Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:19 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
So you want the government to compel his participation in the wedding (yeah, I know, you don't believe designing and creating a cake is in any way participation in the wedding).
I was a chef and a caterer. I catered quite a number of weddings. I did not participate in them. When my best friend got married, and I was in the wedding party, I did participate in that wedding.
Quote:
What's the point of beliefs if you don't act on them?
To make you feel better about your actions, usually.
Quote:
Try this logic exercise. We have this sentence:

What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others.

You're saying the "qualifier" regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others can alter What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. So let's look at the possible values of belief of the inferiority of others. It can be
  • others are inferior
  • others are not inferior
  • some others are and some others aren't
and let's substitute
  • What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since you believe others are inferior.
  • What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since you believe others are not inferior.
  • What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since you believe some others are inferior and some others aren't inferior.
In all cases, you believe the government should be in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. The phrase regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others means its doesn't matter what my belief is.
You are trying really hard to try to play some sort of semantic game here, and if you feel that I poorly worded something that caused you confusion, I apologize, and I will try to communicate better to you next time.

The reason for the "regardless" part, is to show that yes, you do have to treat them equally, even if you don't want to. Even if you really, really don't want to. Whatever meaning that you have tried to twist it into in order to justify a bigot's position is a game that I have no interest in playing.
Quote:
The same logic applies to Miller's post (unless you're arguing that Miller meant there are all kinds of other characteristics other than race, religion, gender, or sexuality that allow you to not offer your service to a member of the public like height or facial hair).
Well, yes, Miller is fully aware and cognizant that there are many reasons why you may refuse service, which is why he posted a non-comprehensive list of some of the things that you may not refuse service over.
  #302  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:29 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The lingusitic gymnastics that bigots go through to try to claim that they're not bigots is pretty amazing. "He's not a homophobe, he just thinks that gay people getting equal rights is wrong! You're such a meany to put that label on him when he just wants to deny gay people basic civil rights!"
I guess I missed the part where this guy immediately contacted all the local cake shops and told the proprietors not to serve them or else, organized protests against the upcoming wedding, and then flew to Massachusetts in an attempt to have Massachusetts' marriage laws changed before they could get married.

He views designing and creating cakes as part of the celebration of marriage (you may not). He believes same-sex marriage is wrong. He declined to participate (but did tell them he'd sell them anything in the shop).

Some time ago we reached the tipping point that disapproval of any action or behavior of some subset of our society earns you the sobriquet [subseta]phobe. It's simply not possible to have a set of values, principles to mediate the inevitable conflicts, and then live your life by them.
  #303  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:39 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
To make you feel better about your actions, usually.
Some people try to live their lives using their beliefs to help them. It's clear you have beliefs. Or is fear of government action the only reason you don't discriminate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You are trying really hard to try to play some sort of semantic game here, and if you feel that I poorly worded something that caused you confusion, I apologize, and I will try to communicate better to you next time.

The reason for the "regardless" part, is to show that yes, you do have to treat them equally, even if you don't want to. Even if you really, really don't want to. Whatever meaning that you have tried to twist it into in order to justify a bigot's position is a game that I have no interest in playing.
So, in essence
Quote:
What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally.
There's no trick here.
  #304  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:50 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
Some people try to live their lives using their beliefs to help them. It's clear you have beliefs. Or is fear of government action the only reason you don't discriminate?
I also don't discriminate because I believe that treating everyone equally is the best way to work towards a world that I want to live in. But yeah, govt regulations reminding me of what my obligations are as a public accomodation are not entirely without use.

There are others with different feelings towards the matter, and they feel as though discriminating against people is the best way to work towards a world they want to live in. In those cases, I am glad that the government prevents them from acting in that fashion.
Quote:

So, in essence

There's no trick here.
But everyone is not treated equally. I don't need to treat the person that bounced a check on me last week equal to the person who always pays their bills in full. I don't have to treat the person equally that brings in their matted mess of a dog every 8 months the same as the person who brushes their dog and comes in every 6 weeks. I don't have to treat the person that cursed at me because they didn't like their dog's haircut the same as a person who thanks me and tips me for it. I certainly do not treat cat people the same as I treat dog people.

It is treating them differently, based on arbitrary "beliefs" that one holds about the client, that the government needs to prevent.

I'm here in Ohio, so I don't have to treat a homosexual the same as I would treat a heterosexual, but I choose to, because to do otherwise would be to do harm to them, to my community, and ultimately, to myself.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-12-2018 at 04:52 PM.
  #305  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:55 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
He views designing and creating cakes as part of the celebration of marriage (you may not).
Slightly digressing, that attitude in itself seems rather creepy to me (assuming it's genuine and not merely asserted in order to bolster his religious-freedom legal defense).

If I were buying a wedding cake, I would not consider some hired batter wrangler to be taking part in the celebration of my marriage, and I would be displeased if he intimated that he was regarding himself in that light. I'd consider it intrusive and presumptuous.

He's a commercial artisan selling me a product, not someone invited to share in a personal event important to me. What's next, furniture salesmen thinking they're a meaningful part of a bridal couple's consummation of marriage because they sold the couple a new bed? Ew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak
Some time ago we reached the tipping point that disapproval of any action or behavior of some subset of our society earns you the sobriquet [subseta]phobe. It's simply not possible to have a set of values, principles to mediate the inevitable conflicts, and then live your life by them.
Sure it is. Someone would have to be a very fragile snowflake indeed to think that being labeled a -phobe somehow made it impossible for them to maintain what they consider their values.

