"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 737
Topic's author
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
whether they choose to give a reason or not it's their choice they have the right and freedom to choose not to labor in the context I have already laid down.  Their body their choice.
So if someone says "my religion requires that I shoot heroin at least three times a week and only perform labor in exchange for money once a month" then if someone refused to hire them, or tries to fire them for not showing up for their shift, the business owner could be sued out of existence because they are "discriminating against religious expression"?

There must be reasonable limits on what a person can claim.

there doesn't have to be a specific text, it's their interpretation of it, hence belief and freedom of religion.
There must be reasonable limits on what a person can claim.

does the muslim religion have specific texts, I honestly don't know but I assume they do since they toss gays off of buildings etc they must, which I gather you'd give them a pass but not other religions unless they can present the specific text.
Does "The Bible" say you must stone people to death for infidelity and for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?  Yes.  Yes it does.

Does "The Bible" endorse polygamy?  It certainly seems to.

Are public stonings and polygamy legally protected activities?  No.  No they are not.

There must be reasonable limits on what a person can claim.

I think there's plenty of precedence of how some religions feel about gays. 
As far as I can tell, from a Jewish/Christian perspective, homosexuality is in the same category of "sin" as eating a cheeseburger or violating the day of rest.  Have you ever flipped a light switch on a Saturday?  If you did, then you are as bad (evil and sinful) as a homo.

Can get receive communion, be priests, nuns or hold certain positions in some churches?  Are there still some who will not perform a religious gay wedding?  I believe these are still the cases so the objection seems consistent for those who do object.
Churches AND OTHER PRIVATE CLUBS can makeup whatever rules they want.
#152
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok then specifically you should not be allowed to make it more difficult to get married just because you do not like them getting married. If cakes are off the table what about a dj? A caterer? Flower arranger? How about someone to perform the wedding? 
If these are all services that you feel can be "refused to any one for any reason" and they are refused by everyone to a particular minority then that minority us effectively barred from being married. Does that sound acceptable to you? 

Topic's author
#153
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The cake issue specifically, he had a problem with a cake that celebrated or was for a celebration of a gay wedding, an act/event.
How is celebrating a gay wedding any different then celebrating a marriage of divorcees, or a wedding between two felony convicts, or a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian (which is specifically prohibited)?

This is a reply to [POST#148]
#154
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
There must be reasonable limits on what a person can claim.
there is, we all just posted at the same time lol but my post #148 should help I hope.

I don't know what the bible says so I'll take your word for it.
you are attempting to apply logic to something you can't prove and must take on faith, believe in.  Tilting at windmills


#155
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
again the refusal is not based on the person, but the reason for the proposed contract, but even then as I have said in providing certain services anyone should have the right to refuse and not give a reason so what the true reason doesn't matter, though I guess if you could show a pattern.
No you can't discriminate based on characteristics, being gay is a characteristic, a gay wedding is not, it's an event, celebration, whatever, you can choose to participate or not.
#156
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
How is celebrating a gay wedding any different then celebrating a marriage of divorcees, or a wedding between two felony convicts, or a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian (which is specifically prohibited)?
I'm not as knowledgeable about religion as you are, so I don't know.  You seem rather insistent wanting to apply logic to something you consider so illogical to begin with.
Everyone has different values and things they object to, that is their right and should be.  As I have said this is one of the prices for freedom, letting people choose freely rather than being totalitarian and making them prove it or justify it to your or the state's satisfaction.

To me this is very similar to a speech some white supremacist, nazi would might have, no matter how much I may hate it, it still needs to be protected if we are to maintain freedoms, either everyone is equal or they aren't, this includes people who make choices we would not and we would even consider repugnant.

#157
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing.
By what world view?



It is the guided process of dehumanization that I am worried about. It doesn't matter if that comes on the guise of racism or homophobia or religious/cultural purity.

I have been fairly clear about my fears if these laws take effect (that some classes of people will be legally denied the services that should be taken for granted.

What specifically are you afraid will happen if these laws do not get passed?

Of course, there is no fault in keeping a check on such laws.  What some may not understand is that people who are religious share the same kind of concerns for abuse for their institutions of worship as well as their government.  Many Americans families have a history of enduring or fleeing from religious persecution, and they have an interest made known, just like people who identify as gay have an interest made known.  In saying that either interest could be catered by a corrupt members of government and used abusively if not kept in check.  Its not unusual behavior in politics to put up a sign of good faith, or sort of shield protecting a legitimate interest of government before trusting representatives to facilitate progress.
#158
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
By the guidelines you have outlined a majority acting in concert can deprive minorities of certain freedoms entirely. This was the case before the civil rights act and why they were instituted in the first place. 

Your intentions may be noble but you ate creating a very slippery slope when you say "any reason". 

#159
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't really think it matters the reason.

A business owner has the right to render or refuse service to anyone.
If you recognize that right, there is no need for silly things like piety testing.


Government institutions or government contracters should for obvious reasons not have this liberty, but that isn't to say they shouldn't discriminate at all. Germans living in Germany shouldn't vote in our elections or benefit from government programs(obvious exceptions would be things like foreign aide).




#160
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are talking about what ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages claim. Why should anyone take any notice of those primitive beliefs
Topic's author
#161
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
again the refusal is not based on the person, but the reason for the proposed contract, but even then as I have said in providing certain services anyone should have the right to refuse and not give a reason so what the true reason doesn't matter, though I guess if you could show a pattern.
No you can't discriminate based on characteristics, being gay is a characteristic, a gay wedding is not, it's an event, celebration, whatever, you can choose to participate or not.
If I sell someone a very fast car, and that person is convicted of speeding, I am not a "participant" in that "event".

