Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #701  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:50 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post

I think that is a wild misinterpretation. The point of the remark appears to me that closing your shop DOESN'T equal death. Hence the apostles, who were put to death, made a much bigger sacrifice.

Compare changing careers to that ultimate sacrifice. No one is indicating that Christians should be put to death. Perhaps they should, instead, gain a sense of perspective, and realize that.
You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.

Last edited by Bone; 02-11-2018 at 02:06 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
  #702  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:53 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Not at all. They are not attacking the statute. They are attacking the application of that statute when it infringes on someone's 1st. Amendment rights.

You're not suggesting that a Superior Court judge in California can not rely on the US Constitution to make a ruling?
Like I said, they are attacking the application of that statue when they don't want it to apply to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.
Yes, they will... And they will read the actual words that were written, and they will read your response that indicates that you did not read the words that were written.

Last edited by Bone; 02-11-2018 at 02:06 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
  #703  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:54 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.
Yes, I too know what she wrote. I still believe you are misinterpreting, as she said if closing your business is too great a sacrifice, consider those who committed a much larger sacrifice. That is in no way an invitation to imitate, merely reflect.

Last edited by Bone; 02-11-2018 at 02:07 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
  #704  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:02 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post

Yes, I too know what she wrote. I still believe you are misinterpreting, as she said if closing your business is too great a sacrifice, consider those who committed a much larger sacrifice. That is in no way an invitation to imitate, merely reflect.
Really.

Suppose someone said or wrote the following to you.

Sample:

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don't you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

End Sample.

You know perfectly well what that imagery means, what it's meant to evoke in you, and what it's meant to evoke among those who side with the position of your interlocutor.

It's the implied expression of the wish for the death of another. A violent death. An horrific death.

You don't believe it?

Try sending such language to a family member in your greeting card over the holidays.

See what kind of a response you get.

It won't be a festive response, I'll guarantee you that.

Last edited by Bone; 02-11-2018 at 02:07 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
  #705  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:04 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

Really.

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don't you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.
Am I to believe you are suggesting that I die? Really? That is your intent? I wouldn't read it that way, but apparently you would.

Last edited by raventhief; 02-11-2018 at 01:06 PM.
  #706  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:10 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
Really.

Suppose someone said or wrote the following to you.

Sample:

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don't you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

End Sample.

You know perfectly well what that imagery means, what it's meant to evoke in you, and what it's meant to evoke among those who side with the position of your interlocutor.

It's the implied expression of the wish for the death of another. A violent death. An horrific death.

You don't believe it?

Try sending such language to a family member in your greeting card over the holidays.

See what kind of a response you get.

It won't be a festive response, I'll guarantee you that.
Do you react so strongly to any suggestion that someone else may have gone through a greater misfortune than yourself?

"Children are starving in xxxxx, so clean your plate."

"Oh my god how dare you wish starvation and death on me!"
  #707  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:12 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
And please clean up your quotes. It's disconcerting to see your name attached to my words.(and vice versa)

Last edited by raventhief; 02-11-2018 at 01:12 PM.
  #708  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:18 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

Really.

Suppose someone said or wrote the following to you.

Sample:

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don't you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

End Sample.

You know perfectly well what that imagery means, what it's meant to evoke in you, and what it's meant to evoke among those who side with the position of your interlocutor.

It's the implied expression of the wish for the death of another. A violent death. An horrific death.
Yeah, no. I don't think that's at all a reasonable extrapolation from that sentence, nor is it one that the majority of people would arrive at, nor do I think it's an interpretation you'd arrive at yourself if you didn't already have your back up from the combative tone of the thread.

Quote:
You don't believe it?

Try sending such language to a family member in your greeting card over the holidays.

See what kind of a response you get.

It won't be a festive response, I'll guarantee you that.
Well, it's not a friendly message, for sure, but "not friendly" isn't "I wish you were dead." Did your mom ever use the, "You don't like your dinner? Think about the starving children in Africa!" line on you? Did you think that meant your mom wanted you to starve to death because of it?
  #709  
Old 02-11-2018, 01:57 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,355
Moderating

Folks - the quote tags have gotten really messed up. Someone left an unclosed quote tag and it has perpetuated itself all through the thread so a bunch of quotes from posters are being misattributed. It's going to take me a bit to clean up but I cant do it now. Please be aware of how you are quoting going forward and I will attempt to correct in a bit.


eta: Ok, cleaned up the quote tags. I made edits to 10 separate posts, so if I messed that up please let me know.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 02-11-2018 at 02:09 PM.
  #710  
Old 02-11-2018, 02:03 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

Nellibly, in message #672, you wrote "If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs."

You invited me - and those who think as I do - ultimately, to imitate the Apostles who were martyred, as an alternative to obeying the law in its present-day form.

You can walk that back all you want.

Your own words indicate that you would be content to see people of faith put to death.

A more anti-American outlook, I never hoped to live to see.

My poor family now entering pre-school. What does the future hold for them? Where can they go to be free, now that, for many Americans, it's Open Season on people of faith.

I hope all who read this recognize this shockingly anti-American attitude, and object to it!
Holy moly. I am not content to see ANYONE put to death. I said Paul and the Apostles were martyrs for their faith. I was raised Catholic and have tremendous admiration for those who have died for their faith. I'm sorry you feel my views are un-American. I believe in separation of church and state, a fundamental American principle. I believe in loving my fellow human being, as Jesus instructed me to do.

I'm not going to subject my faith nor my patriotism to your confused logic and misguided insults. Instead of wasting any more time here, I'm going out to practice my faith.

Peace be unto you.