In any case, you're wrong that "disapproval of any action or behavior" necessarily results in the -phobe label. People who disapprove of behavior such as smoking in public or animal abuse or street crime don't get called smokeophobes or abuseophobes or crimeophobes.

The -phobe label signifies, as in "germophobe" or "agoraphobe" etc., that the "disapproving" party is having a strong negative reaction to something that is a demonstrably normal and natural part of life. If you're having a strong negative psychological reaction to something that's a natural part of life and isn't objectively harming anyone, it's not unreasonable to default to considering that reaction somewhat pathological, on par with a mild form of phobia.

It's certainly not society's responsibility to treat your denial of other people's equal rights as just a neutral "set of values" or "principles".
  #306  
Old 06-12-2018, 06:05 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Slightly digressing, that attitude in itself seems rather creepy to me (assuming it's genuine and not merely asserted in order to bolster his religious-freedom legal defense).

If I were buying a wedding cake, I would not consider some hired batter wrangler to be taking part in the celebration of my marriage, and I would be displeased if he intimated that he was regarding himself in that light. I'd consider it intrusive and presumptuous.

He's a commercial artisan selling me a product, not someone invited to share in a personal event important to me. What's next, furniture salesmen thinking they're a meaningful part of a bridal couple's consummation of marriage because they sold the couple a new bed? Ew.
That's fine. But you're not him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Sure it is. Someone would have to be a very fragile snowflake indeed to think that being labeled a -phobe somehow made it impossible for them to maintain what they consider their values.
Hopefully you're posting this in response to my failing to add "without be labeled."

You do seem to believe that the government should compel behavior in conflict with their values. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
In any case, you're wrong that "disapproval of any action or behavior" necessarily results in the -phobe label. People who disapprove of behavior such as smoking in public or animal abuse or street crime don't get called smokeophobes or abuseophobes or crimeophobes.

The -phobe label signifies, as in "germophobe" or "agoraphobe" etc., that the "disapproving" party is having a strong negative reaction to something that is a demonstrably normal and natural part of life. If you're having a strong negative psychological reaction to something that's a natural part of life and isn't objectively harming anyone, it's not unreasonable to default to considering that reaction somewhat pathological, on par with a mild form of phobia.
But I know of no -phobes related to people that are in common usage that have a generally agreed upon positive connotation. And excellent pedantry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
It's certainly not society's responsibility to treat your denial of other people's equal rights as just a neutral "set of values" or "principles".
I don't want the government choosing.
  #307  
Old 06-12-2018, 08:11 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
Once again, characterizing the motives of people in the vilest way. Everything I've heard about the Colorado case indicates the baker was cordial. It seems if you can't even conceive that some people have deeply held beliefs and they strive to live their lives in accordance with those beliefs.
Lots of people have lots of deeply held beliefs, like for instance the sincere and deeply held belief that black people are genetically inferior to whites and should not be permitted to eat in the same establishments or allowed in the same hotels. If I'm "disparaging" to bigots it's because bigots have been responsible for some of the worst ugliness and inhumanity that man has ever inflicted on his fellow man. There is zero justification for tolerating bigots in an enlightened and civilized world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The lingusitic gymnastics that bigots go through to try to claim that they're not bigots is pretty amazing. "He's not a homophobe, he just thinks that gay people getting equal rights is wrong! You're such a meany to put that label on him when he just wants to deny gay people basic civil rights!"
He does it cordially, too, don't forget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
You do seem to believe that the government should compel behavior in conflict with their values. I don't.
Once again, any system of laws necessarily "compels behavior", and laws are necessary for the functioning and the very existence of civilized society. But governments don't have "values"; people do. Democratic governments are the agents and the servants of the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
I don't want the government choosing.
Your extreme paranoia of government, which comes up in almost every single post, is duly noted. Some of us see government as the bedrock of civilization.
  #308  
Old 06-12-2018, 08:39 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Lots of people have lots of deeply held beliefs, like for instance the sincere and deeply held belief that black people are genetically inferior to whites and should not be permitted to eat in the same establishments or allowed in the same hotels.
Bolding mine. It's so convenient when you forget to mention that this was compelled behavior by - yes, you guessed it - governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Your extreme paranoia of government, which comes up in almost every single post, is duly noted. Some of us see government as the bedrock of civilization.
I have no paranoia of government. I simply don't believe this is a government function.

You're under this delusion that whatever progress we've made since the end of the Jim Crow era has do do with some huge government effort. I see an evolving society and preventing governments from enacting laws that compel discriminatory behavior.
  #309  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:57 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
Bolding mine. It's so convenient when you forget to mention that this was compelled behavior by - yes, you guessed it - governments.
No, I haven't forgotten anything. This is the most amazing backwards logic that I've come across in a very long time. Is it your contention that local governments in the American south were responsible for racism? That they just appeared out of nowhere and for some unknown reason institutionalized racism in the south? Were the former Confederate states in the 19th century American south a happily fair and egalitarian society for all the resident black people until the danged Evil Government came along and ruined it all with Jim Crow laws? No? Then your attempt to blame "government" for racism is worthless and deceptive. The actual proactive role of government here with regard to racism was largely non-existent until 1964, at which time its effect was to start the long process of trying to counteract deeply entrenched barbaric racism, especially in the south, with guarantees of equal human rights for all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
I have no paranoia of government. I simply don't believe this is a government function.
So you have no paranoia of government, you just believe government shouldn't be allowed to do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
You're under this delusion that whatever progress we've made since the end of the Jim Crow era has do do with some huge government effort. I see an evolving society and preventing governments from enacting laws that compel discriminatory behavior.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the one in 1968, or the massive efforts to enforce it in bigoted backwaters, and perhaps you haven't heard of affirmative action and a plethora of government programs to help disadvantaged minorities get a leg up in the world, and to try to educate the public and move society forward. Society doesn't necessary evolve spontaneously -- sometimes government leadership is helpful or necessary, and sometimes without leadership it evolves in unproductive ways. But social leadership can never be good in your book, because it involves the government doing things, and that shouldn't be allowed.
  #310  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:38 AM
Uzi Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Sure, but it's not really relevant unless you're trying to argue that an employer has no business making you do anything that the law doesn't explicitly require you to do. In which case, ho-lee shit, there ain't gonna be a lot of work getting done.
It is very difficult to discuss this when you leave out very pertinent points I made about what you JD says, what company policy says, etc.

