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 could not find one religion that requires the eating of dog, Islam prohits it though. Throughout majority of States do not allow for the sale of dog meat. If I ran a pet store yes I would refuse to sell a dog for food but partly as any pup I would sell would have had its vaccinations therefore probably not safe to est. I am sure most puppy mills would have no hesitations on selling a puppy for food but considering the cost of pets pretty uneconomical. I doubt that I would even sell dogs or cats as one is better off buying directly from a breeder or going to the pound.
As you used dogs as an example when there is no evidence of dog meat being part of a religion, would you support a business refusing to serve blacks or women for religious reasons? D9 human rights stop when they run into religious rights or do religious rights stop when they run into human rights. One has to be superior in rights as conflicting rights cannot be equal.
You are saying the baker adhering to what he thinks is right and wrong is exactly the same as casting judgement? Well then we can't possibly have a reasonable discussion, because I can't comprehend that thinking.
If I refuse to play violent video games, am I thereby casting judgment on others who do? No, I don't like them but I'm fine if others do.
If I refuse to eat meat, am I casting judgement on those who do? No, I might be totally fine with them making their choice, I just prefer not to eat meat.
I mean, we can come up with a thousand examples of people choosing to follow their beliefs, religious-based or not. But that does not mean we are automatically judging others negatively when they don't agree? I certainly hope not.
Many rational people can simple agree to disagree. Or choose one path while recognizing other's have their right to choose their own path. That's how the world works, that's how humankind works.
You're right. I can never have a reasonable discussion with a bigot. Even people I don't agree with or am at odds with morally, I can have a conversation with. Doesn't matter if they're Hindu or Muslim or a Satanist. We can talk. But Christians seem way beyond that because they are so egotistical that they can never see the other side of an issue and how it affects other people.
When you choose to not play a video game, that's pretty in private and has no effect on others. When you refuse to do business with somebody else, that's different.
Whether you choose to eat meat or not is irrelevant to the conversation. But when you affect the ability of others to eat meat, that's different.
This is about one person affecting another person.
Or try having a counter argument without resorting to the crunch of comparing to racial discrimination. It's not the same thing. You can't separate racial discrimination from it being against a person's physical identity. A SSM is a wedding that celebrates immoral behavior. Behavior does not have anything to do with a person's identity. You have people changing their sexual orientations these days like they change into a new pair of jeans.
The government was flat out wrong to classify sexual orientation as a protected class, and there are still quite a number of states that don't do it either.
The simple fact that SSM causes NO social harm whotsoever except to the prejudices of the ill-informed combined with the historical and systematic discrimination against thew people involved make sexuality a distinct class deserving of special protection.
That some religious ignorantly perceive "harm" in a same sex relationship is bad enough, but using that as a basis for UNcivil discrimination violates the principles on which Christianity was founded.
The simple fact that SSM causes NO social harm whotsoever except to the prejudices of the ill-informed combined with the historical and systematic discrimination against thew people involved make sexuality a distinct class deserving of special protection.
Wrong. The FACTS are clear as crystal that homosexual behavior leads to more suicide and spreading of diseases. Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be bullied and picked on as well.
Here's a look at the first country to ever legalize gay marriage.
Quote:
Twelve years of same-sex marriage did not wipe out homophobia from society. For instance, Yunus, now 9, and his adoptive mothers had to go into hiding, fearing for their safety.
Bullying and victimisation also still occurs on a daily basis. A recent study by Dutch and American scientists concluded that lesbian, gay and bisexual youths are still victims of stigmatisation in their families, schools and neighbourhoods.
These words and acts have tragic consequences: almost 64% of the surveyed LGBT 18-24-year-olds in the study reported thinking about suicide and almost 13% of them attempted suicide. For straight Dutch youths of the same age group, the figures are respectively 10.3% (thought about suicide) and 2.2% (attempted suicide). The study suggests that ongoing persecution, especially at school and by the parents, are linked to increased risks in suicidal thoughts and attempts.
And that's in a country that is 2/3 non-religious. So it is simply false to say that there are zero social consequences. Of course, you are ignoring the one right in your face. Christian businesses owners enduring great financial and emotional stress because your camp wants to force us to embrace sin.
The disgusting reality as I see it is that atheists are only passionately against the business owners because gay marriage serves as a vehicle to destroy Christianity in America.
I could not find one religion that requires the eating of dog, Islam prohits it though. Throughout majority of States do not allow for the sale of dog meat. If I ran a pet store yes I would refuse to sell a dog for food but partly as any pup I would sell would have had its vaccinations therefore probably not safe to est. I am sure most puppy mills would have no hesitations on selling a puppy for food but considering the cost of pets pretty uneconomical. I doubt that I would even sell dogs or cats as one is better off buying directly from a breeder or going to the pound.