Last edited by Bone; 02-11-2018 at 02:07 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
  #711  
Old 02-11-2018, 02:25 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Folks - the quote tags have gotten really messed up. Someone left an unclosed quote tag and it has perpetuated itself all through the thread so a bunch of quotes from posters are being misattributed. It's going to take me a bit to clean up but I cant do it now. Please be aware of how you are quoting going forward and I will attempt to correct in a bit.


eta: Ok, cleaned up the quote tags. I made edits to 10 separate posts, so if I messed that up please let me know.

[/moderating]
Thanks! That was bugging me.
  #712  
Old 02-11-2018, 03:56 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
Since the other poster expressed a preference to pass on answering, I will try.
I thank you for the effort.

Quote:
My question would be: would most reasonable American voters and legislators buy the argument that deliberately and gratuitously to subject customers - any customers - to humiliating experiences, was a matter of religious precept or of counsel? (Please see my post #602)
So you've personally decided 'deliberate and gratuitous' acts of humiliation should not be acceptable, I think you are right that most Americans would share your your belief. But we are arguing the absolute right for one to express themselves under the 1st amendment, you are drawing a line for others based on your belief. Being rejected from a business is humiliating, it is clearly deliberate, are you comfortable letting others determine if it rises to the level of 'gratuitous' or would you prefer it only be determined by the principals of your faith?

When living in a country where holy men preach that gay men should be put to death, is it far fetched draw the conclusion they may also believe all services should be refused to gays? Do you think the government should examine the texts of their religion to determine if they've personally come to the correct conclusion?

Even within your own religion there are those that do not believe in refusing service to gay people. There are Catholic owned bakeries that are making cakes for gay weddings. If you as a Catholic decide to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay person, should the government compare your understanding of your faith to others in your faith to come to a conclusion? What if the governments conclusion after reading the Catholic bible is it does not bar you from baking a cake for a gay person?

In the US the court does not question an individuals religious interpretation. You are welcome to come to any interpretation you wish. If there is a question weighing religious expression, the furthest the government delves is to determine if the belief is sincerely held. We don't question the merits of why it is sincerely held. I don't want my government to make theological inquiries into someone's interpretation of their faith.


Quote:
Not going to happen. Maybe the state requires that the shop staff prepare a customer intake form for each wedding or wedding-related order. And the intake form would have a box labelled: "Sex / Bride (Spouse 1)" and "Sex / Groom (Spouse 2). The staffers tick off "Male" "Female" "Other." And the manager of the shop or the MOD will review each form before the agreement is concluded. If the boxes ticked off are other than 1 male and 1 female, the mgr or MOD will call the customer into her office, and privately and politely explain that the establish greatly appreciates his business proprietor is religious, and to accept this particular order would be to go against her religious sensibilities. The interviewer would ask the rejected customer if he understands that this specific order cannot be taken at this establishment, and does he understand why. Does he have any further questions? And that the establishment values his continued business for other occasions and affairs, and would be glad to take these orders. And would the customer be willing to accept the gift of either a freshly baked loaf of bread or an especially terrific pie?

So, no after the fact discoveries that the event being celebrated is a same-sex union.
You've questioned government overreach but your own proposal doesn't seem completely ridiculous to you? You think the government should dictate forms for bakers to fill out? Should these forms only be required for bakers that wish to discriminate or all bakers? Would requiring only bigoted bakers to implement additional forms be discrimination? Will every service in the country have to implement similar forms to accommodate their beliefs? A mechanic or car salesman who doesn't believe women should drive, should they implement forms so they are not duped into serving women?

Our country has managed to balance the needs of protected class and religious beliefs for decades. Businesses have for the most part been able to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and customers for years. But now when sexuality is elevated to receive similar protections, it's a step too far?

If these bigots wish to operate businesses open to the public why isn't the onus put on them to make reasonable accommodations as they must do for everyone else? I'd be fine if a religious baker didn't want to personally prepare the cake, they could have a non-religious employee make it or subcontract another bakery to make it. I ask that the standard be the customer receive the same level of service and the cake be of the same quality as a heterosexual would get.
  #713  
Old 02-11-2018, 04:42 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
Our country has managed to balance the needs of protected class and religious beliefs for decades. Businesses have for the most part been able to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and customers for years. But now when sexuality is elevated to receive similar protections, it's a step too far?
There are many, some in this very thread, who feel that the current accommodations required of businesses is a step too far already.
Quote:
If these bigots wish to operate businesses open to the public why isn't the onus put on them to make reasonable accommodations as they must do for everyone else? I'd be fine if a religious baker didn't want to personally prepare the cake, they could have a non-religious employee make it or subcontract another bakery to make it. I ask that the standard be the customer receive the same level of service and the cake be of the same quality as a heterosexual would get.
One thing I would add to this, if I were the owner, I would not be fine if my employee decided they didn't want to make a cake for religious reasons. There is reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but then there is also the need to have your business operate. If they were my employee, and they refused to provide service for my customers, then they would be replaced with an employee who will provide service to my customers. That may not mean firing them, that may just mean reassigning them from wedding cake maker to cupcake maker, if I am big enough to have those as separate positions, and if that means less pay and hours, then they have made that choice.
  #714  
Old 02-11-2018, 04:47 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.
Yep, and like many other things , you are wrong again.
  #715  
Old 02-11-2018, 05:49 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
Yep, and like many other things , you are wrong again.
"You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like." (She's not?)

"I know what she wrote." (I don't?)

"And so will everyone else who reads this thread." (They won't?)


