizes marriages between group Y. He is not opposing group X, but this actitivty of group X.

The final query that relates is not a religious one but a rights one. Slavery is illegal here and we have a capitalist system. The thought of forcing someone to work or perform an activity is abhorrent to the US system of commerce and individual rights. Its the Batman rule. They can't stop you, but they on't have to participate.

Note much of the above has nothing to do with the recent BathroomGate(TM*).
Bathroomgate is just a cray cray wedge issue to garner votes and distract from the entire world freaking falling apart.

Personal note only: I prefer the view of another libertarian I heard. If you are in the business of commerce, your ethics should involve ethically providing a quality product, quality service to your client, and quality management of your people.
Here endeth the lesson.

*I coined it. Its mine! My...precious....

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.

Exactly.

I'm torn on these religious freedom laws. They're pretty transparently the states involved saying "we agree that gay people are bad," but there are some interesting questions of the rights of self expression here.

I think that "public accommodations," meaning those businesses that are open to the general public and serve anybody with cash, should not be allowed to discriminate on demographics (sex, race, orientation, religions, etc.) If you run a pizza place, you're selling pizza to anybody that has the cash.

However, professionals and artists have, and should have, a lot more say in what clients they select or what projects they take on.

The question becomes: when is a business a public accommodation, such that it must serve anybody, and when is it a professional or artistic service such that clients select it because of a particular style or specialty.

What I'm getting it is that while all people have the right to enter into commerce, you also cannot tell people to use their skills in a way that they do not care to.

 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.

You're also ignoring the context of it all though. that gay bit was just one line in leviticus, those same people who refuse to bake the cake probably have tattoos, eat shrimp, wear clothes of mixed fabric, and violate everything else written in the old testament. The old testament which I've been told many times is out of date because jesus changed the rules. So knowing what we know of jesus and his views on hypocrites, the bakers should get themselves right with god first and not worry what others are doing.

It's pretty telling when people pick one line out of 2 bibles to hold as a deeply held religious belief.

 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.

The Hippocratic Oath would like to take out back and beat you with a sock puppet.

As far as I'm concerned, those with religious beliefs should not have to do things against there religion (an OB/GYN would not have to preform abortions, for example) same with any strongly held belief, but should not be allowed to to treat people differently (the baker must make a cake for the gay couple same as if they were a strait couple).

Basically, equal treatment, but no special treatment. And if those strongly held belifs cause them to not be able to do there job (such as the johvas witness doctor not doing blood transfusions), then they should be fired for not being able to do there job.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

I will just leave this here... because you have to obey your holy book, right?

I do.

Forced abortion by priests
Numbers 5:11-31

Irrelevant. Old testament law I do not have to follow. See that all the laws in Leviticus and where you decide to arbitrarily pull them from begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel.' " I am not an Israelite, I am a Gentile. This Law is null and designed for a group of people who came thousands of years before me.

slavery approved in New Testament
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18

Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21

Jesus saying things(supposedly)
Obey the laws of the old testament
Matthew 5:17-read the old testament and realize why this is horrible, unless you enjoy a good stoning

We are gentiles, these laws are null.

Thought Crime
Matthew 5:28

God is incapable of doing evil. Even the mere thought of evil is outside his person. If you have that thought, you have sinned against him and must repent.

Encourages mutilation
matthew 5:28-29

I can't refute this. If something is causing you to sin, remove that thing. Its probably more figurative than it is literal.

Keep your religion to yourself
Matthew 6:6

No, keep it to yourself if the only purpose of showing it is to show you are a religious person.
Read 2 Corinthians 4.

My point is, if you want to believe in something absurd and transparently

Back at it again with the religion bashing.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

To one who is a firm believer of the Bill of Rights and the French System, they can actually.
1. As already noted, quit forcing commerce.
2. Go the other way. The nation is governed by the religious laws of one group. There are a whole plethora of nations like that, none of which I personally want to live in. But thats their call and they can do what they want.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious freedom is a tricky concept.

I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.

This is one I've never understood. No doctor or nurse is ever forced to perform an abortion or provide care for women who've undergone one, because they have a choice in what specialism they practice and a choice in where they work.