Quote:
My point, which you seem to be not seeing, is that what underlies "following the law" about equal rights for black people and, as you put it, "supporting the cause" of equal rights for LGBT people is exactly the same principle.
Nope. If the law says that all people are equal then you essentially have to treat them that way. Stop acting like I haven't agreed to this. If you look at some of the IBM links I posted earlier, they put out a statement supporting legislation against human trafficking. I applaud them on such a controversial subject. That being said, if I was an IBM employee I would not expect to be told to go stand a picket line at the UN or similar activity supporting their statement. I would expect to be asked to do so and expect no penalty if I said no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The lingusitic gymnastics that bigots go through to try to claim that they're not bigots is pretty amazing. "He's not a homophobe, he just thinks that gay people getting equal rights is wrong! You're such a meany to put that label on him when he just wants to deny gay people basic civil rights!"
Are you sure he is the one saying equal rights is wrong or just parroting what he thinks his god wants him to do? He may have no issue with gay people and want to serve all his customers, but who is he to say that god is wrong or even question him? And are not religious types a protected group?
  #311  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:00 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
He views designing and creating cakes as part of the celebration of marriage (you may not). He believes same-sex marriage is wrong. He declined to participate (but did tell them he'd sell them anything in the shop).
The belief shown in bolded statement alone shows that he is homophobic. All of the other verbal dancing is irrelevant to the fact that he believes gay people don't deserve civil rights. It's really that simple.

Quote:
Some time ago we reached the tipping point that disapproval of any action or behavior of some subset of our society earns you the sobriquet [subseta]phobe. It's simply not possible to have a set of values, principles to mediate the inevitable conflicts, and then live your life by them.
No, your claim is completely and absurdly false. It's disapproval of people's basic right to exist, or of them having things like civil rights including things like marriage and the right to participate in general commerce. It's not possible to have a set of values that includes something like 'black people aren't allowed at my lunch counter' or 'gay people shouldn't be afforded civil rights', and not be considered a bigot, but it's the specific bigotry in your 'values' that is the problem, not having values in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post
Are you sure he is the one saying equal rights is wrong or just parroting what he thinks his god wants him to do? He may have no issue with gay people and want to serve all his customers, but who is he to say that god is wrong or even question him? And are not religious types a protected group?
Yes, he is clearly the one saying that equal rights is wrong. Even if you're 'parroting' something that someone else said, you are still saying whatever statement it is that you are 'parroting', that's what the word means. The contention that 'he doesn't actually have a problem with gay people, he just believes that an invisible being told him he has to act like he has a problem with gay people' is flat-out stupid and nonsensical.

Last edited by Bone; 06-15-2018 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tags
  #312  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:19 AM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
No, I haven't forgotten anything. This is the most amazing backwards logic that I've come across in a very long time. Is it your contention that local governments in the American south were responsible for racism? That they just appeared out of nowhere and for some unknown reason institutionalized racism in the south? Were the former Confederate states in the 19th century American south a happily fair and egalitarian society for all the resident black people until the danged Evil Government came along and ruined it all with Jim Crow laws? No? Then your attempt to blame "government" for racism is worthless and deceptive. The actual proactive role of government here with regard to racism was largely non-existent until 1964, at which time its effect was to start the long process of trying to counteract deeply entrenched barbaric racism, especially in the south, with guarantees of equal human rights for all.
Large segments of the society were racist and used the power of government to compel the behavior they desired. The courts were complicit. At the national level, the Brown decision started the process of dismantling the various schemes that had been implemented in many areas of the country.

Prior to that, there were many efforts to overturn these state laws but the Supreme Court turned them back when they got that far. Many states in the North acted unilaterally but were hamstrung to some degree by the Supreme Court.

Also, there are still racists. They just can't use the government to compel others to behave in the manner they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
So you have no paranoia of government, you just believe government shouldn't be allowed to do anything.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the one in 1968, or the massive efforts to enforce it in bigoted backwaters, and perhaps you haven't heard of affirmative action and a plethora of government programs to help disadvantaged minorities get a leg up in the world, and to try to educate the public and move society forward. Society doesn't necessary evolve spontaneously -- sometimes government leadership is helpful or necessary, and sometimes without leadership it evolves in unproductive ways. But social leadership can never be good in your book, because it involves the government doing things, and that shouldn't be allowed.
So you think a bunch of politicians, with their heightened moral sensibilities, scheme to get elected under false colors so they can unleash the plans that they and their fathers and their fathers' fathers have been working on for centuries - no, millennia.