Allrighty-then!
  #716  
Old 02-11-2018, 05:53 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There are many, some in this very thread, who feel that the current accommodations required of businesses is a step too far already.


One thing I would add to this, if I were the owner, I would not be fine if my employee decided they didn't want to make a cake for religious reasons. There is reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but then there is also the need to have your business operate. If they were my employee, and they refused to provide service for my customers, then they would be replaced with an employee who will provide service to my customers. That may not mean firing them, that may just mean reassigning them from wedding cake maker to cupcake maker, if I am big enough to have those as separate positions, and if that means less pay and hours, then they have made that choice.
If you were the office manager of a doctor's office, and you had a Muslim woman working for you as a physician's assistant, ($20 per hour) and you asked her to inject novacaine into a patient's man-part in prep for surgery, and she said, "I can't do that . . ." etc., etc.

Would you reassign her to receptionist $8.00 per hour? Or would you fire her?
  #717  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:03 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
If you were the office manager of a doctor's office, and you had a Muslim woman working for you as a physician's assistant, ($20 per hour) and you asked her to inject novacaine into a patient's man-part in prep for surgery, and she said, "I can't do that . . ." etc., etc.

Would you reassign her to receptionist $8.00 per hour? Or would you fire her?
If this is a rare event for the Doctors office, she could be reasonably accommodated by having the doctor perform the injection(I assume he's also qualified).

If this is a doctor that specializes in penile reconstructive surgery, a woman with a religious restriction, such as that, probably can't be reasonably accommodated. She should seek out work elsewhere. If she wanted to work as a receptionist instead, she can apply for that position.
  #718  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:34 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
I thank you for the effort.

So you've personally decided 'deliberate and gratuitous' acts of humiliation should not be acceptable,
I love that! "Personally decided."

You always know when somebody totally disagrees with you and everything you have to say when they say, "personally decided."

"Personally decided?" As opposed to what? Having my drone-alter-ego decide and get back to me?

Whhhhiirrrrrrr-rrrrrrr! Euphrosyne, this is your drone. Your decision on gratuitious acts of humiliation and refusal is : humiliation - 3 and refusal - 2. Got that? So it's 3-2 humiliation.


Quote:
I think you are right that most Americans would share your your belief. But we are arguing the absolute right for one to express themselves under the 1st amendment, you are drawing a line for others based on your belief.
Absolute right? Absolute? As in . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O8gTIr4lys


No. I'm not arguing that shit.

You want to? --- knock yourself out.

Only absolut I'm doin around here is that Vodka shit. You know what I'm sayin'?


Quote:
Being rejected from a business is humiliating, it is clearly deliberate, are you comfortable letting others determine if it rises to the level of 'gratuitous' or would you prefer it only be determined by the principals of your faith?
Nope.

Quote:
When living in a country where holy men preach that gay men should be put to death, is it far fetched draw the conclusion they may also believe all services should be refused to gays?
What? You mean Saudi Arabia? I know, right? Man, those folks got some whacked shit goin' on. You'll have to ask one of them dudes.

Quote:
Do you think the government should examine the texts of their religion to determine if they've personally come to the correct conclusion?
I don't know. Can they read Arabic?

Quote:
Even within your own religion there are those that do not believe in refusing service to gay people. There are Catholic owned bakeries that are making cakes for gay weddings. If you as a Catholic decide to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay person, should the government compare your understanding of your faith to others in your faith to come to a conclusion? What if the governments conclusion after reading the Catholic bible is it does not bar you from baking a cake for a gay person?
I have no problems baking a cake for a gay person.

YMMV.

Quote:
In the US the court does not question an individuals religious interpretation. You are welcome to come to any interpretation you wish. If there is a question weighing religious expression, the furthest the government delves is to determine if the belief is sincerely held. We don't question the merits of why it is sincerely held. I don't want my government to make theological inquiries into someone's interpretation of their faith.
Well. Ah've already said my piece, friend.

Suture self.

Quote:
You've questioned government overreach but your own proposal doesn't seem completely ridiculous to you? You think the government should dictate forms for bakers to fill out?
Sure, why the hell not?

You seen that shit them tax boys from the Internal Reve . . . why I had to hire me a geedee John Deere just to haul that shit in from the mailbox.

Ridiculous ain't the word for it.

Quote:
Should these forms only be required for bakers that wish to discriminate or all bakers?
Oh, all. Definitely, all!

Quote:
Would requiring only bigoted bakers to implement additional forms be discrimination? Will every service in the country have to implement similar forms to accommodate their beliefs? A mechanic or car salesman who doesn't believe women should drive, should they implement forms so they are not duped into serving women?
Yes. Absolut vodka.


Quote:
Our country has managed to balance the needs of protected class and religious beliefs for decades. Businesses have for the most part been able to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and customers for years. But now when sexuality is elevated to receive similar protections, it's a step too far?
Different folks. Different strokes, dude.

Woulda figured you for a smart enough feller coulda somehow figured that one out for yourself.

Well, not the first time I've been wrong.

Quote:
If these bigots wish to operate businesses open to the public why isn't the onus put on them to make reasonable accommodations as they must do for everyone else? I'd be fine if a religious baker didn't want to personally prepare the cake, they could have a non-religious employee make it or subcontract another bakery to make it. I ask that the standard be the customer receive the same level of service and the cake be of the same quality as a heterosexual would get.
"bigots"

Isn't that a great word? Say it with me a few times.

Bigot. Bigot. Bigot. Bigot!

What's the plural of bigot? Not just 2 bigots, but a collective of bigots.

Is it a plethora of bigots? Or a swath of bigots?

Or a brazen of bigots?

