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.
Unfortunately, the only response you'll get from the other side of the debate is "hey it's the law. They broke it. Case closed". Of course that is an easy position to maintain when you don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, but I'm willing to bet if it involved the government forcing them to interact with something else they believed as immoral, they would change their tune pretty quick.
I consider people who use their religion as an excuse to discriminate to be among the most immoral people on earth. Would I serve them if I owned a business? Absolutely. Even religious bigots have guaranteed rights under the Constitution.
These issues have been popular subjects...lots of threads on it for quite a while now.
Mainly due to one single user who has an agenda against atheists and is cherry picking individual applications of a wide reaching law, and pretending these cherry picked examples show that atheists and the government are teaming up to persecute the vast Christian Majority. The user in question has an anti-atheist narrative he is trying to espouse all over the forum, and to do so he has to engage in an extreme level of cherry picking of facts and posts to feed it. All the while not noticing that not a single person, except he himself, has bought into it yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
My position on it hasn't changed. I believe that anyone in private business should have the legal right to refuse to serve anyone, for any reason. No need to even state what the reason is.
I will take your word for it that your position has not changed as I was oblivious until now as to what it was. However it is a position that broadly speaking I agree with you and Jeff on. Though Jeff ignores this as it does not feed into his other narrative that I disagree with every single thing he ever says. Acknowledging an agreement between us would puncture his narrative. More of the extreme cherry picking I mentioned above.
As you say, I think a private business should be free to refuse service regardless of their reasons.... and if their reasons are bigotted then I also should have the right to point this out, take my business elsewhere and urge others to do the same..... and then feel mirth and joy when that business goes bust and its owners homeless.
I can understand the roots and intentions of anti discrimination laws, and they were likely well meant, but I simply do not think it has been done right and was a lazy over reaction to dealing with genuine issues of hatred and bigotry in our society. And as you say a business could be prosecuted for not serving someone because they are black, but I would not be prosecuted if I walked into a business to buy something and then refused because the owner was black. So the law creates an inequality in that regard too.
What I believe is the WRONG way to go about targeting such a law however is to do what Jeff does, which is cherry pick only applications of this law that involve Christians being prosecuted, and acting like it is all a big anti christian conspiracy caused by the atheist and the government in secret cohort behind curtains with daggers. That level of paranoia and rhetoric will just leave the speaker without any credibility, and leave the law unchanged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Unfortunately, the only response you'll get from the other side of the debate is "hey it's the law. They broke it. Case closed".
Except as usual you are cherry picking things that fit that narrative and ignoring everything else that fails to fit it. Your usual MO.
In fact what we do say is things like "They broke the law, which is a bad idea, but a good idea would be to challange the law and campaign to have it changed". Which is the exact opposite of "case closed" but acknowledging that will not feed your little narrative as usual, so you ignore it.
but I'm willing to bet if it involved the government forcing them to interact with something else they believed as immoral, they would change their tune pretty quick.
I have to interact with bigots all the time and so far the government hasn't passed a bill allowing me to discriminate against them.
Praise God! Our country is actually following and protecting the constitution.
Can't wait to start discriminating against christians who want me to do birthday cakes and paint christmas scenes for holiday parties.
Oh what the hey, who am I kidding, I will finally be able to pick and choose who I bully at school now and just say MY RELIGION MADE ME DO IT...
Mainly due to one single user who has an agenda against atheists and is cherry picking individual applications of a wide reaching law, and pretending these cherry picked examples show that atheists and the government are teaming up to persecute the vast Christian Majority. The user in question has an anti-atheist narrative he is trying to espouse all over the forum, and to do so he has to engage in an extreme level of cherry picking of facts and posts to feed it. All the while not noticing that not a single person, except he himself, has bought into it yet.
I will take your word for it that your position has not changed as I was oblivious until now as to what it was. However it is a position that broadly speaking I agree with you and Jeff on. Though Jeff ignores this as it does not feed into his other narrative that I disagree with every single thing he ever says. Acknowledging an agreement between us would puncture his narrative. More of the extreme cherry picking I mentioned above.
As you say, I think a private business should be free to refuse service regardless of their reasons.... and if their reasons are bigotted then I also should have the right to point this out, take my business elsewhere and urge others to do the same..... and then feel mirth and joy when that business goes bust and its owners homeless.
I can understand the roots and intentions of anti discrimination laws, and they were likely well meant, but I simply do not think it has been done right and was a lazy over reaction to dealing with genuine issues of hatred and bigotry in our society. And as you say a business could be prosecuted for not serving someone because they are black, but I would not be prosecuted if I walked into a business to buy something and then refused because the owner was black. So the law creates an inequality in that regard too.
What I believe is the WRONG way to go about targeting such a law however is to do what Jeff does, which is cherry pick only applications of this law that involve Christians being prosecuted, and acting like it is all a big anti christian conspiracy caused by the atheist and the government in secret cohort behind curtains with daggers. That level of paranoia and rhetoric will just leave the speaker without any credibility, and leave the law unchanged.
Except as usual you are cherry picking things that fit that narrative and ignoring everything else that fails to fit it. Your usual MO.
In fact what we do say is things like "They broke the law, which is a bad idea, but a good idea would be to challange the law and campaign to have it changed". Which is the exact opposite of "case closed" but acknowledging that will not feed your little narrative as usual, so you ignore it.
As typical of my kinda rushed/lazy posting methods Nozz...my post was a "cut and paste with slight modification" of a previous offering from a thread from about a year ago: //www.city-data.com/forum/33608179-post22.html
I don't think you or Jeff participated...but I didn't do back over all 30 pages.
Check it out...some of the exchanges were pretty good stuff. The material didn't stimulate the response this time around it did a year ago...it might be considered played out to the old participants.
Ah indeed. Your posts certainly show a quality proportionate to the effort you put into them
Maybe so.
If I put in more effort, in time, I bet I could aspire to gems like: ~~"unsubstantiated nonsense" & "no evidence what-so-ever on offer" & "you dodged answering my question"~~ X 1000. And, of course, the ultimate: "women of every race except my own (and Native Americans) are so into me they throw themselves at me sexually (even two at a time) but I turn them down flat, because I'm not into them".
I'll work on it.
You could aspire to such things indeed. And I wish you well in it. Though of course those things look better when not cherry pick ripped out of context, or completely distorted from things I did say into things I never did and never would. Though you will find when your own posts improve in quality, that those you then decimate with them will be forced to use such tactics against you too.
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.