I think we grow as people and drag the government behind us.
  #313  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:27 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,193
So - to answer the OP's thread title in one word - are Americans "kinda forced" to support LGBT standpoints, yes or no?
  #314  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:28 AM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
I think we grow as people and drag the government behind us.
Glad you can finally acknowledge that we've grown as a people and now we want to enshrine in the government that the LGBTQ community cannot be descriminated against. Well, glad that's resolved.
  #315  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:12 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Glad you can finally acknowledge that we've grown as a people and now we want to enshrine in the government that the LGBTQ community cannot be descriminated against. Well, glad that's resolved.
Exactly, compel other's behaviors just as the racists did!
  #316  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:57 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
Exactly, compel other's behaviors just as the racists did!
Will no one think of the poor bigots??
  #317  
Old 06-13-2018, 04:22 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
Exactly, compel other's behaviors just as the racists did!
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You explicitly said that with respect to racism, we as a people grew up past it and dragged the government along. So you're ok with people getting over racism and dragging the government along with it, but not ok with people getting over homosexuality and dragging the government along with it? Or are you saying that anti-racism laws should never have been enshrined in the government at all? Your argument seems pretty inconsistent and doesn't make a lot of sense.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 06-13-2018 at 04:23 PM.
  #318  
Old 06-13-2018, 05:09 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So - to answer the OP's thread title in one word - are Americans "kinda forced" to support LGBT standpoints, yes or no?
To answer in lots more than one word, if we are all being forced to support LGBT standpoints, that force is far from universally effective.

So "yes" to "there's some amount of social pressure that encourages people to be decent to each other".

And "no" to "that pressure actually forces people to do so."

It's that "kinda" that muddles things up. Gravity kinda forces me to stay firmly on the ground, but I can still jump, and given the right equipment, fly.
  #319  
Old 06-13-2018, 05:30 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You explicitly said that with respect to racism, we as a people grew up past it and dragged the government along. So you're ok with people getting over racism and dragging the government along with it, but not ok with people getting over homosexuality and dragging the government along with it? Or are you saying that anti-racism laws should never have been enshrined in the government at all? Your argument seems pretty inconsistent and doesn't make a lot of sense.
We decided that we would no longer tolerate local and state governments enacting laws that compelled discriminatory behavior. If you could point out some locality that has laws in effect that compel discrimination against homosexuality (and there have been some in the recent past), then, hopefully, someone's got a plan to violate that law in a controlled fashion so that it can make its way through the legal system to be ruled unconstitutional, overturned, sent back to the legislature, whatever.

I simply believe that the government should not compel people to perform services that conflict with their religious beliefs and the government should not compel speech or expression by someone.
  #320  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:15 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So - to answer the OP's thread title in one word - are Americans "kinda forced" to support LGBT standpoints, yes or no?
No. The answer is "no". The notion of "kinda forced" conflates this with the fact that ever since the modern civil rights era, it's been getting tougher for bigots to practice their bigotry. They have become increasingly frustrated with laws and changing social mores that consider the groups they wish to discriminate against to be human beings with human rights. Why, it's getting to the point that a bigot can hardly refuse to do business with these groups or refuse to be in their presence, or disparage them with traditional slurs, without being regarded as a bigot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
I simply believe that the government should not compel people to perform services that conflict with their religious beliefs and the government should not compel speech or expression by someone.
At the risk of repeating myself, you appear to be believe that government should not be allowed to do anything, and especially not get involved in social issues like the guarantee of basic human rights.

Over in post #263 you rail about "government compelled behavior" and "thought crimes", and how "only the government can compel discrimination". In #306 you opine on the denial of other people's equal rights: "I don't want the government choosing."

Not surprisingly, these are all libertarian code words expressing, not any principle of human rights or justice, but a blanket condemnation of government, the extremist version of the libertarian delusion that society will be just fine without the government enforcing basic human rights and basic justice and equality. But the reality is that these foundational values are far too important to leave to some vague hope that maybe a lawless society will be just fine, particularly since it never has been and never will be. If there's one thing we can learn from history it's our very long record of prejudice and intolerance against those who are different, one of our more ignoble reptilian tendencies that goes far back to pre-history. The difference in civilization is that societies exist under government and the rule of law, not a lawless free-for-all.
  #321  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:33 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
We decided that we would no longer tolerate local and state governments enacting laws that compelled discriminatory behavior. If you could point out some locality that has laws in effect that compel discrimination against homosexuality (and there have been some in the recent past), then, hopefully, someone's got a plan to violate that law in a controlled fashion so that it can make its way through the legal system to be ruled unconstitutional, overturned, sent back to the legislature, whatever.

I simply believe that the government should not compel people to perform services that conflict with their religious beliefs and the government should not compel speech or expression by someone.
At least I understand your position now. I suspect this will have to be a case of agree to disagree. I believe in the old adage "Your right to freely swing your fist ends at my nose." I have no problem with a person exercising their right to religion, but if in the exercising of those rights they discriminate against others, that is a step too far. Or to put it another way, I don't believe anybody has the right to "punch somebody in the nose" with their religion. If a religion cannot co-exist as we as a people grow up, to use your words, then it must stand aside. Society cannot be held back by ancient scriptures and cultural practices. The rights for people to live free from being punched in the nose by people who simply cannot grow up and recognize their fundamentals rights are the ones who must give way to those of us who can. And ultimately, that means by force of law, because they certainly won't on their own.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 06-13-2018 at 07:33 PM.
  #322  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:54 PM
Uzi Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Yes, he is clearly the one saying that equal rights is wrong. Even if you're 'parroting' something that someone else said, you are still saying whatever statement it is that you are 'parroting', that's what the word means. The contention that 'he doesn't actually have a problem with gay people, he just believes that an invisible being told him he has to act like he has a problem with gay people' is flat-out stupid and nonsensical.
His god through his book says gays are bad. If he doesn't follow what his god says he goes to hell. Yet, your contention is that regardless of what his god says he just hates gays. He should just suck it up and stick two dudes on the top of the cake and go to hell?

