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.
Which is why I'm saying that your post # 53 is a misrepresentation.
Why is it a misrepresentation? Over the last 25 or so years I have experienced many cases where principles are tested by extremes. I pointed to this as important in 52 and you responded about what you have experienced.
Why is it a misrepresentation? Over the last 25 or so years I have experienced many cases where principles are tested by extremes. I pointed to this as important in 52 and you responded about what you have experienced.
I brought up the HOA meetings situation. Something that I went through for 9 years living in Colorado. I said "I'm just telling you something that I actually experienced for the last 9 years."
You brought up writing torahs and having them used as wallpaper. I said my example was an actual occurrence, as it was. You responded that your torah example was "As am I" -- an actual thing you experienced. You did not. That's why it's misrepresentation.
I brought up the HOA meetings situation. Something that I went through for 9 years living in Colorado. I said "I'm just telling you something that I actually experienced for the last 9 years."
You brought up writing torahs and having them used as wallpaper. I said my example was an actual occurrence, as it was. You responded that your torah example was "As am I" -- an actual thing you experienced. You did not. That's why it's misrepresentation.
No, I brought up the torah writing explicitly with the word "hypothetically."
I said "as am I" when I responded to your statement that you are speaking from experience. As am I. Your reponse was to a message I wrote in which I said "principles are rarely tested by moderation".
That has been my experience and I'm speaking from it.
But pursuing the living I want in the way that I want is an expression of my religious values and an extension of my practice and belief.
Let's take this to an extreme. I (hypothetically) write Torahs for a living. I charge $25,000 and am good at my job. According to my beliefs, the Torah has to be treated a certain way and is for a particular purpose. Someone comes in and says, "write me a Torah so that I can use it as wallpaper." My business activity, which is a part of my religious beliefs, would be compromised were I to be forced to sell my product to someone who is standing for something which contradicts my beliefs. Sure, the analogy isn't perfect, but the underlying concept is the same -- I have the right to practice my beliefs even as they apply to my business practices (or so the court decision in my top post seems to indicate). To tell me I have to compromise my religious beliefs when I do business is still "compromise religious beliefs." My freedom has been taken away in deference to someone else's.
I didn't know it was a Jewish rule to not sell non-kosher food to a Jew. That sheds some light on where you are coming from. To me, it looks like you are attempting to make other people follow your own moral code. If we start forcing our opinions on other people it would be a chaotic mess. There are certain things we can all agree are wrong/bad/harmful so we have laws against them and that's reasonable. Refusing to sell the Torah to someone who might misuse it may bother you but that's the risk you take when you transcribe them. You make the product/you sell the product and that's really all there should be when you meet in the marketplace. In America, you can do all kinds of things to the flag because we value freedom over such things.
I can think of many things that bother me but to enforce them on other people would be a violation of their own autonomy. The cure would be way worse than the problem it seeks to solve.
But pursuing the living I want in the way that I want is an expression of my religious values and an extension of my practice and belief.
Let's take this to an extreme. I (hypothetically) write Torahs for a living. I charge $25,000 and am good at my job. According to my beliefs, the Torah has to be treated a certain way and is for a particular purpose. Someone comes in and says, "write me a Torah so that I can use it as wallpaper." My business activity, which is a part of my religious beliefs, would be compromised were I to be forced to sell my product to someone who is standing for something which contradicts my beliefs. Sure, the analogy isn't perfect, but the underlying concept is the same -- I have the right to practice my beliefs even as they apply to my business practices (or so the court decision in my top post seems to indicate). To tell me I have to compromise my religious beliefs when I do business is still "compromise religious beliefs." My freedom has been taken away in deference to someone else's.
That's an excellent analogy, because of the pervasive and historical discrimination against wallpaper hangers, even though they're now a protected class precisely because of that legacy of marginalization and oppression.
Oh.
Wait...
"Momma, why is that business allowed to discriminate against us? And why is discrimination so pervasive, and all people have to do to justify it is to cite religion as an excuse?"
