Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1230 of 1309 (748196)
01-23-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1227 by PaulK
01-23-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Second Thoughts
Also, I think he'd have a big problem arguing that anti-gay bigots are a protected class.
But he's doing it, and rather well. He wants a cake that expresses his deeply-held religious beliefs. If he is refused, he is being discriminated against because the owners of the cake shop don't like his religious beliefs. There is apparently a law in Colorado protecting him from that. I say that this law goes too far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1227 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2015 12:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1231 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2015 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 1232 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-23-2015 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 1233 of 1309 (748206)
01-23-2015 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1231 by PaulK
01-23-2015 1:48 PM


Re: Second Thoughts
But is he being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs ?
Well, yes he is. He wanted the words "God hates gays" on his cake, which is his sincere religious belief, and they denied it because it contravenes their own beliefs. If he'd asked for a cake saying "Flibberty wibberty bibberty bobberty boo", then that would have been equally stupid, but no-one would have denied it to him. They refused him the cake because they didn't want to get involved with what he actually did want to say. Surely that is their right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1231 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2015 1:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1234 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2015 2:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1271 of 1309 (748490)
01-26-2015 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1237 by jar
01-23-2015 9:48 PM


Re: support?
How does a wedding cake support a marriage? Are marriages without a cake still valid?
OK, but suppose someone refused to supply timber to a KKK cross-burning ceremony.
I think there is still a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1237 by jar, posted 01-23-2015 9:48 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1273 by Faith, posted 01-26-2015 1:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 1275 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2015 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(1)
Message 1277 of 1309 (748530)
01-26-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1275 by Tangle
01-26-2015 1:49 PM


Re: support?
But it's a pretty fine balance, you complained when I pointed out the UK law that might provide a defence.
That's not a complaint, that's just a statement. It is difficult. Nonetheless, it is possible to sort it out in ways other that saying that everyone must serve everyone under any possible circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1275 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2015 1:49 PM Tangle has not replied

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


(5)
Message 1289 of 1309 (748615)
01-27-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1281 by Faith
01-26-2015 7:50 PM


No, I'd expect people to be educated enough in what is Biblical and what isn't to avoid that sort of sttuppidditty.
But in fact they aren't.
Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples
This church isn't "educated enough in what is Biblical" to "avoid that sort of sttuppidditty". So why would we assume that an ordinary secular business would be "educated enough in what is Biblical" to "avoid that sort of sttuppidditty".
Also, thinking about it --- don't you usually suppose that society was more Christian back in the day, in, let's say, the 1950s? When segregation was the law of the land? Since society has become less Christian since then, and yet more opposed to racial discrimination, I don't see how one can claim that this idea of "what is Biblical" would make people less discriminatory. Indeed, pretty much everyone arguing for discrimination thumped the Bible and said it was God's law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1281 by Faith, posted 01-26-2015 7:50 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1290 of 1309 (748618)
01-27-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1285 by Faith
01-27-2015 4:11 AM


The First Amendment protects the Christian religion, in whatever form of life chosen.
No. No it doesn't. It wouldn't protect Catholics who burned a Protestant at the stake for heresy. The First Amendment doesn't protect people who step over the line drawn by the law of the land. Burning a Protestant would still be murder.
So we have to sort this out. Where does freedom of religion stop, and where can the law take over? It's a real question, we can't just give carte blanche to someone who wants to burn Protestants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1285 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 4:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(2)
Message 1295 of 1309 (748697)
01-28-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1291 by Faith
01-27-2015 11:37 PM


Well, interesting digression. But it doesn't really answer my point. What do we do if people want to do things, on religious grounds, contrary to the law? What if we have a bunch of Protestants saying "But God wants us to execute Quakers"? Well, that sucks for them. The First Amendment doesn't protect them. What if, to take a more realistic example, you have a guy like Warren Jeffs? The law says that his followers really can't marry that many underage girls. But their prophet says that they should. Hmm, what to do?
Now the First Amendment does render unconstitutional those laws that specifically target a religion --- say, a law preventing Catholics from holding Mass. But it doesn't affect laws intended to remedy a (real or perceived) social evil, such as, say racial discrimination, they don't violate the First Amendment on the grounds that some people who want to discriminate want to do so for religious reasons.
It does, I believe, do so when it comes to particular religious practices. A church which is opposed to interracial marriage can't be forced to conduct one. But that still leaves the State with a lot of latitude.
The thing to do, I suggest, is to try to be fair and reasonable when drafting laws. Just because something doesn't actually violate the First Amendment is not a reason why that thing should be legal; conversely, just because a law stopping people from doing that thing doesn't violate the First Amendment isn't a reason why that thing should be illegal. If the best justification someone can think of for doing something is that it's not actually unconstitutional, then it's probably not a good thing to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1296 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2015 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 1297 of 1309 (781079)
03-31-2016 1:01 PM


Mississippi
Good news! The House of Representatives of the great state of Mississippi have passed the "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT". It's about time too, the state of Mississippi has existed for 199 years, and in all that time its citizens haven't had freedom of conscience, hence the necessity for this bill.
At last, the sincerely-held religious beliefs of Mississippians will be protected! Or ... wait, will they? Nuh-uh. Not in general. According to the bill, exactly three sincerely-held religious beliefs will be protected from "government discrimination":
SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
Anyone with other (or, God forbid, opposite) sincerely held religious beliefs can go screw themselves.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1298 by Diomedes, posted 03-31-2016 2:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(6)
Message 1301 of 1309 (781794)
04-07-2016 6:26 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 1302 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 7:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 1305 of 1309 (781820)
04-07-2016 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1302 by Faith
04-07-2016 7:49 PM


That completely misses the point if it's in reference to the Pizza store that almost had to shut down for refusing to cater a GAY WEDDING.
They weren't asked to.
Nobody is refusing to serve gays pizza, that has never ever been a problem, the problem is being put in a position where you have to provide a service for a gay wedding ...
... at which point they have said that they would refuse to serve gays pizza, something that you just assured me that nobody does, never ever.
I do wish you'd get honest about this.
Ah, hypocrisy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1302 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 7:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 1307 of 1309 (781832)
04-08-2016 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by Faith
04-07-2016 10:31 PM


Produce the evidence.
For what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 10:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by Faith, posted 04-08-2016 1:46 AM Dr Adequate 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