Last edited by Bone; 06-15-2018 at 05:48 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tags
  #323  
Old 06-13-2018, 09:25 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post

His god through his book says gays are bad. If he doesn't follow what his god says he goes to hell. Yet, your contention is that regardless of what his god says he just hates gays. He should just suck it up and stick two dudes on the top of the cake and go to hell?
Your quote seems to have got a bit mangled there so I'm not sure who you're replying to, but I don't think the Bible has much to say about wedding cakes or sticking little statuettes on top of them. If the baker is truly worried about the fate of his immortal soul, he had better get with the program, and understand that the guy requesting the gay wedding cake is an abomination in the eyes of God and must be put to death (cite: "Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.").

With that marvelous edict in mind, I'm curious how you reconcile religious belief with the mores of 21st century civilization.

Last edited by wolfpup; 06-13-2018 at 09:25 PM.
  #324  
Old 06-14-2018, 09:25 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post

His god through his book says gays are bad. If he doesn't follow what his god says he goes to hell. Yet, your contention is that regardless of what his god says he just hates gays. He should just suck it up and stick two dudes on the top of the cake and go to hell?
Are you saying that it is justified to hate someone because you read it in a book somewhere that thousands of years ago, someone said that god said that gays are bad?

Is there no personal ownership in that belief?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-14-2018 at 09:25 AM. Reason: fixed quote
  #325  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:53 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post
His god through his book says gays are bad. If he doesn't follow what his god says he goes to hell. Yet, your contention is that regardless of what his god says he just hates gays. He should just suck it up and stick two dudes on the top of the cake and go to hell?
As mind reading technology doesn't exist, I judge people based on their actions. If you consistently act like a bigoted jackass, I'm going to say that you are in fact a bigot. The fact that you justify your bigotry with 'god told me to' isn't relevant in the least. Same thing with applying laws; if you murder a pagan citing "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," that doesn't mean you avoid a conviction for murder.

Further, if I was to examine the claim that "his god through his book says gays are bad" to exonerate him, I could not simply accept it at face value. I would instead need to examine the book, and we start to see gross inconsistencies in his position. Why does he choose the 'no homo' instruction, but not the 'no mixed fabrics' one - presumably he doesn't mind making a cake for someone planning to wear a poly-cotton blend at the wedding, right? Why does he ignore that his god later told him that Leviticus no longer applies? It's pretty obvious with even a light examination that he doesn't actually act in a manner consistent with the 'god told me' line.

I think he should go to hell for the blasphemy of claiming that he can pick and choose which commands from god to follow and which he can just ignore. As Wolfpup pointed out, by refusing to serve them instead of putting them to death our baker is disobeying his god, so he's going to hell anyway.

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-14-2018 at 02:54 PM.
  #326  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:06 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
At least I understand your position now. I suspect this will have to be a case of agree to disagree. I believe in the old adage "Your right to freely swing your fist ends at my nose." I have no problem with a person exercising their right to religion, but if in the exercising of those rights they discriminate against others, that is a step too far. Or to put it another way, I don't believe anybody has the right to "punch somebody in the nose" with their religion. If a religion cannot co-exist as we as a people grow up, to use your words, then it must stand aside. Society cannot be held back by ancient scriptures and cultural practices. The rights for people to live free from being punched in the nose by people who simply cannot grow up and recognize their fundamentals rights are the ones who must give way to those of us who can. And ultimately, that means by force of law, because they certainly won't on their own.
I don't see what's hard to understand about it being a topic with room for reasonable disagreement to begin with. What's the 'fist' and what's the 'face' are subject to definition on which reasonable people can disagree, as well as what factors make it desirable for society to use the last resort (it should at least be the last resort) of state compulsion against people to get them to act as some or even the majority wish.

As to where the beliefs come from, I think there's a persistent problem here which probably needs a name. The assumption we're sitting around talking about how to design a society when there's never been one. Only in this artificial framework can the religious tradition of the entire society for centuries (Judeo-Christian, applies to Islam also) be treated as equivalent to 'well what I invent a religion that says [any arbitrary] X'. One might not want there to be any traditional religious component in society. That's OK as an aspiration, but for now there is as there always has been. The concept of free exercise of religion under US constitutional law wouldn't need a name if it was exactly the same as one's general right to expression, privacy, etc. or if religious belief was whatever anyone said it was starting yesterday rather than being limited to at least somewhat long running and deeply embedded traditions. So again it's kind of fake incredulity that respect for religious belief would have any influence on anything. Although it doesn't dictate everything. It is just one factor, that doesn't equal zero, in constitutional law.

Similarly for instant theology where one looks up the common English translation of Leviticus 20:13 then declares that a Christian should believe they are going to hell if they don't kill gays. Obviously that's partly a derisive joke mocking other people's beliefs, but it's pretty ridiculous all around. Again we didn't start yesterday but with centuries of theology about the non-simple relationship between Old Testament and New Testament provisions in Christianity; Judaism and Islam have their own evolving interpretations of their partly overlapping texts. And there are questions of the translation and context of the OT sayings (as well as NT ones too like Paul's negative references to homosexuality). There's always room for criticizing particular religious interpretations or all religion, but in fact it's well within the Christian mainstream (which I guess everyone besides kidding around actually knows) to just respectfully decline to participate in a same sex marriage ceremony. Again the issue is what compelling reason to use state coercion against that, without phony hypotheticals. There might be such an argument based on offsetting responsibilities a person takes on hanging out a shingle as a business open to the public. But 'doesn't Christianity say kill homosexuals anyway?' is non-serious.