Are you really missing my point that much? It doesn't matter if religions prohibit eating dogs. And from my researching, selling and eating dogs is legal in the US. All you are doing is trying to grasp at details that are irrelevant just like the stubborn refusal to see the moral wrong in forcing a Jewish baker to do a Nazi cake. The point is trying to put you in a situation where you have a moral conflict and most people find the notion of eating dogs to be abhorrent here. So the question remains, it is right for the government to FORCE you to make the sale? If you argument is that discrimination can never be allowed under any circumstance then you fully support having to make the sale every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
As you used dogs as an example when there is no evidence of dog meat being part of a religion, would you support a business refusing to serve blacks or women for religious reasons? D9 human rights stop when they run into religious rights or do religious rights stop when they run into human rights. One has to be superior in rights as conflicting rights cannot be equal.
I think that is almost the whole question.
Well if you are non-religious, do you think the government should force you to conduct a transaction that you find immoral? It's a simple question. Yes or No. But once again, you jump to the crutch of racial discrimination. We've already been over that. No, I don't support discrimination against a person based on their physical identity. I do support discrimination against immoral behaviors, lifestyles or ceremonies.
Fundie bigots are insecure cowards and gotta hang on to their hate. They need to think there's some group out there that is more of a lowlife than they themselves are.
But they're wrong. No one is more deserving of disrespect and scorn than a fundie. I'm very grateful they're on the fast track to extinction. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Are you really missing my point that much? It doesn't matter if religions prohibit eating dogs. And from my researching, selling and eating dogs is legal in the US. All you are doing is trying to grasp at details that are irrelevant just like the stubborn refusal to see the moral wrong in forcing a Jewish baker to do a Nazi cake. The point is trying to put you in a situation where you have a moral conflict and most people find the notion of eating dogs to be abhorrent here. So the question remains, it is right for the government to FORCE you to make the sale? If you argument is that discrimination can never be allowed under any circumstance then you fully support having to make the sale every time.
Well if you are non-religious, do you think the government should force you to conduct a transaction that you find immoral? It's a simple question. Yes or No. But once again, you jump to the crutch of racial discrimination. We've already been over that. No, I don't support discrimination against a person based on their physical identity. I do support discrimination against immoral behaviors, lifestyles or ceremonies.
If the law required me to conduct a business sale that I thought was immoral I would choose to either conduct that sale or change my business. It's no difference from being an employee of a large company or a public servant. If the transaction is not only legal but required I would either do my job or quit. That is not saying that I would not try to have the law changed.
That you are unable to find a credible example to put me in that box shows how unusual it is to have non religious people or most religious people into this situation. No matter how you look at it, you are placing one person's religious views above another person's human rights.
Dog meat, Nazis, incest based marriage are all things not protected by law. Come up with a real life situation and that is the reason I have brought race into it. You agree that racial discrimination is wrong and did not accept, rightfully so, that religious beliefs can be used to support it. If that is the case you think that human rights trump religious rights.
Wrong. The FACTS are clear as crystal that homosexual behavior leads to more suicide and spreading of diseases. Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be bullied and picked on as well.
Here's a look at the first country to ever legalize gay marriage.
And that's in a country that is 2/3 non-religious. So it is simply false to say that there are zero social consequences. Of course, you are ignoring the one right in your face. Christian businesses owners enduring great financial and emotional stress because your camp wants to force us to embrace sin.
The disgusting reality as I see it is that atheists are only passionately against the business owners because gay marriage serves as a vehicle to destroy Christianity in America.
The study states ongoing persecution as the reason. It takes more than 12 years for society to change. You are aware that being a homosexual and the act not being illegal is more recent that the civil rights acts and there is still too much prejudice against blacks.
That you see the victims of bullying as the problem and not the people doing the bullying is telling.
That you see pro gay rights as both an atheist and anti Christian agenda is even more telling and very sad. Great emotional stress by having to serve a gay couple once? AND where in your religion does it even mention a wedding cake let alone who can get one and who can't?
SO then you support the father marrying his daughter. You can't refuse to service their wedding because that's discrimination!
The Bible supports a father selling his daughter, Exodus 21:7. It also has handy tips on beating your slave (21: 20-21), and still having sex with your new wife even if you have a slave girl. (wink wink)
Its full of immorality, jaw-droppingly awful immorality.
Is that what you were getting at? The Bible is no guide for moraluit. its hugely flawed. . The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is.
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.