I think it should roll off the tongue. Like vodka. Like anything "absolute."

A bigot party would be fun. Not because of the company, but because of the chant.

You know, like toga in Animal House.

Bi-got! Bi-got! Bi-got! And then, this is where John Belushi wigs out, and gets down on the ground like a turtle on its back and just wigs. It's great. You have to see that movie just for that scene.

Oh! Oh! And where he makes the kid think he actually shoots the horse. That's hilarious, too.

Do bigots shoot horses? If they're bigoted against horses, they do? What does a bigot say when he wants the horse he's on to go? "Bigot-ap!" (Sigh.) No? Yeah. Needs work.

OK, well bye.
  #719  
Old 02-11-2018, 07:38 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,413
Cake or death? Will there be tea?

CMC fnord!
  #720  
Old 02-11-2018, 08:56 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
I love that! "Personally decided."

You always know when somebody totally disagrees with you and everything you have to say when they say, "personally decided."

"Personally decided?" As opposed to what? Having my drone-alter-ego decide and get back to me?

Whhhhiirrrrrrr-rrrrrrr! Euphrosyne, this is your drone. Your decision on gratuitious acts of humiliation and refusal is : humiliation - 3 and refusal - 2. Got that? So it's 3-2 humiliation.
It''s a distinction I chose because in this thread you repeatedly use your own religion to determine how the law should be applied. Others people in the thread have shown much more willingness to be inclusive in the religions of others when making their arguments.


Quote:
Only absolut I'm doin around here is that Vodka shit. You know what I'm sayin'?
I think I'm getting what you're saying. I think maybe you should consider not posting while intoxicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma
Being rejected from a business is humiliating, it is clearly deliberate, are you comfortable letting others determine if it rises to the level of 'gratuitous' or would you prefer it only be determined by the principals of your faith?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne
Nope.
I don't understand your answer. Are you saying being rejected from a business is not humiliating?

Quote:
What? You mean Saudi Arabia? I know, right? Man, those folks got some whacked shit goin' on. You'll have to ask one of them dudes.
No I was referring to the numerous US based preachers who wish to see homosexuals but to death. Many with public notoriety are Christian religions founded in the US. There is also a handful of elected officials who have stated they held similar beliefs.


Quote:
I don't know. Can they read Arabic?
That is a bigoted comment.


Quote:
"bigots"

Isn't that a great word? Say it with me a few times.
.
It is. It has a solid definition with near universal understanding it carries negative connotations. People who don't wish to be called bigots should adjust their behavior. If they are comfortable holding bigoted beliefs perhaps they should embrace the word as a mark of honor instead.
  #721  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:28 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
Only absolut I'm doin around here is that Vodka shit. You know what I'm sayin'?
About most things? Not really. This, however, was super clear.
  #722  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:29 AM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
About most things? Not really. This, however, was super clear.
One might even suppose it will be ever clear.
  #723  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:56 AM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
It''s a distinction I chose because in this thread you repeatedly use your own religion to determine how the law should be applied. Others people in the thread have shown much more willingness to be inclusive in the religions of others when making their arguments.
Not exactly true, but I understand how you might have gained that impression.

To be clear: I am all about the American people, the legislatures, the federal courts, and the SCOTUS deciding these matters.

I don't propose that the beliefs of my church - or those of any one religious body - be enacted into law.

Why would they be?

We already have the First Amendment, by which Americans are guaranteed that their government will neither establish any one religion, nor prohibit the people from the free exercise of their own.

Therefore, until recently, the American people may be assured that they have a clear and level playing field on which to operate in matters of religion and conscience.

In recent years, however, certain governmental bodies have attempted to enact laws that would coerce the consciences of service providers on the issue of providing special order goods and services that represent a dilemma of conscience for these service providers.

And several of these providers have responded by non-compliance, that is, conscientious objection.

For which non-compliance, the force of law has applied penalties to these business owners. In doing so, an argument has been put forth that the state is violating the First Amendment, firstly by compelling artistic expression against these providers right to free speech and expression; secondly, in coercing their consciences, informed by their religious beliefs.

Since we have been discussing denials of service based on conscience informed by one's religious convictions, it would not have served the discussion well for me to have avoided discussing the operations of religious convictions in matters of conscience.

I've used my religious training - admittedly that a beginner - only to explain the process by which certain people of faith - including many traditional Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, and some Orthodox Jews - might encounter, identify, analyze, and respond to the possibility of business arrangements that would violate their conscience.

There are hundreds - perhaps, thousands - of other religious traditions, many of which would inform the consciences of their adherents that providing services of the kind under discussion would not be a problem.

Since we've been discussing business owners who have a dilemma of conscience about this issue, I don't understand how mention of religious traditions that don't inform the consciences of business owners who have a problem with this issue would further our discussion.

However, I would be glad to read whatever you might wish to say about them.

I haven't discussed these other groups, not only because I haven't yet discerned their relevance to the dilemma of conscience we've been talking about, but also because I'm not familiar enough with the theological and philosophical systems undergirding them to be able to discuss them well.

Even in my own, I'm a beginner.

Please educate us about these, if you care to.


Quote:
I think I'm getting what you're saying. I think maybe you should consider not posting while intoxicated.
Not intoxicated, nor even under the influence of anything. (And anyone who observes the accuracy of spelling, grammar, and typing will see that for themselves.)


Quote:
I don't understand your answer. Are you saying being rejected from a business is not humiliating?
That a business doesn't accept special orders for artistic expression that would violate the business owner's conscience - if communicated in the right way - need represent a fleeting inconvenience and disappointment to the inquirer.