On an issue who real seriousness on the pro-state coercion side isn't totally obvious to begin with, if it has to basically seek out exceptional business owners who decline to provide a very narrow range of services other business owners will readily provide. The compelling societal need to apply state coercion isn't well answered IMO in this case, and dubious slippery slope arguments don't get there either. And if a broader USSC decision in favor of such business owners were to come it would probably turn in part on that issue of narrow services and small scale, besides the issue of expressive content of the narrow services.

Last edited by Corry El; 06-14-2018 at 05:10 PM.
  #327  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:23 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post

His god through his book says gays are bad. If he doesn't follow what his god says he goes to hell. Yet, your contention is that regardless of what his god says he just hates gays. He should just suck it up and stick two dudes on the top of the cake and go to hell?
No, not exactly. Instead, he and his pastor need to admit that either God was wrong or God's messenger was wrong or God was never there. When God's message is wrong, then God's message gets thrown out.

We have no problem doing this with the Taliban. Just we have our own "Taliban-style Christians" (including cake baker man) and it's time to deal with them in the same way.

Last edited by DavidwithanR; 06-14-2018 at 06:24 PM. Reason: fixed quote marker
  #328  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:26 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
I don't see what's hard to understand about it being a topic with room for reasonable disagreement to begin with. What's the 'fist' and what's the 'face' are subject to definition on which reasonable people can disagree, as well as what factors make it desirable for society to use the last resort (it should at least be the last resort) of state compulsion against people to get them to act as some or even the majority wish.
Room for reasonable disagreement on exactly what? Please be specific.
  #329  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:09 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
...it's well within the Christian mainstream (which I guess everyone besides kidding around actually knows) to just respectfully decline to participate in a same sex marriage ceremony...
I don't believe you have effectively argued that a caterer is participating in any ceremony.

(That's leaving aside the fact that not all marriages are Christian ceremonies anyway. What harm could possibly accrue to a non-bigoted Christian to share in a civil ceremony that does not purport to be a religious marriage? The idea that all marriages are marriages before God is very much NOT within the Christian mainstream.)
.
  #330  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:23 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I don't believe you have effectively argued that a caterer is participating in any ceremony.

(That's leaving aside the fact that not all marriages are Christian ceremonies anyway. What harm could possibly accrue to a non-bigoted Christian to share in a civil ceremony that does not purport to be a religious marriage? The idea that all marriages are marriages before God is very much NOT within the Christian mainstream.)
.
Also, a wedding cake is for the reception, not for the ceremony. It's not like the caterer witnesses the vows of every couple who gets married.

And - definitely not a stupid question in this context - does the same caterer take the same care to avoid serving Jews, or (considering how he's likely to feel about it) Catholics?
  #331  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:39 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,744
And the baker typically doesn’t go to the wedding or reception as part of his professional responsibility. In fact, unless someone were to volunteer the information, there’s no reason for the baker to know anything about the happy couple, including their orientation and gender. Which makes me think it’s none of his business.

And I have a hard time taking a cake seriously as art because it gets cut up and eaten during the ceremony. It’s food. Expensive, pretty and elaborately decorated food - but still food.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 06-14-2018 at 08:39 PM.
  #332  
Old 06-14-2018, 10:39 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Similarly for instant theology where one looks up the common English translation of Leviticus 20:13 then declares that a Christian should believe they are going to hell if they don't kill gays. Obviously that's partly a derisive joke mocking other people's beliefs, but it's pretty ridiculous all around. Again we didn't start yesterday but with centuries of theology about the non-simple relationship between Old Testament and New Testament provisions in Christianity; Judaism and Islam have their own evolving interpretations of their partly overlapping texts.
It's not ridiculous at all. If your claim is that 'god told me to do X through this book, if I don't do it then I'm going to Hell', then my going to the text of the book to examine what god said to you is perfectly reasonable. When it turns out that you're actually picking and choosing which parts of the book to follow and that the book doesn't actually say anything remotely like 'if you bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're going to hell', it completely demolishes the claim that you're simply a pawn following the dictates of a higher power and that you shouldn't be held responsible for doing what you say the invisible man told you to do.

The fact that there are centuries of tradition behind picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to choose doesn't change that at all. Either literally follow what's actually in the Bible, or admit that what you follow is based on your own mind, and not simply dictated by a higher power.

Quote:
There might be such an argument based on offsetting responsibilities a person takes on hanging out a shingle as a business open to the public. But 'doesn't Christianity say kill homosexuals anyway?' is non-serious.
It's completely serious. If you claim that you can't be held responsible for your disgusting, bigoted stance because the Bible tells you to hold it, then it's perfectly reasonable for us to look to what the Bible says. It's hilarious to me how badly it bothers people trying to hide behind religion for people to actually read their own holy book.
  #333  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:37 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Also, a wedding cake is for the reception, not for the ceremony. It's not like the caterer witnesses the vows of every couple who gets married.

And - definitely not a stupid question in this context - does the same caterer take the same care to avoid serving Jews, or (considering how he's likely to feel about it) Catholics?
Often times, they are not even held in the same building at all. When I was working in hotels, we did tons of wedding receptions, but no weddings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's not ridiculous at all. If your claim is that 'god told me to do X through this book, if I don't do it then I'm going to Hell', then my going to the text of the book to examine what god said to you is perfectly reasonable. When it turns out that you're actually picking and choosing which parts of the book to follow and that the book doesn't actually say anything remotely like 'if you bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're going to hell', it completely demolishes the claim that you're simply a pawn following the dictates of a higher power and that you shouldn't be held responsible for doing what you say the invisible man told you to do.

