Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that the rash of new laws popping up that allow discrimination based on sexual orientation will push to get sexual orientation added to federal protections just like race, sex, and religion.
This is where it gets tricky though. When religion and sexual orientation are at odds, how do we decide who's right gets trumped by the other person's right.
Last edited by MissTerri; 04-12-2016 at 11:44 AM..
This is where it gets sticky though. When religion and sexual orientation are at odds, how do we decide who's right gets trumped by the other person's right.
When race and religious beliefs were at odds what happened?
When race and religious beliefs were at odds what happened?
What happened in the past cases was that sexual orientation won. What will happen in MS and NC will be that religion will win. My question was not about what has happened but what will happen when new laws are passed protecting sexual orientation. No matter what someone's rights will get trumped by another's.
My point regarding lawmakers being influenced by business and businesses being influenced by consumers was more about allowing for choice and money to decide rather then lawmakers.
Liberals want tolerance for gays and minorities (which every person should have anyway), but have no tolerance for any opinions which disagree with them.
Liberalism= Fascism
How many times do you see conservatives disrupting democrat speeches/rallies or shouting down liberal speakers?
Youre off base here a bit.
There is no "two way street" when it comes to tolerance of a person's innate characteristics and being. That means you should be EXPECTED to tolerate persons:
1) Race
2) Sex
3) Sexuality
4) Hair Color, eye color, etc.
Things of the nature above. So, if you are a man you should tolerate women, and yes, women should tolerate you back. If you are straight then you should tolerate gay people and gay people should tolerate you and believe straights should have full rights, etc.
Now, these things are waaaaay more important than having your FEEEEEEEELINGS and beliefs tolerated. So, beneath the foregoing are things that should be tolerated if you insist on having your own feelings and beliefs tolerated:
1) Religion (if you want your Christian or Muslim beliefs tolerated, then be prepared to tolerate the beliefs of others, and vice-versa).
2) Political views, etc.
However, never ever conflate your "religious belief" with being as important as someone's right to simply exist. If your religious BELIEF (something you choose, much like a political party) involves trying to strip, say, gay or minority rights, then no, it's not a two way street. You're not even on the same damn street.
This is where it gets sticky though. When religion and sexual orientation are at odds, how do we decide who's right gets trumped by the other person's right.
One is a choice, the other is not. Things that are not choices trump things that are choices. You may have a belief that blacks are inferior, and your religion may even tell you as much, but the right of the black person to exist and have full protection under the law and to not be discriminated against trumps your religion because black people cannot change for your convenience and beliefs.
So, religion and sexual orientation should never be "at odds"... they are distinct things. It is absolutely absurd to say your religion is "against homosexuality".... it's like saying your religion is against left handed people.
What happened in the past cases was that sexual orientation won. What will happen in MS and NC will be that religion will win. My question was not about what has happened but what will happen when new laws are passed protecting sexual orientation. No matter what someone's rights will get trumped by another's.
My point regarding lawmakers being influenced by business and businesses being influenced by consumers was more about allowing for choice and money to decide rather then lawmakers.
Religion may "win" in the short term, but will just add fuel to the push to have sexual orientation added to federal law. When it is part of federal law, then the states laws will become worthless.
Thanks. I did find that passage was about interfaith relationships from my google searching. So if a bakery did try to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple based on their religion they obviously wouldn't have a leg to stand on thus the attempts to try and to compare this issue of sexuality to race not being a good comparison.
I don't see the examples Christian bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for same sex marriages to be the same as them "hating gays" but rather a decision based upon their devotion to their religion. I don't have to agree with them in order to understand why and how they came to their decision. I don't have to agree with them in order for me to tolerate their beliefs and rest assured that for ever baker who refuses, there are thousands more who will be happy to make the cake.
If it's their "deeply held belief," who is to say they don't have a leg to stand on? Religion is all about interpretation. I don't think that those who claim devotion to their religion have a leg to stand on when discriminating against gay couples, but they clearly argue a different way.
While you may not consider it hate, no one has addressed why these bakers seem to have a singular focus on gay marriage as a sin too far, but not any of the other sins they regularly support by baking wedding cakes for those couples. Both of the passages I quoted specifically speak out against interfaith marriages. Have the bakers who refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples also refused to bake a cake for a mixed faith couple? What about a couple living together before marriage? Or a couple who follows an entirely different faith? It comes across as hate when they treat gay couples with particular vitriol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
This is where it gets sticky though. When religion and sexual orientation are at odds, how do we decide who's right gets trumped by the other person's right.