To communicate the same information in a manner that is thoughtless and cruel may indeed humiliate an inquiring customer. This would be reprehensible.

Quote:
No I was referring to the numerous US based preachers who wish to see homosexuals but to death. Many with public notoriety are Christian religions founded in the US. There is also a handful of elected officials who have stated they held similar beliefs.
I don't imagine that the American public generally and our legislatures generally would contemplate the enactment of laws providing for the death penalty against homosexuals.

Quote:
That is a bigoted comment.
I don't agree.

You alluded to homosexuals being executed.

Laws providing for the execution of persons engaging in homosexual acts are not currently on the books anywhere in North America and virtually certainly won't be in your or my lifetime.

It's a reality, right now, this very day, that in Saudi Arabia and in several other nearby nations, you can really and truly - right now, today - be executed - beheaded or shot - if convicted of having engaged in homosexual relations.

This is a statement of fact.

To equate stating a fact with bigotry is irrational.

Quote:
It is. It has a solid definition with near universal understanding it carries negative connotations. People who don't wish to be called bigots should adjust their behavior. If they are comfortable holding bigoted beliefs perhaps they should embrace the word as a mark of honor instead.
No honor is to be had from those who fling ad hominems.

People who pride themselves on thinking, reasoning, and communicating well are averse to using ad hominems because they know them to the mark of someone whose arguments are running on empty, and both parties know it.

Last edited by Euphrosyne; 02-12-2018 at 08:00 AM. Reason: added material, formatting
  #724  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:41 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Oh, that's an interesting question. If I hate Muslims, and someone wearing a hijab enters my shop, may I refuse to speak to them, on the grounds that my speech may not be compelled? If this is a bogus argument, but this judge's decision is sound, why? It seems to me that cake-baking is not as much like speech as speech is.
I think a more interesting, (and comparable) example is: I am Muslim and if an unattended woman (may or may not be Muslim herself) comes into my shop can I refuse to serve her as doing so would violate my interpretation of my religion?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #725  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:13 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I think a more interesting, (and comparable) example is: I am Muslim and if an unattended woman (may or may not be Muslim herself) comes into my shop can I refuse to serve her as doing so would violate my interpretation of my religion?
Both questions are interesting. My answer to both would be, "Heck no." To answer otherwise is to permit discrimination of an odious sort that degrades a civil society.
  #726  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:18 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Both questions are interesting. My answer to both would be, "Heck no." To answer otherwise is to permit discrimination of an odious sort that degrades a civil society.
[devilsadvocate]So you're saying practicing my religion is odious and repugnant to society? The why do we allow it when Christians discriminate based on their religious beliefs?[/da]
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #727  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:19 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,596
You're free to be any kind of evangelical Christian you like.
  #728  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:01 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
[devilsadvocate]So you're saying practicing my religion is odious and repugnant to society? The why do we allow it when Christians discriminate based on their religious beliefs?[/da]
If the practice of your religion involves abusing children to drive out demons, or burning witches, or selling heroin to finance your cult, or blackmailing ex-members of your religion to keep your secrets safe, your religious practices are odious and repugnant to society. To a lesser, but still real, extent, if the practice of your religion involves offering services in a public accommodation in a manner that discriminates against gay people, your religious practices are likewise odious and repugnant to society.

I believe courts err when they allow Christians, or anyone else, to discriminate based on their religious beliefs in this manner.
  #729  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:13 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

Therefore, until recently, the American people may be assured that they have a clear and level playing field on which to operate in matters of religion and conscience.
Fuck, I wish that were true. Otherwise, it wouldn't have taken until 2015 for me to have the right to marry in my home country. Christians of your stripe, in general, have been super keen on putting their beliefs into law, and making everyone follow them. What's changed is, you all don't have the numbers to keep it up anymore. You're having to deal with us on equal footing, and you just can't stop hollering about how unfair that is.

Quote:
I've used my religious training - admittedly that a beginner - only to explain the process by which certain people of faith - including many traditional Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, and some Orthodox Jews - might encounter, identify, analyze, and respond to the possibility of business arrangements that would violate their conscience.
The problem here is, the thread isn't, "How do Christian justify their abominable treatment of other people." It's, "How should the state handle it when someone's abominable religious belief causes harm to another citizen?" The reasoning behind your beliefs is immaterial - beyond ascertaining that you're sincere, the State has no interest in the details of your theology. The question being asked here is not answered in any religious book, and it's not necessary to be familiar with the justifications for a religious belief to analyze how a secular state should react to that belief.

Quote:
To communicate the same information in a manner that is thoughtless and cruel may indeed humiliate an inquiring customer. This would be reprehensible.
To be clear, there is no way to communicate the idea, "God doesn't think you deserve to be married," that is not reprehensible and insulting on a fundamental level. There's no way to dress that sentiment up in a way that makes it acceptable to a queer person, or to a straight person of conscience.

Quote:
No honor is to be had from those who fling ad hominems.

