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.
Good grief, what does it take for people like you to understand why it is morally wrong to force someone to engage with a person who identities with something that is a direct offense to their religious beliefs?
Thank you! Finally we get to the point. You guys should just admit that this is what you are after.
Lets examine what basing out legal system on your assertion would mean:
It is morally wrong to force someone to engage with a person who identities with something that is a direct offense to their religious beliefs.
From this it follows that it should be legal to:
Fire an employee for their race or ethnicity.
Refuse to sell or rent housing based on religious affiliation.
Refuse medical care based on sexual orientation.
Refuse to provide, record, file, or witness legal documentation based on gender.
Refuse to provide emergency services ( fire,ambulance, police) to citizens with interracial marriages.
Refuse to transport alcohol or dogs in a taxi.
As long as someone can claim that their religion or faith requires them to discriminate in some way, you would allow it.
That is the logical conclusion of what you have stated. Is that really what you mean? Are you really advocating that?
If you are, you should have the guts to admit it. Say it loud and proud, you want to remove or undercut all discrimination laws. Don't go for the soft sell, be bold and say what you really mean.
If not, you need to refine your argument, because right now you come across as wanting to repeal some very important protections that Americans have died to have enshrined in law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
We don't want to serve immoral ceremonies or activities. It's as simple as that, but you have to take it to extreme unrealistic scenarios like EMS trucks.
That is what is required of good public policy, to make a law that covers all scenarios, or clearly enumerates what is covered and what isn't. They are not any more silly than your argument. You need a coherent concept of what should and should not be covered.
Do you not see the difference between serving a customer and participating in an event?
YES, a HUGE difference. Again, like a christian gun seller, sells a gun, it is used to kill 20 people..is that the same as PARTICIPATING in the killing?
Yes there was a lot less support from the religious communities for the taxi drivers who did not want to transport dogs or alcohol. In fact it was there own Muslim community that told them that transporting alchohol did not go against their religious beliefs only the consuming of it themselves.
Thank you! Finally we get to the point. You guys should just admit that this is what you are after.
Lets examine what basing out legal system on your assertion would mean:
It is morally wrong to force someone to engage with a person who identities with something that is a direct offense to their religious beliefs.
From this it follows that it should be legal to:
Fire an employee for their race or ethnicity.
Refuse to sell or rent housing based on religious affiliation.
Refuse medical care based on sexual orientation.
Refuse to provide, record, file, or witness legal documentation based on gender.
Refuse to provide emergency services ( fire,ambulance, police) to citizens with interracial marriages.
Refuse to transport alcohol or dogs in a taxi.
As long as someone can claim that their religion or faith requires them to discriminate in some way, you would allow it.
That is the logical conclusion of what you have stated. Is that really what you mean? Are you really advocating that?
If you are, you should have the guts to admit it. Say it loud and proud, you want to remove or undercut all discrimination laws. Don't go for the soft sell, be bold and say what you really mean.
That is EXACTLY what the conservative fundamentalists want. Do not be fooled. THAT is what Michelle Duggar wanted when she made the robo calls about a law that would allow people to be fired from their jobs and kicked out of their housing simply because they were gay. The conservative fundamentalists on this forum rushed to Michelle Duggar's defense.
They want to be able to tell the LGBT community they are immoral and they want to be able to discriminate against them.
That is the evil core of telling a gay couple "No cake". They want to tell that couple, "You are immoral and I will not serve you." They do not want laws that give gays rights. They do not want laws that give gays equality.
They want to be able to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens because they think homosexuality is immoral. Cake. Jobs. Housing. They want to control the gay community.
They don't want LGBTQ to have rights and protections under the law. They want to be able to suppress and control LGBTQ . They try to mask what they want by calling it freedom of religion and claiming the gays and the SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment are taking away their freedom of religion. When in fact..... this is about power for conservative fundamentalists. The power to control anyone they don't like.
Sharia law under politically conservative Christian fundamentalists is what they are trying to impose. And, since they aren't getting it, they are throwing one heck of a foot-stomping hissy fit because they're getting told the gay community DOES have rights. Equalify for ALL citizens 1 -- Conservative Fundamentalist Shiria Law - 0. Yay.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 07-09-2015 at 02:14 PM..
YES, a HUGE difference. Again, like a christian gun seller, sells a gun, it is used to kill 20 people..is that the same as PARTICIPATING in the killing?
What do you think? So if I open a gun store can I demand that I get a portion of every deer that is shot with a gun that I sell, whether or not I'm in the blind or stand with them?