If, however, they choose to work in reproductive health, and they choose to work in a facility that provides abortions or aftercare for patients who've undergone abortions(or any kind of emergency care, since that might require them to treat a woman with complications from an abortion), then they should damn well do their job and stop whining.

If a devout Jew were to train as a seafood chef and then choose to work in a lobster restaurant, they either work with shellfish regardless of what Leviticus has to say about them, or they get the sack. Jobs have responsibilities, if you're incapable of fulfilling those responsibilities you don't do that job, end of.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Then, as above, don't put yourself in that situation. If you choose to enter a service or sales profession that requires you to interact with people, you interact with all the people on the same terms. Is everyone forgetting "VACANCY - No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish"? Segregated counters in restaurants? Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter what the reason is, and it has to be that way because otherwise society stops working.

Consider, an atheist opens a bookshop. Maybe it's a really arsey atheist who actually hates/is very uncomfortable with religious people. That atheist bookshop owner has two choices - they can choose to stock, say, the latest Richard Dawkins book, or they can choose not to stock it. What they can't do is choose to stock it and then refuse to sell it to a customer who comports themselves entirely within the law while in the store but happens to be Christian. Just like bakers have a nice easy choice - they can bake wedding cakes or not bake them, they can offer the service of writing a message on the cake or not offer that service. They can't offer a product or service and then refuse it only to certain people that they disapprove of.

In the developed world being gay is legal, and thankfully in most of it gay marriage is now also legal. That is the only thing that matters when determining whether or not someone is allowed to refuse to do something their job requires them to do, because we're not a sodding theocracy and your(plural, nonspecific) feelings about gay people or trans people or ginger haired people are utterly irrelevant.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

You mean like when that chicken fast food chain was punished by the public for their homophobia with lots of extra money from people showing up to support them? You mean like how free market mechanics ended racial segregation in American businesses? Utter fantasy. Almost every electronic device(and certainly all the most popular ones) we own in the developed world is soaked in the blood of innocents, from children forced to mine the metals right up the chain to workers kept in perpetual slave labour conditions killing themselves to escape their miserable existence, and even that, literally even children being worked to death in mines, isn't enough to generate change through market pressure, so in what universe is "a gay couple couldn't get the wedding cake they wanted" or the like meant to make any serious difference to behaviour driven by what is still a pretty widespread prejudice?

nvm, need more coffee

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Demonstrate your religious claims in any way reflect reality and that your god(s) exists - then we might consider the validity of including your religious beliefs in law.

Until such time law should be secular and evidence based, providing equal protections, rights and responsibilities to all.

Ultimately religious freedom laws are a last ditch attempt by certain hardcore religious elements (or politicians pandering to these reasonably large dedicated voting blocks) to deny equality for all based on religious intollerance and bigotry.

Why should the government have the power to force someone to provide a good or service against their will?
Should you be forced to provide posters for Ted Cruz complaining about "those people?"
No of course not. Neither should anyone else be forced to do something against their will.
The concept is disturbing and goes against fundemantl western concepts.

inversely is the argument that you are in the business to do business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

What I'm getting it is that while all people have the right to enter into commerce, you also cannot tell people to use their skills in a way that they do not care to.

Of course in actuality you completely are.

In your instance, the pizzamaker (hereafter referred to as the holy of holies) is using her skill and expertise to provide a service. Yet she is forced to provide that service regardless.
Its all just a matter of degree.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Demonstrate your religious claims in any way reflect reality and that your god(s) exists - then we might consider the validity of including your religious beliefs in law.

Until such time law should be secular and evidence based, providing equal protections, rights and responsibilities to all.

Ultimately religious freedom laws are a last ditch attempt by certain hardcore religious elements (or politicians pandering to these reasonably large dedicated voting blocks) to deny equality for all based on religious intollerance and bigotry.

Why should the government have the power to force someone to provide a good or service against their will?
Should you be forced to provide posters for Ted Cruz complaining about "those people?"
No of course not. Neither should anyone else be forced to do something against their will.
The concept is disturbing and goes against fundemantl western concepts.

So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?