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.
But there ARE those in this forum who would do what a lot people did when Hitler was in operation, and that is to look the other way while a minority group was oppressed because they weren't directly affected, thereby giving him the freedom to harm others.
Some of us don't want to be that type of person, and that's why we speak up.
Yes, that is very true, and of course that goes back to Martin Niemoller (excuse the possibly incorrect spelling).
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing".
Actually in the case of Kim Davis it's about can the religious treat others as second class citizens. Much of the comments supporting Davis are about the rights to exert a religious view upon others, in spie of anti discrimination laws. .
No one is suggesting that. No one is trying to suggest gay people are less than human.
Quote:
I have considered your question. Have you considered that the workplace is not a religious institution? Religious views of people have been surpressed when it is harmful to others. Take the example of the Westboro Baptists protesting the funerals of others.or the Fundamentalists LDS with polygamy or the KKK.
My apologies. I guess a few of the WBC inbreeds are spouting hate. I guess I don't much care about them, or the LDS or the KKK anyway.
Quote:
And if you read the judgement against the Oregon baker there was actual mental and emotional harm done to the two kesbians, the same kind of harm the Westboro Baptists do. And you are also ignoring that many of the LBGT people and their supporters are religious people. They might have a more liberal view of religion then you do however you are not to be the judge. You might have cases of a very religious Christian gay couple getting married in a Christian Church and the baker telling them he would bake a cake for them because it is against his Christian religion. In these cases your comment about the non religious exerting their will on religious people is pure nonsense . Or that all involved are Jewish or whatever.
I'm sorry. I don't buy it. These women intentionally sought out that baker to make a case out of it. They had an agenda from the start. In any event, there was no discrimination. The baker didn't care if they were lesbians, despite what you may think.
Quote:
The question is not what you ask but are store owners exempt from laws governing businesses?
The real question is if the store owner is any more at fault for doing what millions of other business owners in this country already do.
Actually in the case of Kim Davis it's about can the religious treat others as second class citizens. Much of the comments supporting Davis are about the rights to exert a religious view upon others, in spie of anti discrimination laws. .
I have considered your question. Have you considered that the workplace is not a religious institution? Religious views of people have been surpressed when it is harmful to others. Take the example of the Westboro Baptists protesting the funerals of others.or the Fundamentalists LDS with polygamy or the KKK.
And if you read the judgement against the Oregon baker there was actual mental and emotional harm done to the two kesbians, the same kind of harm the Westboro Baptists do. And you are also ignoring that many of the LBGT people and their supporters are religious people. They might have a more liberal view of religion then you do however you are not to be the judge. You might have cases of a very religious Christian gay couple getting married in a Christian Church and the baker telling them he would bake a cake for them because it is against his Christian religion. In these cases your comment about the non religious exerting their will on religious people is pure nonsense . Or that all involved are Jewish or whatever.
The question is not what you ask but are store owners exempt from laws governing businesses?
You disagree with NYJEW I think on if Kim Davis should have been allowed to deny SSM licenses. And you are both very religious.
And I already mentioned what I think might be an acceptable compromise.
I admit I came to this thread rather late so I don't know if anyone discussed a distinction based on the titular actors as extensions of government vs. a private businessman. As the government cannot entangle itself with any establishment of religion in its administration, its representatives cannot invoke religion (at all? This brings up other questions) and must do their jobs not as individuals but as government functionaries. But an individual business (it could be said) is not functioning on behalf of government so the protections of religion could then be invoked.
Just a thought. Sorry if it retreads old ground, but it has always seemed to me that the two categories of cases are not comparable.
No, the problem here is that you don't want to recognize the social responsibility that engendered anti-discrimination laws. There is a world of difference between an exemption for small amounts of wine consumption and discrimination denying normal services based on a protected class to which a person belongs; protections which were put in place because of systematic abuses.
1. to people of the time prohibition was a bigger social responsibility to more of the populous than anti-discrimination laws are today. Read the history leading up to the amendment. In fact if not for the move for prohibition, it's very possible there is no women's vote around the country.
2. There were many systematic abuses to the Prohibition exemptions.
The post I responded to was one that specifically stated that it was a personal decision. So what if you don't like it? I don't like it. But if it's a personal decision, then our opinions don't matter to anyone else.
The post you responded to specifically addressed the situations where personal decisions spill over into public concerns and if you had read it you would have known that your question was answered IN the post, assuming you are capable of understanding what was said. That is why you got an avalanche of responses about how inappropriate your question was.
As a general rule I read not only the current post, but what it is in response to. I recommend the practice.
You are so anxious to argue that you don't even think.
We are saying that there are times when personal morality decision do become an issue to the community.
I'll give you an example.
I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home or hotel room.
I do care when I go for a walk in a public park and find a straight couple -- or a gay couple -- having open sex in that public place.
Why you would take such an ulta-extreme situation (and Hitler is about as ultra-extreme as you can get) and insert it into this discussion is bizarre. There's no one in this forum who would support what Hitler did, even those here who are from the religious right, such as in Charlottesville.
so all you are saying is that your personal morality should rue the day.
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.