They are now afforded the same rights as hetero couples... nothing more, nothing less
See, this is where I get stopped cold by the LBGT bluster. For good, bad or indifferent, society enacts rules and conventions for human behavior to hopefully result in an ordered society. Gay behavior has existed since there have been people but even people with same sex attraction have known that it was not a majority sexual presentation. It could be argued that a society that elevated same sex interaction on par with opposite sex interaction could one day see such interactions become the majority behavior. The number of people expressing an exclusively same sex attraction is at present rather low. I have no doubt that that is in large part due to the level of ostracism such behavior elicits. What happens when you take that away. I get that to a gay person this is the best of all possible outcomes. What if that is the wrong thing to do? Seriously. What if 2,000 years from now humanity finds itself done and dusted because there aren't enough breeding couples to get another generation going. Oh that can't happen? Think again.
But that really isn't the point. The point AGAIN, is that if we are going to allow people with exclusively same sex attraction to be treated "like normal people", then bi-sexual people who are in fact more numerous than exclusively homosexual people, should be also accorded full protection under The Law. A Triad should be just as valid as a couple and polygamous aggregations of up to half a dozen or more committed adults should not receive push-back when seeking to register their unions with Civil Authorities.
Yes there was a lot less support from the religious communities for the taxi drivers who did not want to transport dogs or alcohol. In fact it was there own Muslim community that told them that transporting alchohol did not go against their religious beliefs only the consuming of it themselves.
Boy, that is an understatement! Many of the same people demanding the right to break the law based on their beliefs, were having apoplectic fits, screaming "Sharia law is coming to America!"
See, this is where I get stopped cold by the LBGT bluster. For good, bad or indifferent, society enacts rules and conventions for human behavior to hopefully result in an ordered society. Gay behavior has existed since there have been people but even people with same sex attraction have known that it was not a majority sexual presentation. It could be argued that a society that elevated same sex interaction on par with opposite sex interaction could one day see such interactions become the majority behavior. The number of people expressing an exclusively same sex attraction is at present rather low. I have no doubt that that is in large part due to the level of ostracism such behavior elicits. What happens when you take that away. I get that to a gay person this is the best of all possible outcomes. What if that is the wrong thing to do? Seriously. What if 2,000 years from now humanity finds itself done and dusted because there aren't enough breeding couples to get another generation going. Oh that can't happen? Think again.
But that really isn't the point. The point AGAIN, is that if we are going to allow people with exclusively same sex attraction to be treated "like normal people", then bi-sexual people who are in fact more numerous than exclusively homosexual people, should be also accorded full protection under The Law. A Triad should be just as valid as a couple and polygamous aggregations of up to half a dozen or more committed adults should not receive push-back when seeking to register their unions with Civil Authorities.
Plenty of gay people have biological children, so your concerns here are unfounded.
Bisexual people ARE protected under the law. They are included in the word "all", as in "equal protection under the law for all".
No one is allowed to be legally married to more than one person at a time. For this to amount to discrimination, it would have to be the case that some people are allowed to have more than one legal spouse at a time while others are not allowed.
OK discriminating against EMS is not allowed discriminating against cake buying is allowed. But where are YOU drawing the line between the two. Of course the EMS is an extreme example however neither you nor Vizio actually state what you really want other than the right to discriminate based on your own religious and apparently non religious beliefs. But under your wording that a person does not have to sell a product to a person who is using that product in what they consider an immoral activity and who are we to say that blood transfusions are not immoral? Is it just because they do not go against your beleif. Why even have anti discrimination laws if you can get out of them by just saying you do not agree with them. And no one has yet answered why only business owners get to discrminate under your view.
That's the problem with your side's reasoning. You take a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Laws are not designed to accommodate every possible situation that a person can imagine so you can start with some basic exceptions like excluding religious beliefs that cause harm to people or property. Refusing a blood transfusion falls into that category. A wedding cake does not. Telling us that that discrimination must mean equal access to everything even if it stomps over someone's 1st amendment rights is not the way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Still waiting for you to condemm those two threatened the same sex couple with death or for those who published their names and addresses.
Jeff and Vizio: where do you stop or limit the ability for a person or a business to discriminate?
Of course because you have absolutely no problem when such digusting actions are taken against Christians. If it happens to the gay community, you make sure we never forget it like constantly reminding us about the tragedy of Matthew Sheppard.
That's the problem with your side's reasoning. You take a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Laws are not designed to accommodate every possible situation that a person can imagine so you can start with some basic exceptions like excluding religious beliefs that cause harm to people or property. Refusing a blood transfusion falls into that category. A wedding cake does not. Telling us that that discrimination must mean equal access to everything even if it stomps over someone's 1st amendment rights is not the way to go.
Of course because you have absolutely no problem when such digusting actions are taken against Christians. If it happens to the gay community, you make sure we never forget it like constantly reminding us about the tragedy of Matthew Sheppard.
Bigotry disguised by religion is still bigotry.
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.