"Because, Susie, if we didn't allow discrimination on-demand so long as the discriminator claims a religious basis to it, someday someone might glue a religious text to a wall."
"Gee, Momma, that makes sense. It's totally worth it!"
No, I brought up the torah writing explicitly with the word "hypothetically."
I said "as am I" when I responded to your statement that you are speaking from experience. As am I. Your reponse was to a message I wrote in which I said "principles are rarely tested by moderation".
That has been my experience and I'm speaking from it.
I don't think you're being a very honest poster. I'll not continue this dialog.
I didn't know it was a Jewish rule to not sell non-kosher food to a Jew. That sheds some light on where you are coming from. To me, it looks like you are attempting to make other people follow your own moral code.
Yes, it does look that way and that's the problem. If you force me to sell the food, though, you are forcing me to compromise my moral code by following yours (or that of a competing legal obligation). And that's the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
There are certain things we can all agree are wrong/bad/harmful so we have laws against them and that's reasonable. Refusing to sell the Torah to someone who might misuse it may bother you but that's the risk you take when you transcribe them.
But if you force me to sell it, then you are forcing me to break my rules. The risk I take is the limitation of my own religious freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
You make the product/you sell the product and that's really all there should be when you meet in the marketplace. In America, you can do all kinds of things to the flag because we value freedom over such things.
The marketplace in America isn't free enough to allow me to practice my religion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
I can think of many things that bother me but to enforce them on other people would be a violation of their own autonomy. The cure would be way worse than the problem it seeks to solve.
So the loss of my religious autonomy is forced on me as a business owner? Equally (but opposite) problematic.
"Momma, why is that business allowed to discriminate against us? And why is discrimination so pervasive, and all people have to do to justify it is to cite religion as an excuse?"
"Because, Susie, if we didn't allow discrimination on-demand so long as the discriminator claims a religious basis to it, someday someone might glue a religious text to a wall."
"Gee, Momma, that makes sense. It's totally worth it!"
Mock it all you want. The decision in the case I started with says just that. I'm just pointing out the problem -- that there are two competing freedoms which necessarily come into conflict.
IMO, if I invest all my time and money into a business, then it's my business, and I should be allowed to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason, up to and including: 1) I don't like the person's haircut 2) I'm just in a bad mood.
(Obviously, if I want to make money, I'll serve anyone who walks through the door.)
If the government wants to force me to serve someone, then they can pay my bills.
Also, forcing someone to serve me (especially food service) seems like a REALLY bad idea. I'd much rather have someone who wants to serve me.
If certain groups of people are not being able to get a service or product at all, then the government may need to step in. A free market will correct this, as other people recognize the opportunity to serve people who are being discriminated against, but it might take some time. As long as the person who is being discriminated against can go down the street and get the product somewhere else, the government should mind it's own business. Let the discriminator kill his own company or operate with a smaller profit.
Then we all have freedom (instead of just religious freedom) and the government doesn't need to make these kinds of decisions.
IMO, if I invest all my time and money into a business, then it's my business, and I should be allowed to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason, up to and including: 1) I don't like the person's haircut 2) I'm just in a bad mood.
(Obviously, if I want to make money, I'll serve anyone who walks through the door.)
If the government wants to force me to serve someone, then they can pay my bills.
Also, forcing someone to serve me (especially food service) seems like a REALLY bad idea. I'd much rather have someone who wants to serve me.
If certain groups of people are not being able to get a service or product at all, then the government may need to step in. A free market will correct this, as other people recognize the opportunity to serve people who are being discriminated against, but it might take some time. As long as the person who is being discriminated against can go down the street and get the product somewhere else, the government should mind it's own business. Let the discriminator kill his own company or operate with a smaller profit.
Then we all have freedom (instead of just religious freedom) and the government doesn't need to make these kinds of decisions.
So, you would have been OK back some years ago, when whites could go in the front door and blacks had to go in the back or back to the black neighborhood store (if there was one)?
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.
