Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 586 of 1309 (728189)
05-24-2014 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:06 AM


so, equal rights legislation...
Is a tax on wearing yarmulkes a tax on Jews?
Why, or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 9:32 PM Modulous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 587 of 1309 (728190)
05-24-2014 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Modulous
05-24-2014 8:26 PM


Re: so, equal rights legislation...
Of course it's a tax on Jews Why are you carrying on about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2014 8:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2014 8:43 AM Faith has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 588 of 1309 (728199)
05-25-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Faith
05-24-2014 9:32 PM


Yarmulkes and wedding cakes
Of course it's a tax on Jews
I see. The intent to disfavour the Jews can readily be presumed on the basis that the action taken (in this case taxation) is based on a behaviour predominantly carried out by Jews. You didn't answer my second question, 'why?', so I presumed your answer for you.
Is a tax on wedding cakes for gay marriages, a tax on gay people?
Why are you carrying on about this?
So I can understand your position better in an attempt to move the discussion forward rather than around in circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 9:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Faith, posted 05-25-2014 12:50 PM Modulous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 589 of 1309 (728202)
05-25-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by Modulous
05-25-2014 8:43 AM


Re: Yarmulkes and wedding cakes
Christians can't levy a tax on anything and a wedding is a one time event in case you haven't noticed. Also yarmulkes are not a problem for God's law, but gay weddings are. I'm sure it's a terrible hardship for gays that Christians refuse to make them a cake for an event that violates both common sense and God's law, even though they must have dozens of other cake makers who would do it for them, and I'm sure you are all going to punish us however you can for such an affront to anti-Christian dogma, but as I also said if that happens I'll go down singing hymns. And as far as I'm concerned there is no more discussion here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2014 8:43 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2014 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 590 of 1309 (728203)
05-25-2014 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by Faith
05-25-2014 12:50 PM


Re: Yarmulkes and wedding cakes
Is a tax on wedding cakes for gay marriages, a tax on gay people? You didn't answer.
The stuff you wrote was irrelevant to the point I'm moving towards. I'm not claiming who can or cannot levy taxes or what is or is not against God's law.
And as far as I'm concerned there is no more discussion here.
Well naturally, I am after all, asking you to reconcile some of your conflicting ideas which is not pleasant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Faith, posted 05-25-2014 12:50 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 591 of 1309 (728205)
05-25-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by frako
05-24-2014 12:52 PM


ABE: See a problem with the diagram I should have corrected:
The dotted line from the early church to the Roman church should go to the line between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church because they were on an equal footing, the Orthodox not subordinate to the Roman. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by frako, posted 05-24-2014 12:52 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by frako, posted 05-26-2014 3:11 AM Faith has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 592 of 1309 (728243)
05-26-2014 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 591 by Faith
05-25-2014 1:26 PM


Yea ok, but who is Christian and who is pseudochristian?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Faith, posted 05-25-2014 1:26 PM Faith has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 593 of 1309 (728537)
05-30-2014 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by Faith
05-23-2014 4:53 PM


Re: conflicting rights you've got to be kidding
According to the Wiki page on Importance of Religion by nation the least religious nations are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
Sweden
Denmark
Estonia
Norway
Hong Kong
Netherlands
Japan
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Finland
France
Vietnam
Australia
New Zealand
South Korea
Do you think these nations are examples of the sort of "hell" that lack of godliness results in you are talking about?
The US comes about midway down the table.
Which nations in your view are the most god-fearing (and thus presumably heavenly)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 4:53 PM Faith has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 594 of 1309 (728998)
06-04-2014 10:42 PM


And in related odd news in Pennsylvania politics
Oddity in Pennsylvania House primaries.
quote:
Pennsylvania state Rep. Mike Fleck, a Republican and the state’s first out gay lawmaker, said Tuesday he will run as a Democrat to retain his seat this November after a write-in challenger to his seat in the Republican primary race apparently received more votes.
More at source (happened to pick that source, but there are a lot of others also available).
He lost in the Republican primary to write-in candidate (Huntingdon County Treasurer) Richard Irvin, but won as a write-in candidate vs also write-in candidate Irvin in the Democratic primary (I believe there were no "real" Democratic candidates). So he's going to be a Republican running as a Democrat in the general election (and I got to say, "or something like that".)
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 595 of 1309 (740507)
11-05-2014 1:41 PM


Second Thoughts
I've changed my mind ... to a certain extent.
I am in favor of laws against discrimination, whether on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, race, etc. But I am in favor of religious freedom.
Well, these things can come into conflict. Let us imagine a state in which there are laws against religious discrimination. Now suppose a Catholic runs a copying and printing business, and a Protestant turns up wanting 10,000 copies of a pamphlet of the firey kind that denounces the Pope as the Antichrist and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. If the Catholic refuses to print it, that's religious discrimination. If he is forced by law to print it, he is obliged to assist in what he considers blasphemy and heresy, and where is his religious freedom?
I would side with his religious freedom. And, mutatis mutandis, similar things could be said of assisting with a gay wedding. (Or, yes, an interracial one. I admit the force of my own arguments. No proposed solution to this problem can be easy, simple, and obviously right.)
However, the laws that allow such religious freedom must be very narrowly defined. The laws that have been proposed allow any amount of discrimination, so long as the person discriminating can cry "religion" --- even to allowing doctors to refuse to treat gay people. But surely it is not beyond the limits of human ingenuity to frame narrower laws. The problem is that Republicans have seized on this issue to excuse framing very broad laws permitting discrimination. But if we really tried, couldn't we frame narrower laws which just go so far as to defend religious freedom, and no further?