People who pride themselves on thinking, reasoning, and communicating well are averse to using ad hominems because they know them to the mark of someone whose arguments are running on empty, and both parties know it.
Right. You can call us sinners, you can denigrate our relationships, you can defend the most invidious discrimination against us - and if we get mad, you win.
  #730  
Old 02-12-2018, 01:57 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Right. You can call us sinners, you can denigrate our relationships, you can defend the most invidious discrimination against us - and if we get mad, you win.
This sets aside the repeated
very clear claims that if we disagree with her, it's because we support totalitarianism. (I stopped linking because the board database is being weird, not because I ran out of examples of this totally not-an-ad-hominem charge)
  #731  
Old 02-12-2018, 02:25 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Right. You can call us sinners, you can denigrate our relationships, you can defend the most invidious discrimination against us - and if we get mad, you win.
This sets aside the repeated very clear claims that if we disagree with her, it's because we support totalitarianism. (I stopped linking because the board database is being weird, not because I ran out of examples of this totally not-an-ad-hominem charge)

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-12-2018 at 02:26 PM.
  #732  
Old 02-12-2018, 03:27 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.
Yes, we will. Especially if we use the search function. What she said is in post 672. The portion which you appear to be characterizing as an endorsement of executing Christians for adhering to the precepts of their faith is this:*
Quote:
If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs.
Point the first: Since she has no reason to presume that you have a shop to close, it seems that the most defensible interpretation is that her use of the word "you" was intended as generic, and not addressed at you specifically.

Point the second: While nelliebly DOES mention the martyrdom of 11 Apostles + Paul/Saul, it is clear that she is doing so solely in order to contrast the significance of their sacrifices with the lesser significance of a sacrifice that begins and ends with allowing one's personal small business to be forced to close.



*If I've sussed out the wrong post, and you are referring to something ELSE she wrote, I would be sincerely grateful for you to direct me to the post where she DOES write what you are characterizing that way.
  #733  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:04 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Fuck, I wish that were true. Otherwise, it wouldn't have taken until 2015 for me to have the right to marry in my home country. Christians of your stripe, in general, have been super keen on putting their beliefs into law, and making everyone follow them. What's changed is, you all don't have the numbers to keep it up anymore. You're having to deal with us on equal footing, and you just can't stop hollering about how unfair that is.



The problem here is, the thread isn't, "How do Christian justify their abominable treatment of other people." It's, "How should the state handle it when someone's abominable religious belief causes harm to another citizen?" The reasoning behind your beliefs is immaterial - beyond ascertaining that you're sincere, the State has no interest in the details of your theology. The question being asked here is not answered in any religious book, and it's not necessary to be familiar with the justifications for a religious belief to analyze how a secular state should react to that belief.



To be clear, there is no way to communicate the idea, "God doesn't think you deserve to be married," that is not reprehensible and insulting on a fundamental level. There's no way to dress that sentiment up in a way that makes it acceptable to a queer person, or to a straight person of conscience.
I don't believe it's necessary to say "God doesn't think you deserve to be married." It's just "as a matter of personal conscience, our shop doesn't accept special orders for the celebration of the union of two men or of two women." There's no need to go into a philosophical or religious debate about it, unless the two men would like to argue. If I were a shop owner, I wouldn't argue with someone in my shop, however. It would simply be, "I'm terribly, sorry, sir; I'm afraid we cannot help you with what you requires. Several other establishments in our area, I'm sure, would be able to assist you."

And it's not a question of someone "deserving" to be married. It's that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman, who are not closely related to one another, and willing to give their consent to the union.

Quote:
Right. You can call us sinners, you can denigrate our relationships, you can defend the most invidious discrimination against us - and if we get mad, you win.
I don't know if anyone wins over these very sad quarrels. I don't feel as if I'm winning anything. And I would laugh if anyone pointed some third-party out, and said, "he's a sinner," or "there goes a sinner." Why? Because I'm a sinner! And so is everyone else on the planet.

Everyone sins. God forgives us. It's OK.

What isn't OK, though, is when people begin to call evil good, and good evil. Then we've moved from all being sinners, hoping for God's mercy and forgiveness, . . . to placing ourselves into the role of God Himself, saying, "I'll decide right from wrong. I don't want to hear what "The Man Upstairs" has to say, nor do I care about what his prophets and preachers have to say. They're bigots and ignorant. "I'll do what I feel like doing."

In the United States, the law provides that men and women may do most of the things they feel like doing. And in the United States, the law also provides that when men and women whose religious beliefs inform them that they are to have nothing to do with certain activities, then the U.S. law provides these people the right and the freedom to say "no."

I think that's great! A great balance! The Founding Fathers were brilliant!
  #734  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
In the United States, the law provides that men and women may do most of the things they feel like doing. And in the United States, the law also provides that when men and women whose religious beliefs inform them that they are to have nothing to do with certain activities, then the U.S. law provides these people the right and the freedom to say "no."
Sometimes it does. Other times--Quakers who don't believe in paying war taxes, Identity Christians who don't believe in serving "mud people," etc.--the government has a compelling interest in requiring people to follow through on secular commitments.
  #735  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:06 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
I don't believe it's necessary to say "God doesn't think you deserve to be married." It's just "as a matter of personal conscience, our shop doesn't accept special orders for the celebration of the union of two men or of two women." There's no need to go into a philosophical or religious debate about it, unless the two men would like to argue. If I were a shop owner, I wouldn't argue with someone in my shop, however. It would simply be, "I'm terribly, sorry, sir; I'm afraid we cannot help you with what you requires. Several other establishments in our area, I'm sure, would be able to assist you."
When I walk into a place of business, I'm not looking for a theological debate. I'm looking to be treated the same as any other customer who walks into that business. And when the owner of that business discriminates against me, I'm still not looking for a theological debate. I'm looking for the state to enforce any relevant statutes that address that discrimination. I have literally zero interest in how the bigot in question justifies their bigotry - most particularly if their justification is, "My invisible friend said it was okay."

Quote:
And it's not a question of someone "deserving" to be married. It's that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman, who are not closely related to one another, and willing to give their consent to the union.
Nobody asked that asshole in Bakersfield for her "consent." They asked her to make a cake, same as she does for anyone else who walks through her door. If she can't meet that incredibly low bar, she needs to find a different line of work.

