About most things? Not really. This, however, was super clear.
One might even suppose it will be ever clear.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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]
You’re free to be any kind of evangelical Christian you like.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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:*
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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.
There’s a real good reason for that.
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.
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?
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?”
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?
…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.
.
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.
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.