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Stile, posted 11-05-2014 2:39 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 11-05-2014 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 598 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2014 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 603 by Tangle, posted 11-05-2014 5:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 1225 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2015 11:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 596 of 1309 (740521)
11-05-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2014 1:41 PM


Re: Second Thoughts
Dr Adequate writes:
Now suppose a Catholic runs a copying and printing business, and a Protestant turns up wanting 10,000 copies of a pamphlet of the firey kind that denounces the Pope as the Antichrist and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. If the Catholic refuses to print it, that's religious discrimination. If he is forced by law to print it, he is obliged to assist in what he considers blasphemy and heresy, and where is his religious freedom?
I would side with his religious freedom. And, mutatis mutandis, similar things could be said of assisting with a gay wedding.
I agree.
But if we really tried, couldn't we frame narrower laws which just go so far as to defend religious freedom, and no further?
I think so, but it will take some time for trial and error, perhaps.
Some things we can foresee, others may only become apparent once the proposed solution is in place.
Things like not-helping-with-gay-marriage.
I think it's fine for a minister to not help with gay marriage.
I think a county-clerk may also be fine with not helping... if and only if they are able to find a suitable replacement (colleague, supervisor or something) who will do the job within some reasonable time period or something that like? Otherwise... they should be forced to move things along respectably.
Can we make that a law?
As for the copying-of-firey-material-against-your-religion... I think it should be okay for all copy-employees of all copy-companies to refuse to participate in such things if they so choose. After all, the one-wanting-copies could purchase a photocopier/printer themselves and still get the job done without too much extra hassle.
Those are some pretty specific distinctions, though.
What would a law look like that accommodated for both specific situations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2014 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 597 of 1309 (740525)
11-05-2014 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2014 1:41 PM


I Re: Second Thoughts
I really don't see why it should be so hard to tell the difference between religious freedom and discrimination on the basis of race etc. Discriminating against persons is rightly disallowed by law, but that is not what is going on in the case of businesses being asked to support an IDEA such as gay marriage or Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon. None of the businesses that have refused to support gay marriage have refused to serve homosexuals as such. They are welcome to any of the services that don't challenge the owner's religious principles. But the business will not serve an ideology or principle that is opposed by their religion. Nazis can buy all the cakes they want, but the business should not be required to write a pro-Nazi slogan on it.
Really, I don't see much of a problem here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2014 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2014 3:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 600 by ringo, posted 11-05-2014 3:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 601 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2014 3:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 602 by Taq, posted 11-05-2014 4:54 PM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 598 of 1309 (740526)
11-05-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2014 1:41 PM


Re: Second Thoughts
Firstly I think that it is important to recognise that religious non-profits have broad exemptions to anti-discrimination policies. There is no danger of a church minister being forced by the government to hold a gay wedding in his capacity as a minister, unless he starts a for-profit business of holding weddings.
But what needs to be avoided is the situation where minorities who face discrimination are unable to obtain important services. Is it really practical for the courts to be forced to consider whether alternatives are available ? Can those guilty of discrimination get away with it if they can plead that they didn't know that there were no other options for their customers ? Is it just that the law should be more restrictive in situations where there are fewer providers of a service ?
And from the other side, do we want the courts settling religious questions ? Do we want courts to decide that a religious belief - or even a religion - is not genuine and shouldn't be protected ? Doesn't this raise the spectre of government discrimination against unpopular religions ?
That is not to say that the current laws in the U.S. are ideal, but they aren't obviously wrong either. They're definitely better than giving wholesale freedom to discriminate so long as it's claimed to be religious. And quite possibly better in practice than more complex laws that seem better in principle.
It's not an easy problem, and not easy to find something definitely better than the current situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2014 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 599 of 1309 (740528)
11-05-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Faith
11-05-2014 3:00 PM


Re: I Re: Second Thoughts
quote:
I really don't see why it should be so hard to tell the difference between religious freedom and discrimination on the basis of race etc. Discriminating against persons is rightly disallowed by law, but that is not what is going on in the case of businesses being asked to support an IDEA such as gay marriage or Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon.
Or the idea that Blacks and Whites should be allowed to mingle and even marry ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 11-05-2014 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 600 of 1309 (740530)
11-05-2014 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Faith
11-05-2014 3:00 PM


Re: I Re: Second Thoughts
Faith writes:
But the business will not serve an ideology or principle that is opposed by their religion.
And the society that licenses the business is free to refuse a license if the business' policies violate society's standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 11-05-2014 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024