The fact that there are centuries of tradition behind picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to choose doesn't change that at all. Either literally follow what's actually in the Bible, or admit that what you follow is based on your own mind, and not simply dictated by a higher power.



It's completely serious. If you claim that you can't be held responsible for your disgusting, bigoted stance because the Bible tells you to hold it, then it's perfectly reasonable for us to look to what the Bible says. It's hilarious to me how badly it bothers people trying to hide behind religion for people to actually read their own holy book.
Not defending the notion that bronze age superstitions are a reasonable grounds for justifying discrimination here, but it should be noted that most people don't follow what is in their bible, most of them haven't even read it past a few favorite passages, but instead, follow what some person that they have decided speaks for god tells them what the bible tells them to do.

It does seem a bit far fetched, but that is their defense that they don't follow what is actually written in the bible, but instead, only follow the parts of the bible that match their preferences. Due to the fairly wide latitude that is given to anything that is claimed to be religious in nature, they get away with it more often than not.
  #334  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:55 PM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: 2 hours from somewhere
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
....
Oh, true that. It was true when conservative Christians pushed legislation to ban gays from teaching in public schools. It was true when conservative Christians wrote laws preventing gays from adopting. It was true when conservative Christians passed ban after ban on gay marriage, when it was already illegal at the federal level, to send a message to people like me, through the apparatus of the state, that we aren't wanted. Queer identity in general has been shaped in large part by decades of overwhelming and incessant hostility from the Christian right. They shoveled all this bullshit hate legislation at us for decades, and now they're hollering over a law that says they have to bake fucking cake. This is why I have so little patience for people on the right complaining about "identity politics." Conservatives never had a problem with identity politics until they started losing, now they want to pretend like it's something the left invented just to be a dick to them.
So, because people of a certain group in the past have done bad things, it is acceptable to do the same bad things to the people in that group now. Individuals in a group have done things you don't like, so all people in the group deserve punishment.

They did it to us, so we should do it to them.

Revenge. Because that never causes backlash and makes things worse.
  #335  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:59 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
So, because people of a certain group in the past have done bad things, it is acceptable to do the same bad things to the people in that group now. Individuals in a group have done things you don't like, so all people in the group deserve punishment.

They did it to us, so we should do it to them.

Revenge. Because that never causes backlash and makes things worse.
You consider being expected to treat people with equity and respect to be a bad thing that is levied as a punishment toward bigots?
  #336  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:18 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 4,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
So, because people of a certain group in the past have done bad things, it is acceptable to do the same bad things to the people in that group now. Individuals in a group have done things you don't like, so all people in the group deserve punishment.

They did it to us, so we should do it to them.
Sorry, I was unaware the Gays were refusing to let Straights get married, and Blacks were forcing Whites to sit at the back of the bus. I for one am appalled by such actions and call for it to stop immediately.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 06-15-2018 at 01:19 PM.
  #337  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:21 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
So, because people of a certain group in the past have done bad things, it is acceptable to do the same bad things to the people in that group now. Individuals in a group have done things you don't like, so all people in the group deserve punishment.
I'm sorry, "the same bad things?" Where is the push by LGBT rights groups to strip Christian families of their children? Where is the push by by queers to ban Christian marriage? Where have we tried to keep Christians out of schools? Have we ever tried to ban Christians for the Boy Scouts? Has any prominent gay rights proponent ever argued that God devastated a city because they had too many Christians living in it? Have we sent missionaries to Africa, instructing their governments on how to more effectively oppress Christians? How many Christians have ended up in a hospital because a bunch of queers caught them walking out of a Church?

Christians like yourself have attacked openly gay people relentlessly, without pity or mercy or compassion, for fucking decades. Gay rights protections aren't about attacking you, they are about protecting us from you. Your attempt to equate the two in any measure is fucking nauseating, but utterly unsurprising, given the position you're attempting to advocate in this thread.

Now, having shot down your attempt to distract from the actual point of my last post, I'll restate it here, again, so no one is fooled by your attempted misdirection:

"Identity politics" were an invention of the right. Republicans spent decades crafting an "us versus them" narrative, where "us" was "Good Christian Americans," and "them" was "godless fags who want to prey on your children." That's precisely where gay identity politics started - when we realized that our survival depended on not letting people like you define us in the public sphere.
  #338  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:30 PM
Sicks Ate Sicks Ate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: KS, US
Posts: 5,999
/epicsmackdown
  #339  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:54 PM
Bee Mulk Bee Mulk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 3
Despite very high-rates of mostly gay-caused syphilis in USA and Canada we are being forced to accept LGBT standpoints. New here.
  #340  
Old 06-15-2018, 03:28 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bee Mulk View Post
Despite very high-rates of mostly gay-caused syphilis in USA and Canada we are being forced to accept LGBT standpoints. New here.
We can tell. And I'm sure you have actual cites proving that you a) have high rates of syphilis and b) they are caused by "gays".

Last edited by jayjay; 06-15-2018 at 03:29 PM.
  #341  
Old 06-15-2018, 03:29 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bee Mulk View Post
Despite very high-rates of mostly gay-caused syphilis in USA and Canada we are being forced to accept LGBT standpoints. New here.
A trend the government said is linked to inadequate testing among people stymied by homophobia and limited access to health care.

Sounds like it's rising because certain people DON'T accept LGBT standpoints. Welcome, and good luck.
  #342  
Old 06-15-2018, 03:37 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
(snipped)
Just we have our own "Taliban-style Christians" (including cake baker man) and it's time to deal with them in the same way.