Quote:
I don't feel as if I'm winning anything.
There's a real good reason for that.

Quote:
And I would laugh if anyone pointed some third-party out, and said, "he's a sinner," or "there goes a sinner." Why? Because I'm a sinner! And so is everyone else on the planet.

Everyone sins. God forgives us. It's OK.
It might help this conversation out some if I gave you a little context. I've been having this exact same debate with Christians like you for twenty years now. And it's been a good nineteen years since one of you came up with a novel argument. So this, "We're all sinners, so it's okay if I compare your marriage to someone fucking a dog!" bullshit isn't going to fly. The issue isn't that you think everyone is a sinner. This issue is that you specifically think homosexual relationships are sinful, and heterosexual ones are not. The issue is that your beliefs specifically denigrate my most deeply felt and important relationships. The issue is that you think you can discuss my romantic life in terms that you would be infuriated to have applied to your own marriage, and then gloat that we "don't have an argument" when we get angry at your insults.

Quote:
What isn't OK, though, is when people begin to call evil good, and good evil. Then we've moved from all being sinners, hoping for God's mercy and forgiveness, . . . to placing ourselves into the role of God Himself, saying, "I'll decide right from wrong. I don't want to hear what "The Man Upstairs" has to say, nor do I care about what his prophets and preachers have to say. They're bigots and ignorant. "I'll do what I feel like doing."
So, now I'm evil, huh? Hey, remember this?

"People who pride themselves on thinking, reasoning, and communicating well are averse to using ad hominems because they know them to the mark of someone whose arguments are running on empty, and both parties know it. "

I guess, much like your other arguments in this thread, that's something that only applies to other people?

Quote:
In the United States, the law provides that men and women may do most of the things they feel like doing. And in the United States, the law also provides that when men and women whose religious beliefs inform them that they are to have nothing to do with certain activities, then the U.S. law provides these people the right and the freedom to say "no."

I think that's great! A great balance! The Founding Fathers were brilliant!
Except that's never been true in this country, and its specifically never been true thanks the efforts of "good" Christians like yourself. Want to get married? Not if you're gay! Christians like yourself banned that thirty one states before Obergefell. Want to adopt children? Not if you're gay! Banned by Christians, such as yourself, in eleven states before the Supreme Court struck them down. Want to keep your own children? Not if you're gay, and happened to be in one of many, many jurisdictions where Christian family court judges considered homosexuality to be grounds for revocation of parental rights. Want to share a home with your partner, or put a picture of your spouse on your desk at work? Better make sure you know your boss real well, because in thirty-two states its completely legal to throw someone out of their home or fire them from their job for being gay. And attempts to change the law to prevent that are rountinely blocked - by Christians such as yourself.

The list of ways anti-gay Christians have used the law to attack and exclude gay people goes on and on and on. And now you show up, whining your head off because some piece of shit in Bakersfield might have to bake a fucking cake, and you have the gall to act like that's some sort of discrimination? The only right of yours that's being infringed is your right to treat me like shit. And I should care if you lose that "right?"
  #736  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:15 PM
andros andros is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
And it's not a question of someone "deserving" to be married. It's that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman, who are not closely related to one another, and willing to give their consent to the union.
Which is A) a pretty darn recent development, and B) completely irrelevant to secular marriage. God can tell the difference, if it's that important to Him. It's not a "real" marriage, according to your beliefs. Fine. You aren't a "real" Christian according to plenty of people. You still know the truth of your relationship with God, and you know that what the State calls "marriage" isn't really marriage.

Why on earth would God punish you for providing services for something that isn't even marriage in His eyes?


Quote:
And I would laugh if anyone pointed some third-party out, and said, "he's a sinner," or "there goes a sinner." Why? Because I'm a sinner! And so is everyone else on the planet.

Everyone sins. God forgives us. It's OK.
...and then you turn around and immediately call Miller's relationship evil.

You're right; no one "wins" these discussion. But with this you seem to be trying hard to ensure someone loses.
.
  #737  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:28 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,038
andros:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne
It's that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman, who are not closely related to one another, and willing to give their consent to the union.
Which is A) a pretty darn recent development
Not that this relates to secular marriage in 21st-century America, but...how exactly is that definition of marriage "recent"?
__________________
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
  #738  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:35 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
andros:



Not that this relates to secular marriage in 21st-century America, but...how exactly is that definition of marriage "recent"?
I would suggest that the "not closely related" thing and the consent of both parties - it's relatively recent that close relatives (at least for royalty, and many of them good Christians at that!) are prohibited form marrying, and also - women didnt consent, their families did. There is still a tradition of asking the bride's father for her hand. That tradition had roots in that women couldn't consent on their own.
  #739  
Old 02-12-2018, 11:29 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,584
Not to mention the "one" thing. Polygyny is still widely practiced among Muslims and occasionally in some Jewish subcultures, and it is a prominent cultural feature in the ancient sacred scriptures of Islam, Judaism and Christianity alike.

Christian denominations have still not reached consensus on whether it's legitimate to marry a new spouse if a former spouse in a validly contracted marriage is still living. In fact, Christian denominations don't even have entire consensus about whether it's legitimate to be married to multiple wives simultaneously.

There's also the question of who gets to define "closely related". First-cousin marriage is permitted in about half of US states, for example, and banned in many others.
  #740  
Old 02-12-2018, 11:39 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Not to mention the "one" thing. Polygyny is still widely practiced among Muslims and occasionally in some Jewish subcultures, and it is a prominent cultural feature in the ancient sacred scriptures of Islam, Judaism and Christianity alike.

