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've used this argument on him several times. Apparently religious convictions are so important that it's OK to discriminate against other people using it as a basis but not so important that someone should be willing to forego the almighty dollar to protect them.
Well said.
And here's the problem -- every time "we" allow one person or group to discriminate against another person or group, "we" are saying that discrimination is okay. I have a very close friend whom I used to work with for many years. She and her family are Jewish. She's often complaining about discrimination against Jews. At least in her case, she seems to be against any type of discrimination toward anyone. For those unlike her, all I can say is -- karma's gonna get 'em.
Well, not that this has anything to do with what is in my mind, but a system that ensures that no one will be discriminated against is going to have built in problems. So what's the solution to that? I haven't the slightest idea, but we don't make progress until we crystalize the problems.
Very true.
Did you look at the case I linked to in the original post? It seems to say that while you may have an opinion about the morality, the law has a different position.
No idea. But wouldn't the precedent set by the linked to case indicate that such a thing could happen?
The problem is crystal clear, does religious beliefs allow for discrimination or not. Apparently only atheists have to treat others fairly and nicely. Religious people can treat others like less than equal. And the others could be ones from your own religion too.
The problem is crystal clear, does religious beliefs allow for discrimination or not. Apparently only atheists have to treat others fairly and nicely. Religious people can treat others like less than equal. And the others could be ones from your own religion too.
Yes, it does allow for what is called discrimination under civil law. So your solution would be to change the law and not allow for the freedom of religious expression, or the protection of practicing religion, thus condoning the discrimination against religious people.
That might be one avenue to resolve the problem, though I think its wording would have to be very precise (I'm not sure that the exact wording could ever be expressed) and it would run into major objections. But it might be the direction that the law has to move into. It has worked in other areas of constitutional law, but even there, it is facing challenges repeatedly.
But isn't that the situation that we actually have and which you have been arguing about in this thread?
We have had changes in the law - SS -stuff is now legal and those who used to be considered the spokesbods for all Right-Thinking people are now finding themselves condemned by society. No wonder they are frothing and flailing about it.
The law is there to protect everyone's rights, which is why it has to make judgements about where the line is drawn between conflicting opinions or freedoms. The line is being drawn on the details of a ruling that actually exists - A business can't discriminate against Same Sex weddings and the like. And religion is not an excuse in law. The disputes are not about these two principles but about where the law between the rights of SS couples wanting to get the same services as hetero couples and between the rights of religious people to practice their religion gets to be drawn.
This is not a problem for the Law or even for that law; it is defining the specifics of a legal principle (two legal principles) that is in place. The courts deciding for the invitation -printers is a bit of a disappointment, but I can see the reasoning behind it and it is not going to begin a rolling back of the legal principles in themselves.
But isn't that the situation that we actually have and which you have been arguing about in this thread?
We have had changes in the law - SS -stuff is now legal and those who used to be considered the spokesbods for all Right-Thinking people are now finding themselves condemned by society. No wonder they are frothing and flailing about it.
The law is there to protect everyone's rights, which is why it has to make judgements about where the line is drawn between conflicting opinions or freedoms. The line is being drawn on the details of a ruling that actually exists - A business can't discriminate against Same Sex weddings and the like. And religion is not an excuse in law. The disputes are not about these two principles but about where the law between the rights of SS couples wanting to get the same services as hetero couples and between the rights of religious people to practice their religion gets to be drawn.
This is not a problem for the Law or even for that law; it is defining the specifics of a legal principle (two legal principles) that is in place. The courts deciding for the invitation -printers is a bit of a disappointment, but I can see the reasoning behind it and it is not going to begin a rolling back of the legal principles in themselves.
The situation, as I see it, is as follows:
This conflict between laws didn't fully develop for a long time. The two had not come into conflict (I don't recall any legal challenges to outlawing slavery based in religious expression). While the law had dealt with religious freedom and created protections for religion, it had limited that and had been ok with minor "discriminations" in the interest of public health policy. The move towards a more inclusive society had not listed all protected classes. Eventually (and relatively recently) homosexuality was added as a protected class. The backlash, as shown by the 2018 case was that the religious side started invoking (in what is a brilliant, if dangerous legal move) the precedented legal protections on religion to allow for what amounts to a sanctioned discrimination, because to forbid it would create an equal but opposite discrimination.
This clash in the courts between two extant but heretofore separate freedoms has now had (to the count of the initial post's article) two decisions in favor of allowing discrimination against a protected class in deference to freedom of religious expression/speech.
