Refusing to provide a service because of religious beliefs
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.
However, I do agree that forcing a photographer to take pictures of things he is morally against cannot stand. Because then we can expect photographers to be forced into taking pictures of kiddie porn or a rape or some other horrible crime - and they would have to do it by law.
But this Arizona bill was overkill in trying to protect the same scenario from happening in their state. If they want to prevent it, they need to get serious and actually write a bill that isn't some half-baked legislation they thought about for two and a half seconds before pushing it through congress.
Everything above I completely agree with. Coercing a photographer to do it is a bad idea. Yes, the Arizona law went overboard and needed to die.
I agree that religion provides cover for "evildoers". Perhaps there IS no comparable cover elsewhere, and since bad people tend on average to be lazier than good people, maybe the absence of religion would result in a net decrease of harm in the world if bad folks had to work harder to get away with it. In fact, I'm certain of it. How big a difference it'd be, i don't know, but it'd be significant. It would, at least, take them time to invent some other scam as a vehicle for their perfidy.
We've been through the whole Marxism business already, so I would think this was covered already. Under Marxism, people stopped using religious bigotry or dogma to excuse barbarism and replaced it with things new excuses. Instead of punishing heretics or Jews or Christians or Muslims, etc. the masses in Marxist states started using things calling their victims "counter-revolutionaries," "imperialists," or "bourgeoisie" etc. That's your Marxist atheist society. Reboot with some other flavor of atheists controlling societies and they'll come up with a whole new vocabulary to excuse mass-murder and mass-cruelty.
Quote:
But I had more in mind the way theists blame mass-murderer tyrants on atheists ... if we don't want that association foisted upon us, then we have to be careful about trying to foist it on them. In theory at least, an opportunist will manipulate religion to nefarious ends, or Marxism or atheism or any other ideology.
This is at least an honest characterization of humanity. The majority of human beings are good, but bad people will continue to exist within any society. Doesn't matter whether it's pure atheist or pure religious. I believe that religion makes the world a better place. You are welcome to disagree with me. But neither side has figured out how to eliminate bad people.
Quote:
Naturally I believe that religion is more ripe for being a vehicle of human suffering than true atheism, but I can't empirically prove that to theists because they won't accept the basic premise that belief without an evidentiary basis is a Bad Thing, nor that evidence-based beliefs are a Good Thing -- and often, not even on what constitutes valid evidence. So trying to demonstrate it anecdotally is not a place I care to go as a rule. It's just another Eusubius-like touche-kicking he said / she said where they will trot out a string of heart-warming things the church has done and I trot out a list of Inquisition-like things they have done. After awhile it becomes a pointless side show: all the world's ills are because of religion! No, because of atheism! The very confirmation bias that allows that to go on and on without resolution is, at root, because people are willing to believe certain things without evidence. I prefer to hammer on that.
You are completely right to say that there is no evidence that atheism is morally superior to religion.
One thing that is well worth pointing out: Marxist societies -- religion was heavily persecuted and suppressed, and therefore had no voice -- weren't much different than the modern world is. Some were tolerant but many were actively hostile to homosexuality period. That particular atheistic culture was not pro-gay rights by any stretch.
It is also a mischaracterization to assume that all atheists in the USA or anywhere else support gay rights. Being atheist has nothing to do with being pro-gay rights.
It is really simple, you open a business you are by extension agreeing to sell to ANYONE that can afford your services.
I wonder how many of these "Religious" people require a letter from a OB/GYN documenting the wife is a virgin?
How about if he cut his hair?
How about if either of them have tattoos?
The baker could say his wedding cakes always have a man and woman at the top. If the gay couple still want it, they will have to accept it that way.
It would be amusing for a business to try this in a state where homosexuality is a protected class. Like many other "arguments" against homosexuality, it's laughably bad. But if it really is the best that can be mustered to back the cause, that need to be advertised as much as possible. Reasonable people will see through this kind of transparent excuse. Kind of like the rabid anti-gay rhetoric from the far right has turned the middle against them, this kind of nonsense will make normal people take notice of the discrimination these religious extremists want to write into law.
It would be amusing for a business to try this in a state where homosexuality is a protected class.
Yes, it would be amusing but I doubt it will ever happen. Even if the baker were opposed to gay marriage, they would probably just put two males or two females on the cake and be done with it.
On the other hand, the case about the photographer who would not take pictures at a gay wedding is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and they will probably decide this month if they will accept the case.
I hope other interesting cases like this come up in the future.
Didn't realize that was a real case. I would expect a ruling that he can't be forced to take a job if he doesn't want to, but I may be too wishy -washy. I would hope he would be boycotted and put out of business, but in the U.S...he may find his books filled with orders from Southern couples wanting thmselves photographed outside their church holding a Bible, for no particular reason.
Obviously, America is not the only country dealing with problems like this. It looks like England lets people refuse to sell products that supposedly violate their religious beliefs. Makes me glad to live where I do.
Everything above I completely agree with. Coercing a photographer to do it is a bad idea. Yes, the Arizona law went overboard and needed to die.
And if a photographer was refusing to go and shoot pics of a Come to Jesus' rally? Just the same. His choice, and forcing him to do so by law is wrong. If that bill goes down it is a victory to reason, not religion.
Perhaps that is why I feel that Churches should not be forced into doing gay marriages, but, if a registrar asks to be exempted, or an assistant in a pharmacy refuses to sell contraceptives, or a checkout girl refuses to sell bacon, they can look for another job. The requirements of the job should not be 'bent' to accommodate their scruples.
There is the cut -off point. Where the Law interferes with our choices (provided they are within the law, which is the real point here) and where it allows people to ignore the law and get away with it because of their religious beliefs.
That is just the wrong way to go, even though some governments here (UK) have had neither the will nor the guts to stand firm against the religious 'To Hell with Man-made law' mentality.
I suppose in an atheist (or secularist) world, we would have to make compromises in order to avoid the residual fanatics forcing confontations, so they can scream about Persecution.
I suppose that is why we have to be careful in forcing faith -schools to leave Certain science Questions in the standard exam papers rather than delete them because it conflicted with their beliefs (You know the ones I am talking about ) which is a matter where getting Tough would only help the fundies (Jewish ones in this case) and perhaps it is best to let them screen out fact and let the shock of reality hit the kids when they come out.
P.s thanks for your post, Hiker. I hope that a boycott would oblige M and S to oblige ALL staff to do what they are paid to do. Because it is right, not because the Mail is a fair -minded tolerant newsrag with a benevolent attitude towards foreigners, muslims especially.
Mind, I can imagine M&S even putting up with a boycot of some 5% customers (the rest wouldn't care) rather than ONE fanatic running amok with a machete in a checkout queue. That really would keep the customers away.
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.
) which is a matter where getting Tough would only help the fundies (Jewish ones in this case) and perhaps it is best to let them screen out fact and let the shock of reality hit the kids when they come out.