Christian denominations have still not reached consensus on whether it's legitimate to marry a new spouse if a former spouse in a validly contracted marriage is still living. In fact, Christian denominations don't even have entire consensus about whether it's legitimate to be married to multiple wives simultaneously.

There's also the question of who gets to define "closely related". First-cousin marriage is permitted in about half of US states, for example, and banned in many others.
Why is that a question? Didn't Jesus himself say that you can't remarry?
Yes, I know there's an exemption for adultery.
  #741  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:02 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why is that a question? Didn't Jesus himself say that you can't remarry?
Meh, Jesus also said you should pay government taxes and love your enemies and not respond to violence with violence, and a lot of Christians are not really on board with those positions either.
  #742  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:13 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,410
The Bible also says that if a woman is raped, and has no previous betrothal, she is to be shackled to her rapist forever in holy matrimony, so.....yeah.
  #743  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:22 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Meh, Jesus also said you should pay government taxes and love your enemies and not respond to violence with violence, and a lot of Christians are not really on board with those positions either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
The Bible also says that if a woman is raped, and has no previous betrothal, she is to be shackled to her rapist forever in holy matrimony, so.....yeah.
Then baking a cake for a same sex marriage shouldn't be all that hard to do.
  #744  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:50 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,584
ISTM that part of the reason so many people have fallen for this bogus justification of blatant discrimination is the heavily commercial "pseudo-sacralization" of the consumerist rituals of modern weddings.

Marketers figured out that you can get people to pay several times the going rate for, say, fancy rings or stationery or dresses or cakes if they're believed to be a mandatory feature of your "special day" and an important "symbol of your union". So service providers naturally started to perceive themselves as quasi-official participants in the rites of marriage, as though it involved some kind of spiritual endorsement on their part and they could refuse to "officiate" on personal ethical grounds.

In reality, they are selling a product and shouldn't expect to be able to discriminate against purchasers of their product, any more than a supermarket clerk can.
  #745  
Old 02-13-2018, 01:21 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,580
You remind me of a Kevin O'Leary line:
"I love two industries. I love weddings and I love people dying, because when both of those happen people make stupid decisions. Emotional decisions. Not financial decisions. And because that is the case, there’s huge industries behind both of those.”
  #746  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:33 AM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,038
Kimstu:

Quote:
Not to mention the "one" thing. Polygyny is still widely practiced among Muslims and occasionally in some Jewish subcultures, and it is a prominent cultural feature in the ancient sacred scriptures of Islam, Judaism and Christianity alike.
Polygyny of this sort is still marriage between one man and one woman, it's just more then one such marriage running concurrently. It is not a tri-or-more-party arrangements between the husband and the multiple wives. A polygamous husband could divorce one of his wives without any legal effect on his marriage to the others.

Quote:
There's also the question of who gets to define "closely related". First-cousin marriage is permitted in about half of US states, for example, and banned in many others.
Just because there might be some variation on the furthest extent of it, the core of close relationships that are precluded from marrying one another has been part of the definition for quite a long time.
__________________
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
  #747  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:16 AM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
I've carefully read all of the posts since my last.

I don't want any reply I might make to provoke anyone to further anger. That won't help anything.

I think all that can be said about the First Amendment rights of people of faith has been said.
  #748  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:42 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Polygyny of this sort is still marriage between one man and one woman, it's just more then one such marriage running concurrently. It is not a tri-or-more-party arrangements between the husband and the multiple wives. A polygamous husband could divorce one of his wives without any legal effect on his marriage to the others.
I see the point you're making, but I seriously doubt that most of the advocates of the "marriage is between one man and one woman" position consider polygyny to fall under that definition.

Not to mention, of course, that many past and present polygyny systems do require some kind of consent from current wife/ves in order for a husband to contract an additional marriage, and also make rules about how the husband must treat multiple wives. AFAIK there is not and never has been any social polygyny system that doesn't take into account in any way the multi-party nature of polygynous marriage, rather than treating it merely as multiple separate instances of monogamous marriage.
  #749  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:49 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
I've carefully read all of the posts since my last.

I don't want any reply I might make to provoke anyone to further anger. That won't help anything.
That kind of comes across as a passive-aggressive way of saying "Nyah nyah, I'm not gonna change my mind and you can't make me", while superficially trying to look compassionate and caring.

And as a matter of fact, anger against bigotry and discrimination often does help things when it comes to fighting for freedom and justice. There's nothing wrong with being angry at having one's loving consensual relationships denigrated as "evil", for example. Often such anger is a necessary catalyst for a society to examine and change its behavior.
  #750  
Old 02-13-2018, 08:08 AM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
That kind of comes across as a passive-aggressive way of saying "Nyah nyah, I'm not gonna change my mind and you can't make me", while superficially trying to look compassionate and caring.

Anyone who wants to, may attribute bad motives to anything anyone says or does.

I know that. C'est la vie.

And conversely, anyone who wants to, may attribute good motives to anything anyone says or does. Especially to oneself.

I know that also. C'est la vie, aussi.

Quote:
And as a matter of fact, anger against bigotry and discrimination often does help things when it comes to fighting for freedom and justice. There's nothing wrong with being angry at having one's loving consensual relationships denigrated as "evil", for example. Often such anger is a necessary catalyst for a society to examine and change its behavior.
As a Christian, I believe that most anger harms the angry person and offends God. And certainly in such a case as this, offends God, harms the angry person, and harms the entire human race. However, that's a topic for another thread. Please begin one if you wish.
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 07:21 PM.

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