Sometimes it looks like one has to come up with extreme examples to show the opposing side as crazy.
Then, they just lob you this ball for the walk-off grand slam in Game 7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's not ridiculous at all. If your claim is that 'god told me to do X through this book, if I don't do it then I'm going to Hell', then my going to the text of the book to examine what god said to you is perfectly reasonable. When it turns out that you're actually picking and choosing which parts of the book to follow and that the book doesn't actually say anything remotely like 'if you bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're going to hell', it completely demolishes the claim that you're simply a pawn following the dictates of a higher power and that you shouldn't be held responsible for doing what you say the invisible man told you to do.

The fact that there are centuries of tradition behind picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to choose doesn't change that at all. Either literally follow what's actually in the Bible, or admit that what you follow is based on your own mind, and not simply dictated by a higher power.

It's completely serious. If you claim that you can't be held responsible for your disgusting, bigoted stance because the Bible tells you to hold it, then it's perfectly reasonable for us to look to what the Bible says. It's hilarious to me how badly it bothers people trying to hide behind religion for people to actually read their own holy book.

At least us Catholics the stuff is very simple. Acts 15 does away with any limitation of the participation of non-Jews. Also, since Jewish priesthood was gone, all the powers that it carried were also gone. Gays have not been killed with the provisos of Levithicus since before Christ.
It's always said, and it's true, no one is as literalist as a non-Christian.
  #343  
Old 06-15-2018, 03:53 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,112
In case anyone missed the latest news from Canada, the progress of society against religious nuttery took another step forward with a Supreme Court ruling against a religious college that sought to discriminate against the LGBT community in a proposed new law school, by making students sign a "covenant" that prohibited anything except heterosexual sex, and only within marriage. The law societies of Ontario and BC stated that because of this discrimination, they would not accredit graduates of that law school, and the conflict between the law societies and the college made its way up to the Supreme Court.

Let the whining and whinging begin by those who feel that the law societies should "stick to their business" and not get involved in religious matters. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled (in a strong 7-2 majority ruling) that the law societies were within their rights because the harm of such discrimination justified reasonable limitations on the Christian college's religious freedoms (last sentence emphasis mine). From what I understand from a news report I heard about this, it was also a notable ruling for being the first time the Court used the term "LGBT", though it has made notable rulings before on matters like gay marriage rights.
A B.C. Christian university has lost its legal battle over accreditation for a planned new law school, with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling today saying it's "proportionate and reasonable" to limit religious rights in order to ensure open access for LGBT students.

In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the majority of justices found the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario have the power to refuse accreditation based on Trinity Western University's so-called community covenant. The mandatory covenant binds students to a strict code of conduct that includes abstinence from sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

The majority judgment said the covenant would deter LGBT students from attending the proposed law school, and those who did attend would be at risk of significant harm. It found the public interest of the law profession gives it the right to promote equality by ensuring equal access, support diversity within the bar and prevent harm to LGBT students.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trin...sion-1.4707240
  #344  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:00 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post

At least us Catholics the stuff is very simple. Acts 15 does away with any limitation of the participation of non-Jews. Also, since Jewish priesthood was gone, all the powers that it carried were also gone. Gays have not been killed with the provisos of Levithicus since before Christ.
It's always said, and it's true, no one is as literalist as a non-Christian.
Except that people that use leviticus to justify their discrimination against homosexuals. So, which is it? Does it do away with the laws against homoseuxality, or does it not? You want to have it both ways.
  #345  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:10 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post

At least us Catholics the stuff is very simple. Acts 15 does away with any limitation of the participation of non-Jews. Also, since Jewish priesthood was gone, all the powers that it carried were also gone. Gays have not been killed with the provisos of Levithicus since before Christ.
It's always said, and it's true, no one is as literalist as a non-Christian.
So, you're saying it's very simple for Catholics, you just make up whatever you want and then say God told it to you? That the actual reason you're against gay marriage is you personally don't like it?
  #346  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:20 PM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: 2 hours from somewhere
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Except that people that use leviticus to justify their discrimination against homosexuals. So, which is it? Does it do away with the laws against homoseuxality, or does it not? You want to have it both ways.
Actually, 1 Corinthians tells us that homosexuals are will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so we know they need to repent.
  #347  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:23 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Actually, 1 Corinthians tells us that homosexuals are will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so we know they need to repent.
Does it mention anything about those that bake them cakes will not inherit the Kingdom of God by any chance?
  #348  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:35 PM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: 2 hours from somewhere
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post

"Identity politics" were an invention of the right. Republicans spent decades crafting an "us versus them" narrative, where "us" was "Good Christian Americans," and "them" was "godless fags who want to prey on your children." That's precisely where gay identity politics started - when we realized that our survival depended on not letting people like you define us in the public sphere.
So Republicans invented it, but Marxists picked up the torch and ran with it, wanting to create a new society based on identity politics instead of ending it. White men were unfairly privileged and Asians are too successful in school, so let's build a world in which they are given disadvantages while others get pushed up. Let's create a society in which only the most vocal groups get to decide what beliefs are acceptable and anyone who doesn't heartily approve must be driven out of society. Let's trade the idea of equality of opportunity for the ideal of equity with the fantasy that if there is equality of outcome for everyone, everyone will be equally happy.
As far as your perception of how ALL Christians treated all homosexuals. I can only pray that you will actually meet some real Christians.
  #349  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:36 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Actually, 1 Corinthians tells us that homosexuals are will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so we know they need to repent.
Maybe we don't WANT to inherit your imaginary kingdom.
  #350  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:43 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
So Republicans invented it, but Marxists picked up the torch and ran with it
Marxists?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017