If I sell someone a gun, and that person is convicted of murder, I am not a "participant" in that "event".

If I rent a convention center, and the purchasers of that space hold a seance to summon the ghost of the Great Zucchini, I am not a "participant" in that "event".

The whole point of paying money to someone for something is to make it a mercenary act.

A grocery store is not "endorsing" the "lifestyle choices" of every patron.  They most certainly sell to all sorts of criminals and weirdos.  Whatever people choose to do with their purchased items is their prerogative.  The grocery store owner and especially the checkout clerk are not "participants" in whatever "event" might transpire.
#162
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I just want to say that I have personally been refused services by businesses, even kicked out before walking 5 feet in the building.


No, I didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, it made me want to throw bricks through their windows.

Yet here I am, still respecting this right.

#163
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,070
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
To be fair, though, they haven't made "asshole" a protected class yet, it's actually a majority position.

:-) You walked into that, don't blame me. 
#164
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@disgusted
You are talking about what ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages claim. Why should anyone take any notice of those primitive beliefs
You would have to take notice to justify calling people ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages wouldn't you?

#165
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
By the guidelines you have outlined a majority acting in concert can deprive minorities of certain freedoms entirely. This was the case before the civil rights act and why they were instituted in the first place. 

Your intentions may be noble but you ate creating a very slippery slope when you say "any reason". 
no, before civil rights they were denying people, not actions,celebrations and things I've already outlined.

we have to allow any reason to maintain freedom over one's self and their person.  this includes refusing to make,create, participate in any religious settings, or just the ones I agree with.

if you believe people have bodily autonomy and the right to do with it what they wish, then they also have the right not to use it to work,create or labor for an event they don't want to.




#166
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing.
By what world view?
If someone called all blacks or all Americans or all southern Baptists ignorant savages would that be dehumanizing to any of those groups? If the answer in any of those cases is yes then it is dehumanizing in your world view.

Topic's author
#167
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
How is celebrating a gay wedding any different then celebrating a marriage of divorcees, or a wedding between two felony convicts, or a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian (which is specifically prohibited)?
I'm not as knowledgeable about religion as you are, so I don't know.  You seem rather insistent wanting to apply logic to something you consider so illogical to begin with.
Logic is based on Axioms.  If your Axiom is a specific Religion, then you must follow your Axiom (OR) switch to another Religion.

Everyone has different values and things they object to, that is their right and should be.  As I have said this is one of the prices for freedom, letting people choose freely rather than being totalitarian and making them prove it or justify it to your or the state's satisfaction.
You must (EITHER) serve the public (OR) declare yourself a private club.  It's that simple.

To me this is very similar to a speech some white supremacist, nazi would might have, no matter how much I may hate it, it still needs to be protected if we are to maintain freedoms, either everyone is equal or they aren't, this includes people who make choices we would not and we would even consider repugnant.
Hate speech has some protections but not carte-blanche.  Speech is entirely different then Action (or denial of service).
#168
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing.
By what world view?
If someone called all blacks or all Americans or all southern Baptists ignorant savages would that be dehumanizing to any of those groups? If the answer in any of those cases is yes then it is dehumanizing in your world view.
Oh yeah, definitely in that context.  I to not intend to be conflated as such.
#169
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
no, before civil rights they were denying people, not actions,celebrations and things I've already outlined.
One of the ways they did this was by refusing services to certain individuals (say baking wedding cakes for interracial couples).
Topic's author
#170
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
we have to allow any reason to maintain freedom over one's self and their person.  this includes refusing to make,create, participate in any religious settings, or just the ones I agree with.
You have the "freedom" to (EITHER) quit your job, (OR) declare your business A PRIVATE CLUB.

You can't reap the benefits of being open to the public (free customers walking in and spending money) and then ARBITRARILY choose who you want to serve.
#171
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Then precisely what did you mean? What context makes it ok to call politicians ignorant savages if it isn't ok to call Jews ignorant savages?
#172
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
You must (EITHER) serve the public (OR) declare yourself a private club.  It's that simple.
WOW, you went there.  No, my business is not a public utility.  I do not work for "the public".  I am open to the public.

#173
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.
#174
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
If I sell someone a very fast car, and that person is convicted of speeding, I am not a "participant" in that "event".
that's correct because in the examples you gave they have used what you have sold for illegal or purposes or that are unintended.
you are talking about things, you sell very fast cars already, that is nothing unique, much like the baker he sold cakes which he offered, they were not unique, the request was to enter into a contract for a unique cake.

if you ask me to do some kind of unique or custom service etc don't I have the right and freedom to say "you know what, I just don't feel like it"



Topic's author
#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
no, before civil rights they were denying people, not actions,celebrations and things I've already outlined.
One of the ways they did this was by refusing services to certain individuals (say baking wedding cakes for interracial couples).
Bingo.
#176
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
It was discrimination based on appearance, not behavior.

And no, I wasn't walking around without shoes or shirt.



#177
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.

Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)
#178
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
On multiple occassions have I unjustly been refused service in an establishment.


How many of you have actually experienced this?


Yet here I am, recognizing it as a right of a business to do this.
#179
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
One of the ways they did this was by refusing services to certain individuals (say baking wedding cakes for interracial couples).
the lines do get blurry, but again I would say that objection is purely on the bases of someone's skin color which is not the same as a gay couple and in the context of what I have said. 
And since objection to homosexuality is mostly religion based is interracial marriage objection religion based?
homosexual sex has been deemed immoral for a long, long time and in just about every country, I'm not sure if that's true for interracial couples.

#180
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Many racists have historically couched their objections as religious and I fail to see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a black man and refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual man.