If we leave the laws as is, this clash will continue. What is necessary is a mitigating of the rights of either one side or the other -- a fine line, unless the easiest solution, the dissolving of any/all rights on one side so that the other can exist unfettered, is pursued. Up til now, it seems that people's inclination has been to try and carefully word a limitation on religious expression, finding excuses and case-by-case reasons why in one situation some discrimination might be allowed, but nowhere else (until another case comes up). A suggestion that we eliminate the expectation of religious freedom on the whole (or so severely cripple it so as to protect anyone else without question) is a more extreme approach, but at least it is an acknowledgement that, as it stands, the two categories of law have to be reconciled somehow and no moderate path seems to be getting us anywhere.
While having to adjust my mental parameters a bit I broadly agree with that. The method (legal, although 'peoples' inclination' can't be ignored) is to try to find a line where two conflicting freedoms have to be mutually limited. The clash in probably not going to continue. It's a legal situation that is having the fine tuning done. It is not going to become (as you hopefully suggest) a reason to throw up our hands and go back to the old days of religion being able to freely discriminate against gays. Forget it; ain't gonna happen.
And those who refuse to observe the legal limits on their freedom on any grounds (including religious) are going to feel the heat and will get get no sympathy when they scream about being persecuted.
While having to adjust my mental parameters a bit I broadly agree with that. The method (legal, although 'peoples' inclination' can't be ignored) is to try to find a line where two conflicting freedoms have to be mutually limited. The clash in probably not going to continue. It's a legal situation that is having the fine tuning done. It is not going to become (as you hopefully suggest) a reason to throw up our hands and go back to the old days of religion being able to freely discriminate against gays. Forget it; ain't gonna happen.
And those who refuse to observe the legal limits on their freedom on any grounds (including religious) are going to feel the heat and will get get no sympathy when they scream about being persecuted.
actually, what I was suggesting is that what was going to become was a case in which religion could be freely discriminated against. I am not "hopeful" of either scenario, but I did not suggest the one you attribute to me.
The problem is systemic. Saying that a protected class (either religion or homosexual) will get no sympathy when there is a limitation on freedom flies in the face of 200+ years of American history. The pendulum will continue to swing back and forth.
actually, what I was suggesting is that what was going to become was a case in which religion could be freely discriminated against. I am not "hopeful" of either scenario, but I did not suggest the one you attribute to me.
Maybe I misunderstood you. But in any case, I set out the way it looks to me and is what (I suggest) will actually happen.
Quote:
The problem is systemic. Saying that a protected class (either religion or homosexual) will get no sympathy when there is a limitation on freedom flies in the face of 200+ years of American history. The pendulum will continue to swing back and forth.
There I can't agree. What I see is an evolution - not a swinging back and forth. There is a steady social evolution in which law and custom (so to speak) seem to urge each other on in what I see as a progression in social conventions. One which I may say, I (and other atheists I hear express their views) approve and which religion, far too often to be pleasant unless you are going to place a bet on it, is fighting a kicking, squealing and digging in of heels resistance against the changes, with a lot of screaming about persecution, martyrdom and restriction of personal freedom. I may be showing my atheist bias but I spare little sympathy for their injured sensibilities.
Yes, it does allow for what is called discrimination under civil law. So your solution would be to change the law and not allow for the freedom of religious expression, or the protection of practicing religion, thus condoning the discrimination against religious people.
That might be one avenue to resolve the problem, though I think its wording would have to be very precise (I'm not sure that the exact wording could ever be expressed) and it would run into major objections. But it might be the direction that the law has to move into. It has worked in other areas of constitutional law, but even there, it is facing challenges repeatedly.
Do you think the solution should be that religious people are not under any secular laws? You are claiming that you must be allowed to discriminate against people in order to have any rights of religious expression or to practice your religious beliefs. What kind of religion requires you to discriminate against others in order to practice your religion within the secular world, for example in order to be in business you must be able to discriminate against people both within and outside of your faith?
That must explain the right turn on red laws. All about right and wrong. If you are going to equate morality and legality, or say that discussions of civil law are very much about morality, then you will have to start a different thread which explores the source of morality, its potential universality and how it applies in all cases of law. As that will have nothing to do with religion and spirituality, I would suggest starting it on a politics or philosophy board, or you might run afoul of a moderator who would move it.
Confusing post for me. Very confusing, but before you run me off to another thread, is not the process of establishing our laws all about right and wrong? At least the attempt to address and minimize wrong-doing? Though of course there are laws not so directly related to judgement about right vs wrong, even the right turn on red laws are about how we might best accommodate the competing interest of who goes first at an intersection. Right? All about brokering our competing interests in all variety of ways with regard to countless issues. Or, there really is no compelling reason to legislate a law in the first place...
Though the source of morality may be another debate for another thread, what we as a country decide will be our laws to live by simply involve our more generally agreed upon "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." (Again the dictionary definition of morality). Might be argued you not only need to leave this thread but leave this country to a more theist one instead, if our code of morality need be based on any given religion above all else. Right?
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.
but I spare little sympathy for their injured sensibilities.