What about religious rights versus religious rights? Christian doctrine says I am going to burn in hell for eternity. That's their right to hold such evil in their heart. But can I say that my business will not serve them because of their faith even if it is my deeply held religious beliefs that their lifestyle is blasphemous? There would be hell to pay if a Jewish or Muslim business owner refused to serve Christians, even if they used the exact same logic as a small subset of Christians use to discriminate against homosexuals.
One is a choice, the other is not. Things that are not choices trump things that are choices. You may have a belief that blacks are inferior, and your religion may even tell you as much, but the right of the black person to exist and have full protection under the law and to not be discriminated against trumps your religion because black people cannot change for your convenience and beliefs.
So, religion and sexual orientation should never be "at odds"... they are distinct things. It is absolutely absurd to say your religion is "against homosexuality".... it's like saying your religion is against left handed people.
Hmm, you're saying that people's beliefs, morals, values can and should be swayed by the wind? I don't agree that someone's deeply rooted religious convictions are mere "choices".
Someone may have a belief that blacks are inferior but what is that based upon? Not the Bible that is for sure. It comes from elsewhere as it is not a religious belief to think that blacks or any other race is inferior. Since we are talking about religion and sexuality, it's not a good example.
Religion and sexual orientation are at odds in many cases. It's not absurd for a person who is Christian to say that their religion opposes homosexuality because it really does.
If it's their "deeply held belief," who is to say they don't have a leg to stand on? Religion is all about interpretation. I don't think that those who claim devotion to their religion have a leg to stand on when discriminating against gay couples, but they clearly argue a different way.
While you may not consider it hate, no one has addressed why these bakers seem to have a singular focus on gay marriage as a sin too far, but not any of the other sins they regularly support by baking wedding cakes for those couples. Both of the passages I quoted specifically speak out against interfaith marriages. Have the bakers who refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples also refused to bake a cake for a mixed faith couple? What about a couple living together before marriage? Or a couple who follows an entirely different faith? It comes across as hate when they treat gay couples with particular vitriol.
I agree that religion is open to interpretation but if you are going to argue your case in court, you're going to lose if your belief can't be documented by the texts of your religion, in the case of Christians, the Bible.
I don't know all of the details about the Bakers and what they do and do not do. I've only read about the Colorado one. He also doesn't make Halloween cakes nor does he make sexual cakes (think penis cakes for a bachelorette party or a birth cake for a baby shower) and that decision is based upon his religious beliefs.
Quote:
What about religious rights versus religious rights? Christian doctrine says I am going to burn in hell for eternity. That's their right to hold such evil in their heart. But can I say that my business will not serve them because of their faith even if it is my deeply held religious beliefs that their lifestyle is blasphemous? There would be hell to pay if a Jewish or Muslim business owner refused to serve Christians, even if they used the exact same logic as a small subset of Christians use to discriminate against homosexuals.
Like I said, this is a very tricky issue and one that can't likely be solved via laws on either side.
Hmm, you're saying that people's beliefs, morals, values can and should be swayed by the wind? I don't agree that someone's deeply rooted religious convictions are mere "choices".
Someone may have a belief that blacks are inferior but what is that based upon? Not the Bible that is for sure. It comes from elsewhere as it is not a religious belief to think that blacks or any other race is inferior. Since we are talking about religion and sexuality, it's not a good example.
Religion and sexual orientation are at odds in many cases. It's not absurd for a person who is Christian to say that their religion opposes homosexuality because it really does.
But people DID claim that they believed the bible had prohibitions against mixing races. That was their belief based on their interpretation of the bible. Just like people are currently claiming that their beliefs bases on their interpretations of the bible says that they can't sell goods to gays.
There is no verse that says "thou shall not sell cakes to the gays". In fact same sex marriage is not even mentioned in the bible. I don't recall cakes being mentioned either.
The bible can and has been used to justify just about everything from slavery, to denying women the right to vote, to women working. Why should this particular "religious belief" be treated any different than those beliefs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
