Protestants don’t fully agree with each other. Narrow it down.
Not when it is as damaging to the overall society as Jim Crow practices were. People shouldn’t be “bad businessmen” to the degree that it seriously harms other people.
That’s kind of a bad argument, as it appears to justify one bad thing on the basis that other bad things exist. The problem is a scale of bad things, and the degree of harm done to both individuals and societies.
You have every legal right to exclude black kids from your kid’s birthday party. It’s a private party, and you can invite – or discriminate – however you want.
That doesn’t justify the abuse of business licenses and the denial of public accommodation; it doesn’t make it okay to exclude black kids from the public swimming pool, or the local burger restaurant.
Your tone here indicates that you don’t have a realistic grasp on the nature of debate, so you might want to change it if you’d like to continue the discussion. If not, that’s fine, too.
But here’s an example: the United States of America. It had open discrimination and was also a successful productive society.
Now, perhaps you would deign to explain why you think people have some right to not be offended. And while you’re at at, I’ll ask you a question: given the countless configurations of societies that have preceded ours, can you name one successful, productive society in which SS couples were afforded the same status as married heterosexual couples?
Do you think that the notion of religious liberty is intended to protect only those who wish to live a monastic life?
This is just your No True Scotsman fallacy restated. You do realize that it’s a fallacy, right? And know what a fallacy is, right?
I’ll add that the best people to decide what actions agree with their religious convictions are the people who hold those convictions. Do you have someone else in mind?
Would you say that Jews have to “wade through a minefield of businesses” (:rolleyes:) in order to find restaurants or caterers that provide Kosher food? Should all restaurants be required to provide Kosher food?
I meant successful in that any and all people felt comfortable living there.
They don’t. They have the right not to be discriminated against.
None. But that is no reason not to change for the better.
And this is the problem: you are hostile to religion. You think it silly. So, you are hardly someone to weigh in on what beliefs should be protected or not. Sorry, but religious freedom protections ARE part of our society. If you want to argue that we shouldn’t have any of those protections at all, that is a different discussion.
Sure, you have the right to dislike homosexuals all you want. You have the religious freedom not to marry one, not to be friends with one, you can say bad things about them in a public forum, you have the religious freedom to do all of that. What you do not have the religious freedom to do is to discriminate based upon your beliefs.
I’d say all people looking for a specific item have to seek out places that sell their specific item.
This isn’t about that however. I don’t know how many times this needs to be explained to you.
The law does not allow a business to refuse to sell a Jewish person something they would normally sell because they are Jewish.
Oh, so you expect me to not only have knowledge of all societies, but to know that they were successful and productive, to be able to identify all the constituencies that made up each of these societies and to have knowledge of their level of comfort living in their respective societies. I think I see the problem: you think I’m God. Understandable mistake, but a mistake none the less.
Sometimes in a society we find ourselves at a point where we have competing rights. And we have to judge which one wins. So, here are the options:
A) SS couples win, and the state forces people to either act in a way that is in opposition with their sincerely held religious principles, or to give up their livelihood.
B) Religious protection wins, and a SS couple has to go to a baker down the street, lest they feel offended.
Even though I’m not religious myself, I see B as a much better option, as it does less harm and requires a lighter hand be the state. Especially since I don’t think it’s society’s job to protect people from being offended.
Or perhaps we should look at all those countless experiments that came before us, many of which predate Christianity, and take it as a sign that it was tried and people walked away form it for a reason. Especially since we now that that some of these societies were very accepting of homosexuality.
See my last post talking about competing rights.
I grant that the Jewish example is a bit different, but I offered it only to address the “wading through a minefield of businesses.” I point you, also, to my post discussion competing rights.
No, I expect you to realize that Alabama in 1953 or Turkey in 2015 would not be very good places for a homosexual to live.
You say it is not societies job to protect people from being offended, yet, you want to protect religious people from being “offended” at having to bake a cake for a homosexual couple. Let the religious party be offended. I don’t care how “sincere” their beliefs are. Their beliefs are illogical. Plus, selective outrage over homosexuality and not getting outraged at all the other things the bible prohibits or condemns shows that their “outrage” is not indeed sincere.
Economic and technological differences make things possible that were not available in the past.
I think any exceptions to the law on the basis of religious beliefs should be looked at with a high degree or scrutiny. I do not see a compelling interest to allow businesses to refuse service to gay people on religious grounds. The court did not seem to think so either.
We have not allowed business to use religious exemptions to refuse service to protected classes in the past I see no reason to do so in the future.
Protected classes win. Religious bigots can stuff it.
The right to discriminate and the right not to be discriminated against are not competing rights. Only the second one is an actual right.
Yeesh. There’s so much wrong with this. For instance, just because you might be able to point to societies that would not be great places for homosexuals to live, doesn’t mean that all societies were bad places for homosexuals to live. It is also possible for a society to be successful and productive without it being so for every group in the society. Take the 1940s and 1950s in the U.S.
It’s not a matter of the religious group being offended. They’re probably offended that SCOTUS passed the law they did, and that’s too bad for them. It’s a matter of their own actions being in concert with their religious convictions. Now given the fax that you find the notion of religious convictions silly, you might pause to realize that you;re not the best person to weigh in on the issue of where the line should be drawn. And please go look up No Scotsman Fallacy. I mean, fuck!
You’ll have to do better than that. Like with something that actually addresses the point I made.
How are we to take seriously the Christian objection, when they could easily and unknowingly be selling things to gay people everyday of the week without knowing it, and without any ill effect?
If the Christian gas station attendant isn’t screening for gays, why should the baker feel the need?
What about the guy selling beds? Or Walmart selling sheets to gays? How is that not complicity or condoning their sex lives?
You’d have a point if Christian car sellers and grocers were experiencing the same conflict of conscience but they’re not.
If you really want the religious objection thing to work you’ll have to demonstrate where it says in your book that you should behave this way, or what consequences you’ll suffer, or what your preacher directed. Without that or all Christian retailers en mass behind you, it is just pretty transparent petty bigotry it seems to me.
Religious protection is a compelling interest of the state. It’s part of the founding of the country and enshrined in our constitution. But we’ll have to wait to see where SCOTUS ends up on the issue, as it will no doubt end up there.
Again, we have the issue of competing rights. And we’ll have to see where SCOTUS comes out on that. I think religious protection trumps protecting a group from feeling bad because another group doesn’t like them.
Unless SCOTUS affirms that their right trumps the rights of gays to not be offended because they have to go to a different bakery.
I see your problem. Let me help you: the competing rights are the right to not be discriminated against and the right to live one’s life in a way that comports with one’s religious beliefs.